BS: Brexit & other UK political topics

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 May 21 - 11:24 AM

Yes, John. We do need to pull together. In which direction are you suggesting we pull? Right or left? If something is being pulled in opposite directions, then at least 2 people are doing it. Which is right and which is wrong?

BTW, I have met Becky on a number of occasions and she wouldn't mind the familiarity at all. She is a lot closer to those working class grass roots that you hold so dear than Sir Keir. And it is quite noticeable where the bad feeling in this thread seems to be emanating from.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 21 - 09:31 AM

By the way, in the party they are Angie and Becky. My daughter is called Rebecca. The only person who ever calls her that is her mother, and even then only when she's angry. They would have made a dream team, instead of which we've got stodge on toast. Two northern working-class women at the top of a socialist-leaning party. What a shot in the arm for our politics that would have been. Boris would have been pooping his pantaloons every bloody week.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 21 - 09:25 AM

Who were the people in the party who, for years, got the bit between their teeth over the completely false allegations of Corbyn's antisemitism? Who ditched Ken Livingstone? Do you think they were honest brokers? What about the ones who kept silent and let it rumble? Don't you think they knew what damage they were doing? Anything to unseat Corbyn, even a disastrous election defeat was worth it? Allowing the Mail open season on Corbyn and not standing up to it? These are the very people who now blame the left for divisions and bleat about unity at any price. Well let me tell you, it'll be a while, and at least some of us want to see principle re-established in the party and a leadership that is not constantly behind the curve and which only seems to know how to behave expediently and divisively. That's where most of the effort to unify the party needs to come from, and by effort I don't mean sacking lefties. If Labour can't be a left-wing party, and I don't mean hard left, then it may as well not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 May 21 - 08:40 AM

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the wee fuckin’ donkey!

No, for fuck’s sake, I’m not talking about ‘backing Starmer’ - that’s the spin you keep putting on it. Please stop the spinning. I’m saying that the Party and the needs of those it exists to serve are far more important than Personalities. When Corbyn was the leader, despite my own personal view that he was just about the worst possible man for the job - weak, ineffectual, a lousy public speaker, made mincemeat of by May and Johnson at PMQs Wednesday after Wednesday, incapable of putting the smears and slurs against him to bed - I spoke up for him and, when he was under attack from within the Party I said exactly the same things that I’m saying now, that the in-fighting should stop and the Party should pull together to defeat the Tories. And if that means supporting a leader who’s not my particular preference, so be it - I did it for Corbyn, and I’ll do it no matter who the leader is. Party before Personality.

The people walking into food banks to feed their kids, the ones struggling to find the rent, the people suffering on hospital waiting lists, etc., etc. don’t give a shit about about high-handed preaching by those who consider themselves politically and ideologically superior, they couldn’t care less about ‘Becky’ and ‘Angie’ (come off it with the faux-familiarity Steve, don’t be a pillock - you don’t know them, never even met them, and in public it’s Rebecca and Angela). What they care about is the difference a Labour government would make to their miserable lives - any Labour government is better than the Tories unless you’re made of money.

So please stop the bullshit, stop the spinning of my words, and think about the people for whom - unlike us comfortably-well-off ex-teachers, retired accountants, IT consultants, yadda yadda - having a Labour government instead of the permanent Tory rule that Labour Party civil-war will subject them to could be a dream come true.

But I guess you’ll only hear what you want to hear, see what you want to see - leopards don’t change their spots.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Donuel
Date: 11 May 21 - 08:35 AM

OK no one blames the Scots and a loss of seats would imblance the rest of England but people over here ask, "Will there be a new border?"
There hasn't been one since Hadrian's wall.
I suppose since its not a done deal its too soon to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 11 May 21 - 07:52 AM

That's fair enough, Steve, and I don't guarantee it would work of course. But the alliance I suggested is very short term - maybe as short as a month. It has one purpose only: to change from FTP to a proportional system. Thereafter, as I said, there would be another election and in that you could vote for whoever you wished. You would not be tied to LibDem for four or five years.

We all recognise, I think, that without the Labour party reunifying somehow, the Tories will stay in power long term under FPTP. Some want the Labour party to unify to the left, some to the centre. So it does not unify at all while that argument goes on. What way out of the impasse do you suggest that recognises not everyone will agree with one preferred idea of what Labour should be?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 21 - 06:25 AM

"The only way out of this is to form an alliance of at least Labour, LibDem, Green and SNP."

