The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[Serial_Apologist]

So, Labour has come up with a policy proposal advocating a people's referendum with a recommendation to Remain rather than accept No Deal. Norman Smith, the BBC's exaggerative, arms-swivelling assistant political editor chooses to make the usual meal of it, saying were the new Tory PM to call a general election Labour's position would be unclear; but it seems straightforward enough to me. Were there to be a general election either the new PM would be following Theresa May's agreement with the EU or going for No Deal - either of which Labour could not support, having already made it clear in their negotiations with May, which floundered when she refused to compromise on any of her red lines. A new people's referendum under whichever candidate becomes PM is in all likelhiood out of the question anyway. Therefore, were it to win a general election called by Johnson, by satisfying its pledge to abide by the 2015 Leave vote by proposing re-entering negitiations with the EU for leaving on Labour's terms, Labour is demonstrating its already much-stated commitment to abide by its result, thereby keeping faith with its original Brexit-voting majority. Were the result returned in such a new referendum still to see a majority for Leave, Labour would still present the option of new negotiations with the EU; were the EU to reject new negotiations on the grounds that May's agreement cannot be reversed and therefore there is no point, Labour's catch-22 as regards its Brexit supporting base in Wales and the North would be clarified as self-explanatory - which it genuinely is, notwithstanding all the BBC's bluster and obfuscation of the issues.

[Jazzrook]

The BBC's political correspondents always seem intent on sowing doubt and confusion about Labour's policies.
No doubt they will have a field day with the forthcoming Panorama programme investigating antisemitism in the Labour party.
When will we have a Panorama on Islamophobia in the Tory party?

JR

[MrGongGong]

The BBC's political correspondents always seem intent on sowing doubt and confusion about Labour's policies.

I don't think the BBC are necessary for the confusion
but they do add to it.....

[jayne lee wilson]

FWIW, The latest thrilling episode.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48916798

(Yes SA, today's Labour announcement is very significant, but will many voters understand it among all the rightwing brexiter sloganeering? I do hope so, as a Lab/Lib/Green coalition may be essential to find political sanity in UK again....

[antongould]

So, Labour has come up with a policy proposal advocating a people's referendum with a recommendation to Remain rather than accept No Deal. Norman Smith, the BBC's exaggerative, arms-swivelling assistant political editor chooses to make the usual meal of it, saying were the new Tory PM to call a general election Labour's position would be unclear; but it seems straightforward enough to me. Were there to be a general election either the new PM would be following Theresa May's agreement with the EU or going for No Deal - either of which Labour could not support, having already made it clear in their negotiations with May, which floundered when she refused to compromise on any of her red lines. A new people's referendum under whichever candidate becomes PM is in all likelhiood out of the question anyway. Therefore, were it to win a general election called by Johnson, by satisfying its pledge to abide by the 2015 Leave vote by proposing re-entering negitiations with the EU for leaving on Labour's terms, Labour is demonstrating its already much-stated commitment to abide by its result, thereby keeping faith with its original Brexit-voting majority. Were the result returned in such a new referendum still to see a majority for Leave, Labour would still present the option of new negotiations with the EU; were the EU to reject new negotiations on the grounds that May's agreement cannot be reversed and therefore there is no point, Labour's catch-22 as regards its Brexit supporting base in Wales and the North would be clarified as self-explanatory - which it genuinely is, notwithstanding all the BBC's bluster and obfuscation of the issues.

Surely the length of your post would suggest it’s not straightforward ..... as a member of the party I remain confused ....

[Serial_Apologist]

Surely the length of your post would suggest it’s not straightforward ..... as a member of the party I remain confused ....

What is not to be understood, anton?

1) In its original policy formulation should there be an in-out referendum, Labour said it would abide by whatever the result was. My own view is that "the left", into whose hands the Labour leadership was destined to fall after the 2010 general election defeat, was probably in two minds about which of two alternative options was the worse: staying in an EU, with probable strictures on what it would regard as "restrictive practices", eg tariffs on imports, de-privatisations and subsidies to failing industries that would need doing if Labour was to show itself capable of taking on a failed economic system; or remaining in an institution that at least meant jobs secured in UK/EU trading sectors and some protection for workers' and consumers' rights and environmental protections including subsidies for renewables and research. This would of course only count for as long as the EU maintained the post-WW2 gradualist developmental path based on large trading blocs, agreed with US sanction and initially Marshall Aid. The trouble was that notwithstanding the narrow 48/52% margin nationwide in the vote Labour could not live down the truth that a majority of its voting base in the North voted Brexit.

