Printable View
Oh, apologies, I wasn't aware of that. Where are you getting this information from? All I can find on the subject is that Labour would campaign to remain if the choices were the current deal, a no deal or remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I am now utterly confused!
What a complete and utter shambles.
I think this is the only really valid standpoint at this juncture :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I am nevertheless impressed by those amongst us who seem to have a much better idea of what's going on that I do ;)
They seem to have got themselves into this position in a very muddled way. Their official policy has always been to renegotiate a “better” deal than the Tories. However over a period of time shadow cabinet members like Keir Starmer have been saying that Labour’s policy is for a second referendum and that they would back remain. This now seems to be official policy but without ditching the first one to renegotiate a new deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Andrew Neil took John Healey (housing spokesman I think) to task on it last night. It was a car crash interview and I suspect it won’t stand up to scrutiny for too long before it is changed.
Just a total shambles by self believing nobody's who put themselves before the country and the voters they are supposed to represent. 👎
Who are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
I would have though all of the Tory "rebels" who in-their-opinion have put the good of the country before their own self interest in getting themselves kicked out of their party and in many cases will probably not be MPs in a couple of months have shown backbone. You may not agree with their stance but at least they stand up for their principles.
Now BoJo on the other hand does not know the meaning of the word.
Of course he does - "What is in my personal best interest?"Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I agree it's very strange. It does seem like official party policy, but I don't think Corbyn has yet actually endorsed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
You could call it "constructive ambiguity", a "broad church" or a "complete shambles" - it's probably all three. If you look at the sorry state the conservative party has got itself into over Brexit, you could argue that Labour's approach is a pragmatic one. Why tear themselves apart too? They clearly can't reconcile so many opposing views.
There is a school of thought, which states that the Labour Party now exists in name only. It has been infiltrated and is controlled by the far left with a Marxist agenda. The tactics of such an agenda are to confuse, disrupt, ferment revolution, and destroy. An analysis of Corbyn's and McDonnell's contradictory and ambiguous actions and words tend to support this view. Their version of democracy requires the electorate to vote in agreement with them, not for them to act on the wishes of the electorate. Thus there is more at stake than Brexit; that's just another vehicle for their tactics thanks to Cameron's incompetence in defining the referendum.
I know of staunch life-long Labour supporters, who will not vote for their party, while Corbyn and his cronies are in 'power'. It's time those Labour MPs, who remain true to the principles on which their party was founded woke up and acted. Not that other parties couldn't benefit from a dose of common sense and maturity, and remember they were elected to serve.
They joined a political party and by doing that you sign up to collective responsibility. Many of them had been in cabinet which is also bound by collective responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
In the Tory party, as I have previously stated, whether you agree with the party position or not, it overwhelmingly selected a new leader to leave on or very close to the 31/10 with a renegotiated deal, or no deal.
You can argue whether that is what the country wants or not. But that is what around 90% of Tory MPs voted for and the membership.
The principled position after the election of Johnson for these 21 would have been to resign the party and either stay independent or join another party, then call a by election.
I'm not sure the Tory party has got itself in to a state lately. I think Theresa May did that with her election call in 2017, her awful campaign, her awful manifesto which led to her loss of 17 MPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
They had a small majority before then, but also had DUP support, so there really was little risk of the Lancaster House speech not getting through.
Her bad judgement gave the rebels such as Grieve, Allen, Wollaston and Soubry who had endorsed Brexit pre election, the power to influence and shape policy, aided and abetted by such as Hammond, Clark, Gauke, Liddington and Rudd in Cabinet.
Now the Tory party is probably more united and clear than it has been for 2 decades.
It just doesn't have the numbers in the Commons.
You're right. It's getting more towards a narrow church... with a smaller congregation, who either agree with Boris or aren't prepared to say otherwise. There are some mutterings about how many of each.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I wonder what the longer-term ramifications of this will be. Is this the Tories redefining themselves and moving further to the right of UK politics, or will this seem like a spat in hindsight post-Brexit? It's looking pretty incendiary at the moment. I'm a little younger than you, but I can't remember anything like this.
It was pretty rumbustious around the the time of Maastrict...here's a clip from he Guardian of the time.
John Major's rage and frustration with rightwing Tories boiled over this weekend when, in an outburst, he called three of his own cabinet members "bastards". The onslaught against the Eurosceptic ministers not named, but almost certainly Michael Howard, Peter Lilley and Michael Portillo came within minutes of the vote of confidence on Friday which kept him in office.
