UK Politics - Weeny, Weedy, Weaky

[Birdjaguar]

There is no more British Empire, but its legacy will persist for centuries to come... is the US and Canada... in Australia... in India and Africa... in Egypt and Palestine... in the Middle East in general... and even in China. The British Empire was the original world police before getting replaced by the US. So it's just nice to see the sun finally set on this empire.

The UK is about to be cannibalized on a massive scale as US capitalists start yanking away everything that's nailed down to build their forts for the coming recession. If and when N. Ireland and Scotland leave, England might as well become a US colony. Would be quite the turnabout, wouldn't it? But I also hope the US goes to **** by that time, as well. We also deserve the worst.

Whose recession and when? Of course one will come; likely after 2020. How deep and how long are very open questions.

 

[Ajidica]

The shifting position of the party was a reminder that it was not their party anymore, it was the party of the London elites they had voted against in voting for brexit!

Surely you must acknowledge that a Tory-led Brexit is shaping up to be a disaster, and the pro-Brexit/pro-Tory press treated a less disastrous Brexit, like a customs union, as betrayal. There is no way Labour -even a PLP comprised entirely of Corbyn supporters, would favor a hard Brexit. Trying to sell a soft Brexit to Leave voters who have been deluged with "Anything less than hard Brexit is a betrayal of democracy"* would probably gone over about as well as Labours proposal of "Let us try to devise a non-Tory hard Brexit then you can vote on it" ultimately ended up going.

*Despite the fact I clearly remember Farage claiming that Brexit would be a sort of "Norway++ deal" and a close formal economic relation with Europe.

The party only has a future if it splits. Otherwise it will go the way of the continental working class parties: dwindling into nothing. Like the communists first and then the socialists in France. Postponing the split does not prevent it. And if it is done too late there won't be anyone left to split!

Do you want a retreat of the 80s with the SDP-Labour split, where both were consigned to electoral oblivion for over a decade? The 80s demonstrated clearly that Labour needs both their traditional industrial heartlands and the middle class professionals/reformists. When the reformists went over to the SDP, the Tories won with landslides. There's a similar pattern with Heath and Wilson. Corbyn was trying to hold the party together and failed. The anti-Tory vote was already being split, I doubt Labour would have emerged any better off if the anti Tory vote was being split n+1 ways. Corbyn was faced with a series of options ranging from bad to worse, rolled the dice, and it came up particularly badly.

 

[really]

I think people are reading a bit too much into the results in NI - FPTP is distorting it.

The explicitly Unionist parties got 342k votes, explicitly Nationalist ones got 310k and the Alliance got 134k.

I don't think that shows an indicative majority for unity.

It is interesting and things are changing.
People seem a bit fed up of the big two - getting the assembly back up and running might satisfy most.

One thing that seems clearer thanks to the overall UK result is that there will be a border in the Irish sea.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think people are reading a bit too much into the results in NI - FPTP is distorting it.

The explicitly Unionist parties got 342k votes, explicitly Nationalist ones got 310k and the Alliance got 134k.

I don't think that shows an indicative majority for unity.

It is interesting and things are changing.
People seem a bit fed up of the big two - getting the assembly back up and running might satisfy most.

One thing that seems clearer thanks to the overall UK result is that there will be a border in the Irish sea.

It seems like the beginning of the end of the UK.

 

[Traitorfish]

This election has reminded me of the way in which the British commentariat pretends not to understand the different between popular vote and distribution of seats in a first-past-the-post system, until the topic turns to Scotland and they suddenly become intensely aware of that difference.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

The nasty thing about FPTP is that the people with the power to replace it are almost always the people who benefit from it.

Back in 2011, we had a referendum on whether to do away with FPTP and introduce the AV method of PR.
It was soundly defeated by 67.9%.
We Brits really do prefer our FPTP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

This election has reminded me of the way in which the British commentariat pretends not to understand the different between popular vote and distribution of seats in a first-past-the-post system, until the topic turns to Scotland and they suddenly become intensely aware of that difference.

?? You mean the topic of Scottish independence rather than just Scotland?
Well, obviously because a new referendum would indeed become a simple popular vote count. That’s why it the number of votes in the GE matter.

Recent polls in Scotland seem to reflect the numbers in the GE the other day and are short of the 50%+1 needed.
Obviously last week's result and actual Brexit might change these figures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence

 

[mitsho]

The alternative vote system is not a proportional one. It even says so in the Wikipedia you cite. As an instant-run off system, small parties such as the green party would still have problems to get a majority in a district. However, it would allow people to vote Green since they believe in them, and still give their vote to the Labour one in order to defeat the sitting Tory member. Alternative Voting would keep the current majorities, but show what people really want underneath. It's better go straight for a true representative (proportional) system. Maybe it was defeated in the 2011 referendum since it wouldn't have changed anything major?

 

[Gorbles]

Back in 2011, we had a referendum on whether to do away with FPTP and introduce the AV method of PR.
It was soundly defeated by 67.9%.
We Brits really do prefer our FPTP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

Always fun to see selective quotes:

The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by 67.9% of voters on a national turnout of 42%.

And I like this one, too:

The campaign was described in retrospect by Oxford political scientist Iain McLean as a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate".

 

[AmazonQueen]

@Ajidica @EnglishEdward

The tragedy in this is that Corbyn comes from the older tradition

Hardly. Hes a professional politician from a middle-class background who has spent his career championing identity politics and unpopular foreign causes. None of that makes him a bad person but Nye Bevan reincarnated he ain't. He has far more in common with the middle-class students you deride than "traditional" Labour voters from the North/Midlands/Wales.

 

[Ironsided]

While that is true Corbyn is a typical Islington middle-class man he did put up a better fight than any other in the party leadership to support the traditional voters. JC was poorly rewarded for this effort because it was too little too late. Blair ****ed the red wall it just happens to tumble on Corbyn because of the Brexit stance he held. Had JC, as Inno says, held firm on Brexit the red wall would have stood – still shook up, but standing. They hate JC as a symbol and a lightning rod for Brexit – not entirely on his social policy. They see him as a sissy and a no-good Nancy – not as wrong on the economic issues.

Edit:

We on the left really must stop calling our own stupid, uneducated, bigot and racist even when we are. It’s bloody hard but we must. Corbyn tried but failed to project that. It’s time for someone else to take over but please make them realise the same thing and be better at projecting it. Labour is about lifting people up from a hard place – not flaunt about being correct. Liberals do that far better anyway.

 

[Arwon]

Always fun to see selective quotes:

And I like this one, too:

Yeah some of the insane things people were claiming about that system (essentially Australia's lower house system) were just ridiculous. It's a strictly better system than single district FPTP, a pure upgrade. While still being worse than actual proportional systems.

 

[Ajidica]

We on the left really must stop calling our own stupid, uneducated, bigot and racist even when we are. It’s bloody hard but we must. Corbyn tried but failed to project that. It’s time for someone else to take over but please make them realise the same thing and be better at projecting it. Labour is about lifting people up from a hard place – not flaunt about being correct. Liberals do that far better anyway.

So, what then? If a 'Red Wall' voter tells the Labour party they want to "Kick out the Pakistanis and Polish and Nigerians" should Labour go "Yes, we agree with you and will put strict immigration controls in our new manifesto"?

That's the problem the Democrats stateside seem to constantly run into, especially with more left-wing policies. They all poll extremely well, until the topic of immigration comes up.

 

[Traitorfish]

Without ripping up the Barnett formula, I don't see how Westminster can do that without being seen as the aggressors. Plus, the Tories claim they want to expand in Scotland - that would be a stupid way of going about that.

I think that people outside of Britain (and indeed outside of Scotland) don't appreciate that while Scottish independence is contentious, self-government is overwhelmingly popular. Publicly undermining the Scottish Parliament doesn't just pit you against separatists, it pits you against the entire country, including many Scottish Tories, and leaves your few allies disarmed and discredited. If you wanted Scotland to push towards a unilateral declaration of independence, that would be the way to do it.

It doesn't mean that the Tories won't try it, of course; if they've learned nothing in Ireland after a century, why should we expect that they would apply those lessons in Scotland?

 

[Ironsided]

So, what then? If a 'Red Wall' voter tells the Labour party they want to "Kick out the Pakistanis and Polish and Nigerians" should Labour go "Yes, we agree with you and will put strict immigration controls in our new manifesto"?