That would condemn me to voting for the LibDems round here. I did that six times in general elections to try to keep out the Tory. Last time I did it, in 2010, the LibDem candidate's repeated (ad nauseam) mantra was "Don't let the Tories in here." Well whaddya know. He got elected, and they ditched their principles and went into an unholy and opportunistic alliance with the Tories, which he supported. Progressive party my arse. It's a cliche, but the LibDems showed themselves to be a bunch of naive Tory-lites, and the one delicious thing about the 2015 election was that they got their just deserts. I don't wish to be disenfranchised via the unholy alliance you're suggesting, thanks. In fact, the first thing I'd do is tear up my membership card.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 21 - 06:14 AM

Thing is, John, you've laid your cards on the table time and time again to tell us what a disaster you think Corbyn and his ilk have been. So what you're really saying is, come on, lefties, ditch your principles and throw your lot in with the (establishment Tory-lite) centre of the party. Be seen to be evaporating. Ain't happening. This party grew from working-class trade union roots and it's the Blairs/Browns/Milibands/Starmers who are wanting to usurp the party name and ditch that history, as if it's some kind of embarrassment. I joined this party when Jeremy Corbyn became leader because I thought I could see a resurgence of what Labour should really be about, a left-wing party of principle (I'm still clinging on in hope...). If you want an anodyne centre party, join the LibDems. Oh, and let's not forget what happened to them when they went for "unity" with the Tories. Or the SDP when they went for "unity" with the Liberals...

And I'm still waiting to have it explained to me how suspending Jeremy Corbyn on spurious grounds, sacking Becky Long-Bailey on spurious grounds and scapegoating Angie Rayner are going to advance the cause of party unity. I ask for the third time: who really ARE the splitters in the party?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 May 21 - 06:09 AM

Becky would have fitted the bill but we missed that bus :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 May 21 - 05:59 AM

But if starmer was best choice from a mediocre bunch;

who is there to oust him and inspire the whole nation...?????

.. ie, not just middle class elite student union politics 'socialists'...


Is there a ready and waiting down to earth charismatic potential leader,
who can win sufficient 'working class' votes back from the populist right ...???

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 May 21 - 05:21 AM

Agreed, John. The Labour party needs to become electable. You seem to be saying that is by getting behind Starmer. I disagree and, by the performance last Thursday, it seems that the electorate prefer Johnson to Starmer. How will getting behind the current leader halp that situation?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 May 21 - 05:03 AM

No Dave, I’m talking about the LP, not Johnson. I’m not taking one side, I’m not pitting R v. L, no matter how others try to spin what I say. I’m saying that everyone, no matter their ‘leaning’, needs to get together to unite the Labour Party and make it electable, so that it can rid the country of this foul scourge of Conservative government. Sadly, there seems to be more interest here in student-ideology and an obsession with membership numbers. I’ll say it again and again until certain people get it...

1) Members don’t elect governments, the voting public elect governments. So boasting about membership numbers is nothing more than vanity.

2) The unseemly spectacle of two opposing elements within the party ripping each others’ faces off is unlikely to attract voters to vote Labour, rather the opposite.

3) Unless and until the LP attracts sufficient votes to form a government, it is failing the very people it exists to represent - the poor, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised. And it is failing those of us who trusted it with our votes.

4) People are putting personalities, together with their rather naive ideology and dogma, before Party, and before the needs of the country. There’s a need for some grown-up old-fashioned pragmatism, the lack of which is risking the Labour Party becoming completely irrelevant.

The Party is bigger than any one member or group of members, and it must be ‘Party before Personality’. Every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 May 21 - 04:16 AM

Besides, your comments seem to be echoing a certain mantra that some have used before. We got more votes and you lost. Get over it. Surely not? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 May 21 - 04:13 AM

Sorry John but following your logic, as Bozzer got more crosses than anyone else, we all need to unite behind him. What you are saying is that the lesser of two evils, ie Tory light as opposed to Tory right, is good. Fair enough, that is your opinion and I can see the logic in it. I would prefer to see the right wing politics currently prevalent across both major parties opposed and I think that can still be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 May 21 - 03:50 AM

yes good idea dmcg i look at the country i was born in and i thank god i escaped but i still feel so sad

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 11 May 21 - 03:48 AM

As expected, it seems like Johnson will be bringing ending the Fixed Parliament Act into the Queens speech. Doing so was a manifesto commitment, so he is perfectly entitled to do that. Like many commentators I think he will call the election in 2023, though the back end of 2022 does not seem impossible. That gives Labour very little time to sort itself out, and a year of squabbles will play into Johnson's hands very nicely.