2) In thinking through the possible consequences of a Leave decision, Labour made no assumptions about a possible failure to agree on the leaving terms - in this they were no different from anybody else, most of whom, right, centre, left and nonaligned, probably expected the British people to vote Remain.

3) Whichever outcome resulted - Leave with or without a Deal - business and economists were telling Labour that the likely outcome in terms of jobs would be mass closures and redundancies as firms re-located to the EU post-Brexit. Labour was therefore in the Catch-22 position of having to stay loyal to its promise to respect the vote while recognising the strong possibility of the livelihoods of its own support base being decimated. This would be happening for the second time in 30 years - first being the rationalisations enacted in the name of neoliberal "efficiencies" under Thatcher, about which then-Labour had done little in the way of support than wring its hands. By the time Corbyn took over as Labour Leader the damage in reputation terms was going to take a long time to repair, notwithstanding the "New Deal" type policies being developed, and with a hostile press, BBC, and inner machinations from the disgraced Blairites to find something to pin on Corbyn.

4) All this necessitated some long-term strategising that would put Labour at odds both with the kinds of short-term objectives characteristic of Tory and New Labour thinking, 24-hour news coverage, and a voting demographic impatient and even desperate for immediate solutions, short of which scapegoating whoever you choose to target - immigrants, Muslims, that slippery non-category "the Establishment" - would offer the illusionary semblance of relief, getting the symptoms off the chest without dealing with their underlying systemic causes.

5) In the quagmire of the failing negotations around leaving, my thought is that someone high up in Labour must have persuaded Corbyn that someone in high office needed to show responsible statemanship because this might play positively in Labour's deliberately confected image problems. With scapegoating the game of the moment the Tories might as well scapegoat Labour as the major source of all that had gone wrong post the 2008 banking crisis, because who was going to point the finger at the American mortgage scandal? Maybe Panorama every so often if you're lucky in a situation undergoing constant rapid change. What was needed was to keep the main voices in the movement happy, especially the trade union bureaucracy, but also Labour Friends of Israel, who could be called on to exaggerate claims of antisemitism in the party as a diversionary tactic whenever needed, while sidelining those to the left of Momentum - really quite a soft left tendency within and without the party despite what you may be being told - who would probably cry "betrayal" over any such talks.

Which brings us back to where we are now. Have I missed anything?

[teamsaint]

The BBC's political correspondents always seem intent on sowing doubt and confusion about Labour's policies.
No doubt they will have a field day with the forthcoming Panorama programme investigating antisemitism in the Labour party.
When will we have a Panorama on Islamophobia in the Tory party?

JR

Tonight 6 O'clock new on R4 was a perfect demonstration of this.

An absolute disgrace

( And any kind of context around accusations of anti semitism within the LP seems to be completely absent on the BBC)

[teamsaint]

What is not to be understood, anton?


Which brings us back to where we are now. Have I missed anything?

I don't think so, S-A.

except possibly to mention that I fear than many on the right of the Labour party would rather lose with Corbyn than win with him.

[Dave2002]

Any comments on the Jeremy - Boris show yet?

[Serial_Apologist]

Tonight 6 O'clock new on R4 was a perfect demonstration of this.

An absolute disgrace

( And any kind of context around accusations of anti semitism within the LP seems to be completely absent on the BBC)

Channel 4 News wasn't much better this evening, with 3 Labour Lords brought on to say why they were resigning the whip, and one of them claiming "all jews" to be upset that the party isn't doing enough to rid itself of antisemitism - clearly a lie, but left unchallenged.

[antongould]

What is not to be understood, anton?

1) In its original policy formulation should there be an in-out referendum, Labour said it would abide by whatever the result was. My own view is that "the left", into whose hands the Labour leadership was destined to fall after the 2010 general election defeat, was probably in two minds about which of two alternative options was the worse: staying in an EU, with probable strictures on what it would regard as "restrictive practices", eg tariffs on imports, de-privatisations and subsidies to failing industries that would need doing if Labour was to show itself capable of taking on a failed economic system; or remaining in an institution that at least meant jobs secured in UK/EU trading sectors and some protection for workers' and consumers' rights and environmental protections including subsidies for renewables and research. This would of course only count for as long as the EU maintained the post-WW2 gradualist developmental path based on large trading blocs, agreed with US sanction and initially Marshall Aid. The trouble was that notwithstanding the narrow 48/52% margin nationwide in the vote Labour could not live down the truth that a majority of its voting base in the North voted Brexit.

