|
Paul Nuttall has promised to exempt fish and chips from VAT in his party conference speech, shortly before being bundled away by security without answering any questions.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
Fangz posted:If Corbyn had fought Brexit the left would not be parroting the suicidal argument that it's meaningless to fight battles you are unlikely to win. right, but how would it actually stop brexit?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:right, but how would it actually stop brexit? Are you willfully obtuse?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:It's actually putting a principle (democracy) over a political assessment that it would be better to stay in the EU. That won't kill any careers. Depends if you regard representative democracy as being government by the people or government on the people's behalf. "We are simply slaves to what the people want" doesn't do it for me I'm afraid, you have to take some responsibility for what you've been put in charge of. It's what taking leadership is all about. When this is an ongoing tyre fire in a few years time the left will be significantly weaker for Labour throwing themselves on the pyre. Not to worry though, sure it will all blow over in a decade or so. Like the NHS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But fine, let's get to the crux of your issue wherein Labour did not to enough to fight the commons vote. Party discipline is not an easy thing for a government with a small minority. By hard whipping and heavily opposing as many measures as possible, the Opposition makes the government beholden to its back benches, and presents the opportunity for those back benchers to rebel. Heavy opposition and frequent close votes will always make the government weaker and less able to push through its agenda unaltered. If that was the only objective, it would almost always be done by a competent political operator. It isn't though- the Labour party has objectives beyond just destabilizing the government, and that is a good thing. So we need to consider whether this is a good strategy to get the kind of political change we want to see. Whether that is true or not depends on the factions in power and the objectives you have. I could see it being a very dangerous strategy if the more moderate Tories had the reins. It would mean that in order to get anything at all through they would have to sell out to their Hard Brexit ideologues. But with the hard Brexit squad in the ascendance? I feel like the opposite is true. If you make the government weaker, you are making it so that the Hard Brexit people will need to compromise with their more moderate party members or risk defeat*. In my view, failing to present obstacles to the Brexit process is a straight mismanagement of the situation, if your goal is to get a moderate less hardline Brexit. Of course on the other side, discipline in the Labour party is shot right now and getting them to present that kind of unified opposition is difficult in itself. And MPs have an eye to their own constituencies. It should be easier for an opposition party to keep discipline than a ruling party, but that is probably not the case in this instance. *This is complicated though, in that the negotiations might not be about Brexit. To secure the Brexit vote potential rebels could be bought up with sinecures like committee positions, constituency issues or through promises about other areas of particular interest. This still makes the governments job more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
More importantly, how would that have not stopped Labour from being destroyed as a political entity by it's opponents. You've voted against your traditional base, voted against democracy and the hostile press is just waiting to eviscerate you for it. If the interviews with Green party members who had no answer as to why they voted against the British public show, there's probably very little answer to that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
the only tory who has ever been passionately for EU membership is Ken Clarke. lol imagine if he and hestlentine had been prime ministers in the 1990s
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:More importantly, how would that have not stopped Labour from being destroyed as a political entity by it's opponents. You've voted against your traditional base, voted against democracy and the hostile press is just waiting to eviscerate you for it. If the interviews with Green party members who had no answer as to why they voted against the British public show, there's probably very little answer to that one. "I voted in line with my constituency" "I voted in line with the majority of those who voted for me" "I voted in what I felt were the best interests of the country. I am in a position of trust and I will not harm those who have put me in that position, whatever the personal consequences"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:More importantly, how would that have not stopped Labour from being destroyed as a political entity by it's opponents. You've voted against your traditional base, voted against democracy and the hostile press is just waiting to eviscerate you for it. If the interviews with Green party members who had no answer as to why they voted against the British public show, there's probably very little answer to that one. Because the traditional base want it Because a majority of people like it Because the press will attack us for it Acceptance of even one of those three arguments as supreme above Labour's threefold duty - to socialist values, to the Labour membership, to the constituents who voted for them - makes Labour worthless as a political entity. Let alone all three. The fundamental point of parliamentary politics is that while the majority might rule, the minority viewpoint deserve a say. If the minority viewpoint has a duty to shut up because it is an unpopular minority, then that's not a democracy you moron. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Because the traditional base want it The EU is not a socialist institution, and most hardcore socialist parties opposed it, the membership voted for Corbyn over Owen "Second Referendum" Smith, and going by constituencies leave won with a near-supermajority. I'm not sure how you can square democratic values with your argument, although if you're up for a revolution leading to socialist dictatorship in exchange for remaining in the EU then you're not getting any disagreement from me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Brexit bad. Not doing Brexit good. The will of the people? Poop on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Brexit bad. Like I said, make Dennis Skinner Chairman of the Supreme Soviet and you have yourself a deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The EU is not a socialist institution, and most hardcore socialist parties opposed it, the membership voted for Corbyn over Owen "Second Referendum" Smith, and going by constituencies leave won with a near-supermajority. I'm not sure how you can square democratic values with your argument, although if you're up for a revolution leading to socialist dictatorship in exchange for remaining in the EU then you're not getting any disagreement from me. The Brexit that the Tories have planned is going to be the most anti-socialist legislation possibly since the war. The membership voted Corbyn not for his line on Brexit, and labour voters are opposed. In terms of 'democracy', even a 'we'll vote no on all Brexits that will be negotiated by the Tories, once we run things we'll do it our way if people still want it' is a perfectly reasonable stand. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Brexit that the Tories have planned is going to be the most anti-socialist legislation possibly since the war. And, unfortunately, they won the last democratic election that we had. The only way you're stopping them is via undemocratic means, which means you're going to have to be prepared for the consequences of such an ideology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Undead Hippo posted:"I voted in line with my constituency" "Why did you vote for a national referendum if you were going to vote against the outcome?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:And, unfortunately, they won the last democratic election that we had. The only way you're stopping them is via undemocratic means, which means you're going to have to be prepared for the consequences of such an ideology. Only if you define democracy incredibly perversely. And as I alluded to, this goes way beyond Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In terms of 'democracy', even a 'we'll vote no on all Brexits that will be negotiated by the Tories, once we run things we'll do it our way if people still want it' is a perfectly reasonable stand. Okay so then let's take this scenario. Imagine we voted against Article 50 in the house and struck it down. How do you think the EU is going to treat us from here on in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:And, unfortunately, they won the last democratic election that we had. The only way you're stopping them is via undemocratic means, which means you're going to have to be prepared for the consequences of such an ideology. This is incredibly dumb. Should we just vote with the Tories on everything else too? At least we won't have to suffer the consequences of our ideology, if we're allowed one that is. Zalakwe fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Much as I don't like Brexit, going "well how about we crack down on non-eu immigration more instead" does not really solve anything, as that has already been going on a lot under the coalition (post-study work visas, family visa changes, higher thresholds etc.). And of course the whole idea behind Brexit is the same if you swap EU for non-EU. Ultimately the popular Tory goal of reducing immigration to 'tens of thousands' a year is flat-out unachievable without draconian new restrictions on both EU and non-EU immigrants. Even stopping all EU migration wouldn't come close to being enough. Not to mention that family reunions and student numbers alone are higher than that. Of course that is likely intentional, as it means there will always be an 'immigration crisis' to 'solve'. Still it baffles me how someone can blame Tory anti-immigration measures on the EU. Particularly when those measures are occasionally opposed by the very same EU for being too strict (albeit not much, as without UK being in Schengen there is only a very limited amount of regulations concerning external immigration). Private Speech fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Only if you define democracy incredibly perversely. So which perversity is going by either the simple majority of the referendum (which was voted for by parliament) or the supermajority of constituencies? At what point do you have to understand how much of a boon to UKIP (and potentially the advent of a UKIP-consultancy Brexit) turning around to pat your arse and go "gently caress u lol" would be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Zalakwe posted:This is incredibly dumb. Should we just vote with the Tories on everything else too? At least we won't have to suffer the consequences of our ideology, if we're allowed one that is. Not on something that you willingly voted for a referendum on. You can't take-backsies on something because you don't like the result. But by all means if you want to then can we take-backsies on that Lib Dem AV ref? I'd rather that one have the result overturned and then we'd probably have Prime Minister Ed (Lab-Lib coalition).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Okay so then let's take this scenario. Imagine we voted against Article 50 in the house and struck it down. How do you think the EU is going to treat us from here on in? I don't know and neither do you. Who knows the consequences of a situation where Tories rebelled on the basis that they prefer Labour to handle Brexit negotiations over their own parliament? It seems pretty loving awesome to me. But like I say, this goes beyond Brexit. And that's where the connection to fighting the resurgent far right really comes in. The core of the matter is this: "what arguments does the left accept to stop fighting the right on an issue"? You merely need to look over this thread to see the stink of a whole bunch of loving terrible arguments, and the blind eye people like you turn to this festering rot because those arguments are on 'your side'. But hey, I guess it's cool to accept we shouldn't stand up to a hostile press now, because this means Corbyn Was Right? Just wait for those arguments to come up when the time comes to fight for something you actually care about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Not on something that you willingly voted for a referendum on. You can't take-backsies on something because you don't like the result. You don't have to "take backsies". You could abstain or allow an open vote and not tie yourselves to the oncoming shitstorm that you predicted would happen. If AV had come to a parliamentary vote after the referendum do you seriously think the Libs would have voted against it?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
jabby posted:"Why did you vote for a national referendum if you were going to vote against the outcome?" "My duty is to the people I represent, the people who voted for me. If the country at large disagrees with them then that is not my concern. My concern is to act in their interests." For answer 3 you could say something like- "When I voted for a referendum I had no idea of the bitterness and hostility that would surround it, and the dishonest and misleading tactics that would be used. Furthermore the fact that there was no plan in place for Brexit and an incredibly poor level of planning and control since is deeply worrying. I believe the British public were done a serious wrong by the way that this entire affair has been conducted"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
jabby posted:"Why did you vote for a national referendum if you were going to vote against the outcome?" "Because we made a mistake." Just wait for the followup question: "Why did you vote for Brexit if you were going to oppose the deals that were the outcome?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I don't know and neither do you. Who knows the consequences of a situation where Tories rebelled on the basis that they prefer Labour to handle Brexit negotiations over their own parliament? It seems pretty loving awesome to me. The Tories would never accept Labour-led Brexit, so that's a moot point. The Article 50 bill not passing would just mean "referendum ignored" not "magically make Labour the majority party." I'll give you a hint to fighting the far-right: you're not going to do it by freaking the gently caress out over it. Either go lobby your MP for more stringent monitoring of far-right cells or else pick up your balaclava and go bash the fash. Complaining about Labour voting for Article 50 as a formality is not the line in the sand you're treating it as. For someone whining about bad arguments your whole schtick here appears to be "The far-right like X, that means we must oppose it." Like I get it, you really, really want to stay in the EU. That's fine! This is an issue that has a lot of strong feelings for very valid reasons (and of course, some very invalid reasons). That doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you is saving up for a full-back swastika tattoo. I'm going for the iron cross.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm going for the iron cross. I'm going for the classic black eagle personally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Tess, you like Brexit, and that is fine. Like you are one of the few people in here that can be honest in their support for it. (I think you're wrong and stupid, but that's fine.) But can't you see it slightly my way? That what positions people have gotten into so as to support Labour supporting something they oppose include a whole bunch of ideas that are incredibly corrosive to the future of the left?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Okay, so Labour's whipped opposition fails to pass. Article 50 passes with only Tory support. How well does Owen Smith do in the next election? Remember he's now splitting the pro-Remain vote with the Lib Dems (lol) Do you have a note tattooed on your leg reminding you to breathe? Opposing A50 does not prevent Brexit if the Tories three-line whip for it. But when it turns into a complete disaster as we all know will happen, Labour are in a position to say that they hold none of the responsibility for it because they whipped against it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
I'm curious Tess, how does it feel to have completely poo poo the bed with your vote?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Tess, you like Brexit, and that is fine. Like you are one of the few people in here that can be honest in their support for it. (I think you're wrong and stupid, but that's fine.) Of course I can see where you're coming from, but this is not a political situation with a clear "right" answer in terms of how things go on from here. I do agree that a three-line whip opened Labour up to a lot of valid criticisms, but frankly any choice he made was going to be a poisoned chalice. In this case the poison made him piss people like yourself off. This doesn't mean Corbyn is now going to enthusiastically vote for wanton slaughter. Jedit posted:Do you have a note tattooed on your leg reminding you to breathe? --the Very Serious Person who said I *literally* voted for the Holocaust Jedit posted:Opposing A50 does not prevent Brexit if the Tories three-line whip for it. But when it turns into a complete disaster as we all know will happen, Labour are in a position to say that they hold none of the responsibility for it because they whipped against it. The narrative structure can alternatively be "we voted for Article 50 in good faith, the Tories have stymied every attempt we've made to make Brexit work for ordinary people, this is on them" and if you're going to claim that narrative won't stick, what makes you so sure your narrative will?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:what concessions would they have won with any strategy No I'm being told that no other strategy could have worked so with labour's popularity in the toilet and absolutely no concessions won I'd like to know what, exactly, is working about labour's current path?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Of course I can see where you're coming from, but this is not a political situation with a clear "right" answer in terms of how things go on from here. I do agree that a three-line whip opened Labour up to a lot of valid criticisms, but frankly any choice he made was going to be a poisoned chalice. In this case the poison made him piss people like yourself off. This doesn't mean Corbyn is now going to enthusiastically vote for wanton slaughter. Sure, if we use hyperbole to exaggerate the negative consequence enough it probably won't happen. But milder versions might. I didn't just criticise Corbyn though. I think you're rather ignoring my point if you just say it "made him piss people like yourself off". Look, do you wanna identify arguments put forward in favour of Corbyn's actions in this thread that are utterly horrible and should be rejected? Or do you think they are all okay so long as they lead to the desired result?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Undead Hippo posted:For answers 1 and 2 For the first, you clearly shouldn't support a national referendum which promises to act on a simple majority if you plan to vote with your constituency rather than the national outcome. At best that's misleading the public. For the second, everyone knows politicians lie and it strains credulity to pretend you thought the referendum would be fought honestly. It also leaves you essentially claiming that the public got it wrong so the vote doesn't count, because no-one will believe you'd have the same complaints about the process if you'd won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The narrative structure can alternatively be "we voted for Article 50 in good faith, the Tories have stymied every attempt we've made to make Brexit work for ordinary people, this is on them" and if you're going to claim that narrative won't stick, what makes you so sure your narrative will? The difference between that narrative and Jedit's is that in your narrative Labour makes a statement that they trusted the Tories to deliver Brexit that works for ordinary people and, on the basis of all their actions to date, think the Tories are deserving of good faith. That's assuming that Labour *does* stop running away, which I don't think it's safe to assume. Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Sure, if we use hyperbole to exaggerate the negative consequence enough it probably won't happen. But milder versions might. I don't defend poorly constructed arguments just because I'm in favour of their outcome. I've already stated that I don't particularly care if we leave or remain. The people defending Corbyn's actions here are probably indeed trying to rationalise a decision they don't enjoy in the slightest, but see as necessarily pragmatic given the quagmire the debate is currently in. The problem is you're assigning a normality to an extreme circumstance: the Brexit debate is an extreme situation, we're unlikely to see anything like this again for a generation at the very least. This is much less clear cut than, say, voting for the Iraq War, where the majority of public were not even in favour of it. Corbyn's actions are not beyond criticism but this is hardly the betrayal of 'socialist values' or the like that you've made it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The difference between that narrative and Jedit's is that in your narrative Labour makes a statement that they trusted the Tories to deliver Brexit that works for ordinary people and, on the basis of all their actions to date, think the Tories are deserving of good faith. "Why can't both sides just work together" is basically the theme song of Question Time, our window into the stupidity of our voting public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:"Why can't both sides just work together" is basically the theme song of Question Time, our window into the stupidity of our voting public. It's also your narrative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I don't defend poorly constructed arguments just because I'm in favour of their outcome. I'm not saying you defend them. I'm saying you let them pass when surely you shouldn't. That normalises them. quote:The problem is you're assigning a normality to an extreme circumstance: the Brexit debate is an extreme situation, we're unlikely to see anything like this again for a generation at the very least I strongly disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
Jedit posted:It's also your narrative. Ah, the Sean Spicer approach to reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:52
|
|