I go along with John Curtice. The only way out of this is to form an alliance of at least Labour, LibDem, Green and SNP. All stand in the next election under one banner of, let's say, "True Democracy". There would be only one candidate from TD in each constituency and there would be one item in their manifesto, namely introducing proportional representation then calling another election once that had been voted for. Thereafter, each revert to their normal parties or reorganise themselves as they see fit. I have ideas how to decide who stands for TD in each ward, and how Parliamentary jobs are allocated, but that is fine detail: it is the broad brush that matters.


I can't see it happening, myself!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 May 21 - 03:32 AM

Second thoughts...

Membership numbers are vanity.
Voters’ crosses are sanity.
Government is King!

Not much chance of the third element while the first seems to be more important to some people than the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 May 21 - 03:23 AM

To paraphrase a business-slogan I learned many years ago...

Membership numbers are vanity.
Voters’ crosses are sanity.
Party unity is King!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 May 21 - 02:53 AM

Steve, the electorate in the leadership contest reached over 600000 as per the BBC article I linked. That is probably what you saw. As I said to Nigel, mistakes such as that matter little compared to deliberately misleading the country for your own benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 21 - 08:47 PM

I didn't ever believe that all those people suddenly joined, Nigel. I should have said that the numbers rose to... And whether I was a bit optimistic or not kind of depends how, who and when you count. I was in the ballpark and I can be no further arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 May 21 - 08:35 PM

It takes the potential total electorate in the leadership contest to 610,753.
Took me aabout 15 seconds to find that on Google.
I fully accept that 600000 people did not join the party then but there were over 600000 members.

It doesn't even make a claim for 600,000+ members (rather than the claim of 600,000 new members) as it goes on to say (about the figure of 610,753) that: Labour says checks are still taking place on all new members to weed out non-party supporters. That is presumably why they quote the figure as 'potential'.

As to it being pointless correcting Steve. If the original statement is allowed to stand then others can claim that they read it somewhere, and claim it as fact. Which is what Steve also appears to have been doing (mistakenly).

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 21 - 06:03 PM

Yes, it was careless of me to say "joined the party." A quick shufty around found this (Rowena Mason in 2019 in the Guardian):

"Figures from the party’s latest accounts show it had 518,659 members in December 2018, down from a peak of 564,443 the previous year."

I heard 600,000 somewhere but I can't find it, and I'm not inclined to spend more time on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 May 21 - 04:44 PM

...and before you start rabbiting on about the importance of accuracy you need to bear in mind that Steve probably made a mistake on an insignificant internet forum that makes no difference whatsoever to peoples livelihoods. Compare that to the record of your hero.

The lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations of Boris Johnson

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 May 21 - 04:39 PM

You didn't look very hard, Nigel.

Labour leadership: Huge increase in party's electorate

From the BBC article - Labour received more than 160,000 applications to vote in its leadership contest in the final 24 hours of registrations, the party has said.

The number of applications via trade unions more than doubled and the number of party members and £3 registered supporters also rose.

It takes the potential total electorate in the leadership contest to 610,753.

Took me aabout 15 seconds to find that on Google.

I fully accept that 600000 people did not join the party then but there were over 600000 members. There was a massive surge and the membership has now declined under Starmer.

As ever, if all you can do is nit pick at flawed wording, your argument is lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 May 21 - 04:17 PM

Steve: 600,000 people joined the party when Jeremy became leader.
Is there any evidence of that claim?
Nowhere that I can find ever shows the recent total membership in that range, let alone a sudden surge of that amount.
According to The House of Commons As of July 2019, Labour had 485,000 members,

I can see a prediction of total membership of that value in The New Statesman : Labour membership is on course to hit 600,000, a half-century peak, after a second successive day in which more than 100,000 people have applied to become party members. That does seem to imply that 600,000 may have been the membership 50 years ago though.