That's the problem the Democrats stateside seem to constantly run into, especially with more left-wing policies. They all poll extremely well, until the topic of immigration comes up.

You are smarter than this. You can respectfully disagree. Very rarely will a racist turn down a friendship or a helping hand because you disagree on racism. You are also far more likely to turn their point of view. We have a whole thread by Hygro on a similar concept. It’s old-school social democratic grassroots strategy to befriend, bring along, discuss.

It also helps to realise you are not free from sin yourself. I for example always choose the line with the least immigrants and old people when I do my grocery shopping. My bigotry has me convinced they’ll always be slower.

 

[Arakhor]

How do you spot an immigrant on sight? I certainly can't and I live in one of the whitest areas in England.

 

[AmazonQueen]

While that is true Corbyn is a typical Islington middle-class man he did put up a better fight than any other in the party leadership to support the traditional voters. JC was poorly rewarded for this effort because it was too little too late. Blair ****ed the red wall it just happens to tumble on Corbyn because of the Brexit stance he held. Had JC, as Inno says, held firm on Brexit the red wall would have stood – still shook up, but standing. They hate JC as a symbol and a lightning rod for Brexit – not entirely on his social policy. They see him as a sissy and a no-good Nancy – not as wrong on the economic issues.

Edit:

We on the left really must stop calling our own stupid, uneducated, bigot and racist even when we are. It’s bloody hard but we must. Corbyn tried but failed to project that. It’s time for someone else to take over but please make them realise the same thing and be better at projecting it. Labour is about lifting people up from a hard place – not flaunt about being correct. Liberals do that far better anyway.

Certainly the "Red Wall" and Scottish Labour were badly weakened by the years of Blairite neglect. I don't think Corbyn was the person to reach out to them. I agree that Labour should have stuck to its earlier pro-Brexit line (I was wrong about that) and continued to argue for a Brexit that would protect worker's and human rights, environmental standards etc, but would take place. I'm not convinced that was enough. Corbyn's past sympathy for Irish Nationalism was very unpopular, his ineffective action on anti-Semitism where he appeared more concerned with protecting the party than dealing with it was also unpopular, and he looked weak by backing keeping Trident but unable to say he'd use it (he would've been better off continuing to argue for nuclear disarmament. People respect conviction even when they disagree with it).

I also think Labour made too many promises. Individually they were often popular but people started to believe it wasn't credible to do them all. Jon Lansman himself admitted the manifesto was more of a project for 10 years than a single term. Some of the commitments should have been aspirations and left out of the manifesto.

A lurch to the right won't get those lost votes back. Brown and Miliband lost too, but if Labour is to stay a left-wing party it has to recognise its going to be very hard to win power again and work with Greens, nationalists and even the LibDems (hopefully the LibDems will return to the more progressive party they were under Ashdown and Kennedy, ditch the current right-wing clique leading them, and recognise that they are even more unlikely to replace Labour than Labour is to win power on its own) and embrace electoral reform.

 

[aelf]

You are smarter than this. You can respectfully disagree. Very rarely will a racist turn down a friendship or a helping hand because you disagree on racism. You are also far more likely to turn their point of view. We have a whole thread by Hygro on a similar concept. It’s old-school social democratic grassroots strategy to befriend, bring along, discuss.

And then when you don't lend your voice to anti-immigration policies but the other guys do, they vote for the other guys.

 

[Ironsided]

@AmazonQueen

I agree with that. I was wrong about people eventually warming to Corbyn in a campaign and I realised too late. I was wrong about the red wall eventually seeing reason with a new more informed referendum. Predicting how people react to policy and manifesto is hard. No one of us humans is rational and striking this fine line between rational and what is practical and doable is not that easy.

 

[Traitorfish]

You are smarter than this. You can respectfully disagree. Very rarely will a racist turn down a friendship or a helping hand because you disagree on racism. You are also far more likely to turn their point of view.

You say this as if racism is just an opinion, like disagreeing about which Die Hard film is better. It's more like having a festering sore in the middle of your face that you refuse to have treated. It's not the duty of other people to polite tolerate the constant stream of pestilent ooze in the hope that enough gentle hints may reveal your better nature.

 

[Ironsided]

On a personal level racism often is an opinion and one open for reconsideration. I’m not telling people exposed to racism to accept it. I’m saying it’s possible to get along on other issues.