His obvious anger, and contempt for Tory opponents, is certain to keep open the party's wounds after the Maastricht furore. It will help convince rightwingers that Mr Major is even more embittered against them than he has admitted.
However its a storm in a teacup compared to now.
The early 70's were also very rough and tumble. Heath v Wilson. But as a teenager back then I had bigger issues to contend with!
But it will make them look ridiculous in a general election campaign - which I will be very happy about. It came up on Question Time last night apparently when Emily Thornberry was completely flummoxed when asked the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...xit-confusion/
Here is an extract:
Presenter Fiona Bruce began proceedings by making a valiant attempt to outline what she understood was Labour’s current, official Brexit policy, before asking:
‘You would go back to Europe, try and get a better deal. Have a referendum, where Remain is an option.
Would you then be campaigning against your own deal to Remain?’
Remarkably, a flummoxed Thornberry couldn’t answer the simple question. But after a long pause, and bemused laughter from the audience, the shadow Foreign Secretary eventually managed a reply, telling the UK that:
‘Personally, I will campaign to Remain. I will negotiate to the best of my ability, a deal that will look after jobs and the economy, but the best way to look after jobs and the economy is for us to Remain.’
At which point her fellow contestant, the broadcaster Iain Dale, cut in to ask:
‘Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?’
I think we may have discussed this topic before but I don't know what it is they are doing that is moving to the right of UK politics. If anything they look to be moving towards the centre, for example their increased public spending plans. Unless it is trying to implement the result of the referendum that is judged to be right wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I'm not sure old left and right applies. But yes I agree. They are right perhaps in terms of Law and Order, but left in terms of spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
https://youtu.be/UE4Ap_ABrPw
One of several similar interviews with Labour front bench over recent weeks.
My MP, Nicky Morgan, is an interesting case. She used to be the target of some fairly nasty letters from Leavers in our local paper. Since accepting a cabinet post from Boris, she has been the target of severe criticism from Remainers. Either she has a cunning plan, or she is just an opportunist . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Yes fair point. You can argue that Brexiteers are neither left nor right - they're just anti-EU. To my untrained eyes it seems that the left of the conservative party are more pro-EU and the right more anti-EU, meaning the recent purge pushes them further right. But I'm sure there are exceptions to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
I'm not sure how it works with Labour - they have remainers and brexiteers too, but to me I can't see a similar rule-of-thumb correlation based on left and "lefter". Perhaps others can.
I guess the above only applies to people you disagree with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
No, I think you guess wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
It really doesn't matter how you frame it if you are part of a collective, whether a political party, FRA Committee or Board of Directors.
If a board decide 6:2 to go and buy a company, you wouldn't see the two briefing to the press about what a bad idea it was, or going to the company subject of a takeover offering them advise on how to fend off the bid.
They would get on board or resign.
Very important point WP. Thinking about it, its all Camerons fault again. He allowed MP's to vote with their conscience not to a party line at the referendum...maybe they have just extended that thought process??
I don't like it when people twist my words to different situations (but I realise I seem to be doing it a lot on this thread - sorry), but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Are you saying the conservative MPs who disagreed with the withdrawal agreement should have got on board or resigned? There was a clear majority within their party to support the WA. But they didn't get on board or resign, they went and briefed the press on what a bad idea it was.
Again, I think this comes down to perspective. They thought they were right, and in that instance they stood their ground and fought and won.
You are missing the point Noel, it is only people that he disagrees with that should resign.
All those people that killed the withdrawal agreement were perfectly correct.
You make a good point Noel. However the Tory MP's who voted against the withdrawal agreement could at least say they were honouring the commitments made in their 2017 manifesto. The withdrawal agreement didn't do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
You can't say the same for the Tory rebels this time. They stood on a manifesto commitment to leave the Single Market and Customs Union and that the UK would leave with no-deal if we couldn't get a good deal. So why stand on that ticket if they had no intention of honouring it? Not only that but they voted in favour of opposition legislation designed to humiliate their leader and against a policy that he had only recently been elected overwhelmingly on by Tory MP's and members.
Personally I think that's a different order of things. Look at it this way. Let's suppose Johnson wins a majority in the general election that is surely coming. What is the point of having them as Tory MP's if they yet again vote against and thwart Johnson's policy even after he has a mandate from the public for it? It might seem tough but I think they had to go.