And according to The Guardian The membership level had fallen in 2019 from 518,659 at end of 2018 to a figure which remained above 500,000 as at August 2019

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 May 21 - 03:47 PM

I'll just add that some folks hold the opinion that Nicola Sturgeon
might have been a formidable leader of the Labour party.

Who knows what positive benefits she could have achieved for all of Britain if she wasn't so parochially obsessed...???

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 May 21 - 03:21 PM

But surely a strong confident labour majority govt,
or even Labour in opposition, still holding those nearly 60 lost Scottish seats,
would be a far more effective convincing intimidating foe for the tories..

A counter argument is that smaller left of centre parties,
would be of more use in fighting tory perpetual domination,
if they swallow their egos, pride, and separatist policy obsessions,
by joining as members of the allegedly broad church Labour party...???

Strength in numbers, and all that...

Otherwise, tories will always win when they can divide and rule...

Pragmatically, a two party system is better than the one party system which we will end up with after a few more years under the tories;
laughing their bollocks off at the left fragmenting into piddling little factions and single issue parties...

Right then, give it a few more years see what happens up north of the border,
then have another think about the Wessex and Cornish separatist movements..

OK.. yes, they'd still end up just as dominated by ruling class west country tories..

Nothing ever changes for the better around here in Scrumpyshire...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 May 21 - 02:45 PM

Yeah the split thing was a possibility with the SNP and Salmond's Alba party. Despite the media hype didn't amount to anything. Salmond being even less popular than Boris is within Scotland now didn't help their cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 10 May 21 - 11:53 AM

Though even though it benefits them they support the ending of first past the post.

I heard a lecture by John Curtice weeks ago where he suggested the only real route to power for Labour was to form an alliance with parties looking for electoral reform. When that happens the two wings of Labour could separate and not ultimately split the left vote. The experience with the SDP and Change UK and others shows such splits without electoral reform do not work.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 May 21 - 11:39 AM

Re the figures from the Blair/Brown years.

In 1997 Labour won 418 seats against 241 for the other parties. So they had a majority of 177. Scotland sent 56 Labour seats to Westminster against 16 from other parties. So there was a big majority without the Scottish members.

In 2001 Labour won 412 seats against 247 for the other parties. So they had a majority of 165. Scotland again sent 56 Labour seats to Westminster against 16 from other parties. So there was a big majority without the Scottish members.

In 2005 Labour won 355 seats against 291 for the other parties. So they had a majority of 64. Scotland again sent 41 Labour seats to Westminster against 18 from other parties. So there was again a safe enough majority without the Scottish members.

Just showing that historically it was not true that Scottish Labour MPS are required for returning a Labour gvt.

Plus the idea that the huge Labour contingents used to reflect Scottish opinion doesn't stand either. In 1997 the 78% of the Scottish seats were gained by only 45% of the actual vote.

The SNP currently gets this advantage of sending a representation to Westminster which is away above their % share of the vote. Though even though it benefits them they support the ending of first past the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 21 - 11:11 AM

I'm certain that that first word was a typo, Allan!

I wasn't suggesting a super-majority setup. That's one thing Johnson definitely wouldn't get away with, after such a thing was not permitted for the brexit vote, despite protests. I was speaking hypothetically.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 May 21 - 11:00 AM

Raggytrash you are absolutely right in that Scottish votes perviously aided getting Labour gvts - and that not having a huge Labour block of Scottih MPs makes it more difficult to get a 'majority' Labour gvt.

But again it does not actually make it more difficult to outvote the Tories as the bulk of the Scottish members would vote with Labour.

Plus yes they have historically aided Labour victories but they have not on the whole been necessary for Labour victories. That has happened on the odd occasion when there has been a very tight result but in most cases Labour has had a majority without taking the Scottish members into account.

In truth the thing that is maybe keeping the Tories seem unassailable in England at the moment is for the most part the first past the post voting system which Labour has never been that keen to change either.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 May 21 - 10:51 AM

Re the super-majority Steve. That is a non-starter. That is what happened in the first devolution referendum. Those supporting a devolved parliament won but not by a big enough margin as laid down by the UK gvt. That caused a boil to fester which very soon led to a second campaign for devolution to start up. There was deep resentment that a referendum vote had been won but in essence those who didn't vote or were even dead but still on the register were counted as voting against.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 May 21 - 10:46 AM

I am not saying it is anyone's fault. Exactly the opposite in fact. What I said it was not Scotland's fault that a Tory gvt is returned. The exact quote was

"Let's not forget it was Scotland that already severely f@cked up Labour's chances of ever again winning government,
when the SNP mopped up at a previous election.."

That is simply not the case. Labour lost virtually all its seats in Scotland yes - but they for the most part went to the SNP, who would be pretty certain to vote with a Labour gvt against the Tories on most things. The idea that the SNP would not support the formation of a Labour UK gvt is fantasy. They would be unlikely to want to go into any formal coalition - and would probably not be offered one anyway - but their views pretty much align on most things and it would be workable. 48 SNP members plus 1 Labour member against 6 Tories from Scotland adds considerably to the anti-Tory block in Westminster. In short it would be political suicide for an SNP block in Westminster to align with the Tories over Labour in say a vote of confidence. Just wouldn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 21 - 05:14 AM

But if the Scots don't leave us and the 59 seats remain in the mix, Scotland will be governed by Westminster Tories for the foreseeable future. They may have a devolved government but they still had brexit inflicted on them against "the will of the Scottish people" and Scotland is not fundamentally a Tory country. Being nice to the left of centre in England is no reason at all to stay in the union.

However, I'd worry if a referendum threw up a tiny majority to leave, in the same way that it was an outrage that a tiny majority (of those who voted, not of the electorate) dragged us so damagingly out of Europe. The Tories could nobble Nicola by allowing a referendum but insisting on a super-majority. That would never be achieved so it would be game over. But, of course, she wouldn't accept that, and as the Tories didn't do it for brexit...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 21 - 04:58 AM

Can I make it quite clear I am not blaming the Scottish people for Consevative Governments I am merely stating that the 59 seats they return to Westminster are rarely conservative and have historically aided the formation of Labour Governments.

If those 59 are removed the balance of power in Westminster will be skewed towards the conservatives if and when Scotland leave the Union.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 May 21 - 04:57 AM

Allen, it sound like you are saying that it is my fault that I have to suffer a tory government because I voted for and got a Labour MP. SNP represents 44 constituencies and Labour 202. So surely the Labour constituencies are five times more entitled to independence from the tory government than the SNP ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 May 21 - 04:36 PM

It is true though PFR. Scotland returns very few Tory MPs and the vast bulk of Scottish members are pretty anti Tory so the idea that it is Scotland's fault that Labour can't seem to beat Tories doesn't make much sense. In the Scottish Parliament the parties are used to working with other parties on issues. Two of the SNP terms were minority administrations where they worked with other parties on a non formal basis. Labour don't need 50 Scottish Labour MPs to outvote the Tories they just need to learn to work with other like minded parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 May 21 - 03:35 PM

Kinda getting used to stubborn nationalists,
hell-bent on getting their own way at any cost,
saying "don't blame us for your problems"..

.. funny that...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 May 21 - 02:59 PM

The UK normally gets the gvt England votes for. Blair's gvts had majorities without the Scottish members. You can't blame the Scots because the English aren't returning the gvts you want. Besides as per the Milliband election the SNP would likely offer to work with Labour on an issue by issue basis. Milli band's reaction was lukewarm at best at the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 09 May 21 - 01:59 PM

by the way it's a bit unfair to blame the scots for the chances of the labour party

I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't blame the scots for voting as they think fit. That it makes things more difficult for Labour is an unfortunate, unavoidable side effect, but that is Labour-in-England's problem to address. They have, somehow, to become more appealing. Whether you are pro or anti Corbyn, the 2016 certainly showed an appetite for change. The vaccine story has undoubtedly made people more cautious and reluctant for change, but that will not last forever. It is a matter of finding the changes that people want.

It is worth noting that while the name 'Conservative' has not changed, the party has re-invented itself quite a few times. I find it a stretch to imagine Thatcher agreeing to the furlough, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 09 May 21 - 01:26 PM

i thought this was an interesting programme and made me feel much more positive about left of centre politics. it's a shame that too many good labour people - like john mcdonell and many others are being sidelined.
by the way it's a bit unfair to blame the scots for the chances of the labour party. they have always attacked the tories and got them securely under control up there. if labour offered more positive choices and if we weren't so much more susceptible to tory and the media nonsense labour could do much better south of the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 May 21 - 09:55 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0sZ6RkS3g&ab_channel=OwenJones

guest interview - John McDonnell

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 May 21 - 09:09 AM

Backstabbing treachorous liberals conning us that a tactical vote for them
would keep the tories out..

.. and Scots Nationalists..

Those are the main dire factors I blame for fatally wounding Labour,
even before Corbyn became the fall guy...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 May 21 - 08:53 AM

Let's not forget it was Scotland that already severely f@cked up Labour's chances of ever again winning government,
when the SNP mopped up at a previous election..

Every Corbyn/Starmer failure since is just another nail in Labour's coffin..

I'm 62, it would be nice to see the tories kicked out before I'm 70..

But that is a futile dream unless some form of progressive party
get's it's act together and starts thrashing tories at elections...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 21 - 07:42 AM

I can fully understand anyone in Scotland wanting Independence.

However I am also aware that Scottish Independence will mean the removal of 59 MP's who historically have numbered few Conservatives which would also mean that we are unlikely to ever have a Labour Government in England and Wales again .............. and if Wales go for independence ....?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 09 May 21 - 06:47 AM

cheers steve, the system for holyrood elections is specifically designed to prevent one party having an overall majority, yet the snp have been good at winning to ensure a seemingly permanent dominance. however, as you say they do seem to be 'stuck' at around 50% for any independence vote- not good enough to be confident of a harmonious future no matter their strengths and the obvious nonsense of continuous tory misrule. labour scotland have done themselves no favours by getting into bed with scottish tories and reducing themselves to carping at anything the snp try to achieve. popular snp policies should be aspirations for the labour party - no trident, free this and that etc, a more nationalist outlook and an atmosphere of caring, engaged competence. there are many things that they (and the greens) should agree on - it should be a priority to make some alliance with scotland...to have a refendum with the promise of as much co-operation, friendship and mutual respect as is possible should scots make the choice to leave the uk. labour do often talk about federalism without really making it clear what this means - maybe nicola sturgeon and andy burnham could get together and work something out

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 21 - 06:27 AM

That's a good post, pete. We've got to be optimistic. Sturgeon is beginning to worry me though. If I lived in Scotland I'd vote for independence in any referendum. But though she can muster a majority in Parliament with the greens, because of bias in the electoral system in Scotland which favours the SNP she might just have slightly the wrong idea about her backing in the country for a referendum, let alone her prospects of winning it. Sir John Curtice calculated that independence-minded voters may represent just a smidgeon over 50% of the electorate. She might be better off letting Boris ban her attempts to get a referendum and moaning vigorously in a state of victimhood than ploughing on and losing the vote. There's no way that she could claim that a vote with a tiny majority, taking into account that there would be a lot of stay-at-homes, would represent "the will of the people." We've been here before, haven't we? I'm not sure that she's quite the canny operator I used to take her for...

On another tack, a nice bit of royal corruption is now rearing its head..."Haven't met Putin since 2003" my arse. Does he think we don't know all about the bush telegraph?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 21 - 06:06 AM

And, for John's delectation, Sir Keir Unity has harmonised the party by sacking Angela Rayner from a post she was frozen out of by Sir Unity's office during the election campaign. An inexplicable and divisive decision if ever there was one. The bungled campaign which failed to recognise and challenge the changed Tory party was entirely his fault, and now he sacks a popular and competent working-class woman. Let's hope that in the reshuffle he can (a) find her a top job, (b) he'll hope that she will accept gracefully. You couldn't make this up. I ask you again: who really are the splitters in the party? What a bloody cock-up...

You ask who else? Well let's look at a couple of those election-winning mayoral candidates for starters...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 09 May 21 - 05:30 AM

thursday's elections had some hopeful signs. winners like andy burnham, nicola sturgeon, sadiq khan, welsh labour, 'radical' preston, and the good performance by the greens (including my county councillor) none of these bodies could be considered dangerously left-wing and policies they support like green new deal, better deals with europe, protected human rights, no trident, good green jobs, PR, increased union participation, free elderly care, free student fees etc etc are all policies that should fit easily into a progressive labour manifesto without scaring either of the 2 groups in the party. given that starmer was elected as a competent manager to unite the party it's about time he got serious with the job. or leave it to someone who can.