2) In thinking through the possible consequences of a Leave decision, Labour made no assumptions about a possible failure to agree on the leaving terms - in this they were no different from anybody else, most of whom, right, centre, left and nonaligned, probably expected the British people to vote Remain.

3) Whichever outcome resulted - Leave with or without a Deal - business and economists were telling Labour that the likely outcome in terms of jobs would be mass closures and redundancies as firms re-located to the EU post-Brexit. Labour was therefore in the Catch-22 position of having to stay loyal to its promise to respect the vote while recognising the strong possibility of the livelihoods of its own support base being decimated. This would be happening for the second time in 30 years - first being the rationalisations enacted in the name of neoliberal "efficiencies" under Thatcher, about which then-Labour had done little in the way of support than wring its hands. By the time Corbyn took over as Labour Leader the damage in reputation terms was going to take a long time to repair, notwithstanding the "New Deal" type policies being developed, and with a hostile press, BBC, and inner machinations from the disgraced Blairites to find something to pin on Corbyn.

4) All this necessitated some long-term strategising that would put Labour at odds both with the kinds of short-term objectives characteristic of Tory and New Labour thinking, 24-hour news coverage, and a voting demographic impatient and even desperate for immediate solutions, short of which scapegoating whoever you choose to target - immigrants, Muslims, that slippery non-category "the Establishment" - would offer the illusionary semblance of relief, getting the symptoms off the chest without dealing with their underlying systemic causes.

5) In the quagmire of the failing negotations around leaving, my thought is that someone high up in Labour must have persuaded Corbyn that someone in high office needed to show responsible statemanship because this might play positively in Labour's deliberately confected image problems. With scapegoating the game of the moment the Tories might as well scapegoat Labour as the major source of all that had gone wrong post the 2008 banking crisis, because who was going to point the finger at the American mortgage scandal? Maybe Panorama every so often if you're lucky in a situation undergoing constant rapid change. What was needed was to keep the main voices in the movement happy, especially the trade union bureaucracy, but also Labour Friends of Israel, who could be called on to exaggerate claims of antisemitism in the party as a diversionary tactic whenever needed, while sidelining those to the left of Momentum - really quite a soft left tendency within and without the party despite what you may be being told - who would probably cry "betrayal" over any such talks.

Which brings us back to where we are now. Have I missed anything?

All I understand is that I joined a party, moons ago, that, I thought, wished for worldwide brotherhood and the end to world conflict. The EU, warts and all, has IMMVHO, those ideals and for the party still to be unclear on its manifesto position scares me .... I, like Mr. Campbell, didn’t vote for the party in the EU elections - I contacted the party immediately and asked if I was to be suspended .... no response in spite of 3 follow ups .....

[LMcD]

Any comments on the Jeremy - Boris show yet?

Perhaps nobody watched it? I'm sure the BBC News will feed us the juicier bits.

[Serial_Apologist]

Perhaps nobody watched it? I'm sure the BBC News will feed us the juicier bits.

There really isn't anything to say about the programme as far as I'm concerned. But I did watch it.

[Bella Kemp]

All I understand is that I joined a party, moons ago, that, I thought, wished for worldwide brotherhood and the end to world conflict. The EU, warts and all, has IMMVHO, those ideals and for the party still to be unclear on its manifesto position scares me .... I, like Mr. Campbell, didn’t vote for the party in the EU elections - I contacted the party immediately and asked if I was to be suspended .... no response in spite of 3 follow ups .....

The EU presented to us the finest - and most complex - peace treaty ever devised. For the first time in centuries war between European nations simply seemed absurd. War in Europe, so common to those who have gone before us, is now a frankly silly idea to those of a younger generation. But now goodness knows what rough beasts are slouching towards Bethlehem. Jeremy Corbyn led our party away from the EU. Had he campaigned wholeheartedly for Europe we would not now be in this mess: the Labour party's influence in the referendum would have secured those extra few thousand votes that would have guaranteed our remaining . Mr Corbyn and his cronies have brought shame on the Labour party and on this country and now we face years more of the unspeakably vile Tories. A strong leader would have come out wholeheartedly for Remain today and trusted in the powers of persuasion and truth to win over those few Labour seats where Leave voters are apparently in the majority. Alas, he is no leader, but a perpetual protester who, suddenly faced with the unexpected prospect of having actually to do something, has catastrophically failed.

[Bryn]

There really isn't anything to say about the programme as far as I'm concerned. But I did watch it.

I have now watched it, too. The one point I would make is that I found it interesting that ITV chose to give Johnson both the first and the last word.