What is the point of MPs then? if they have to resign if they disagree with goverment policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
A few extremist in the cabinate could do whatever they wanted and nobody could stop them. Tony Blair was almost like that with such a super majority he could afford to ignore the few people that disagreed with him, and we all know where that led us.
But this was the central plank of the Government's policy, endorsed by an overwhelming majority of Tory MP's and members only a couple of months ago. They've sided with the opposition to allow the legislature to take control from the Executive and completely scupper the Government's main policy. I think this goes way beyond an ordinary rebellion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
If their central plank was to start WW III would you sympathise with Tory MPs who voted against it?
This is incredible, you just cannot see that you have one rule for people you agree with and another for people you disagree with.
Well that's just plain daft. It isn't is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
You made the analogy with the Tony Blair early which isn't correct because Blair had no mandate to go to war in Iraq. The Government does have a mandate to leave the EU. The real outrage is that it has been thwarted at every turn by this rotten parliament. That's what should really be upsetting you DrPB. But it doesn't does it? Why? Because you agree with them.
Again, this is down to opinion. The WA did (and still does) allow the UK to leave the EU, it's just that those MPs didn't agree with aspects of it. You could say they were at the time thwarting the will of the people by voting against it - although I realise this is a stretch as they wanted a more Brexit-y Brexit than was on offer as part of the WA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
And WP, I am aware the WA is only the first step - following by the non-binding political declaration.
But the point was why the case of the ERG rebels is different from the Remainer rebels.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
My defence of the Tory MP's who voted against the WA is that it didn't honour the Conservative's manifesto pledge. This was firstly to leave the Single Market - the WA keeps us closely aligned with EU rules and maintains the supremacy of the ECJ in a number of areas. Secondly the pledge was to leave the Customs Union. As we all know, under the WA we cannot leave the Customs Union without the EU's permission because of the backstop. The deal was Brexit in name only.
I made the distinction with the more recent Tory rebels because they have voted explicitly against their party's manifesto pledges.
So that's why I think the rebellion of the latter is of a different magnitude to that of the former.
What percentage of those, who voted Remain in the referendum accept the democratic outcome, and are content to leave? Just a thought.
Not at all. David Davis had to resign. Raab Had to resign. Johnson had to resign all under May. Steve Baker, Suella Braverman ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I agree but would go further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
You see the party got behind the 2017 manifesto and May's set piece speeches at Lancaster House and Florence.
Much is discussed of May's red lines, but she didn't really have any. As far back as Dec 2017 it was said that her red lines needed a new coat of paint as they were looking a bit pink.
It was May that moved away from her own commitments on the Single Market by offering very close alignment and then came up with the facilitated customs arrangement at Chequers.
It was May who came up with a 2 year transition, extendable to 4 years, and then the backstop which we couldn't leave without EU permission.
These were all new, and not party or manifesto commitments.
It was up to May if she withdrew the whip, but we did have numerous ministerial resignations over these creeping move from what most would call a clean Brexit, to a half-in Brexit.
Varoufakis on Question Time described it as an agreement only a country defeated in war would consider.
It polled at one point as only 12% approval by the public and of those supporting it in the Commons, most were on the Government's vast payroll.
More should have resigned, particularly Fox, Leadsom and Mordaunt. However, they will claim it was a deal that was a compromise and they were reluctantly willing to accept.
What is different now is that:
1. The Tory leadership contest gave a clear direction for the party. The lead 4 contenders supported by 92% of MPs on practically the same policy.
2. The Vote before them was not a vote against a Govt policy, it was a vote for an opposition policy - that is a huge difference.
I would frame it differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Why does a Govt put forward a proposal? Because they think it's a good idea.
You propose an in/out referendum, then you should support the change, or why propose it?
It's a bit like Labour now. They can't get away with negotiating a deal and then recommending we don't adopt it.
I've never known such spineless opposition.
Chance of an election and they bottle it.
They haven't bottled it Stagger. They will approve one on condition that no deal is off the table.
The majority voted LEAVE.
Just LEAVE and sort deal's out over the coming year's. Easy as that.
The problem is that the majority voted Leave in 2016, and then in 2017 they voted for a legislature with a majority of MPs who wanted to Remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger