The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[Serial_Apologist]

I think he was saying that it isn't a time to walk away from ones partners thus handing more power and control to those who are more extreme. We should be standing alongside our neighbours against the likes of Orban and Le Pen NOT prenetding that we can somehow live in a different world.

The Labour party completely misjudged the whole thing IMV and seems more interested in it's own petty politics (hummm not unlike the Tories then ?) than acting in the best interests of the whole country. The endless "for the many, not the few" slogan has a very hollow ring to it IMV.

All this started pre-Corbyn era, in effect handing not just Labour, but any post-Blair alternative to Tory, LibDem or DUP coalitions, a poisoned chalice.

[french frank]

Teamsaint and I have both tried to point out the unavoidable double-bind Labour has been in since the Brexit result. Support Remain, or even a People's vote, and in all probability Labour forfeits the next general election.

The best construction one can put on that is that winning the next election is more important than Brexit. That is at least consistent with the attempt to shift the discussion away from Brexit and on to a Labour government's policy priorities. But it doesn't really satisfy those who feel that a satisfactory settlement of the Brexit issue should take priority over what Labour would aim to do should they win an election.

That EU policy direction is increasingly coming from the Right is symptomatic. I think this was what was really behind what the Dutch PM was telling us here yesterday. Morally it's very hard to sit this out on ones hands, because as a consequence Brexit goes ahead, with it and its political aftermath in the control of the far Right and its friends. Somewhere a lead has to begin to reverse the tide.

I'm not sure how Labour policy is going to reverse the tide. First leave the EU, and its increasingly unpleasant hangers on …?

[Serial_Apologist]

The best construction one can put on that is that winning the next election is more important than Brexit. That is at least consistent with the attempt to shift the discussion away from Brexit and on to a Labour government's policy priorities. But it doesn't really satisfy those who feel that a satisfactory settlement of the Brexit issue should take priority over what Labour would aim to do should they win an election.

And therein, underlying the impasse, lies Corbyn's and Labour's dilemma...

I'm not sure how Labour policy is going to reverse the tide. First leave the EU, and its increasingly unpleasant hangers on …?

That would only become clear if Labour got elected - we have to wait and see how Boris Johnson fares before we can envisage any prospect of a general election. Yes, if anyone in the opposition says that, they will be forced to admit to Labour's prospects being dependant on the Tories under Johnson failing to get the UK out by the end of October. Unless the right wing press can continue dredging up allegations of antisemitism or the like I don't imagine they can carry on defending the government under such circumstances without getting rumbled by people who normally just go along with their messages.

Firstly, in any lead up to a general election Labour has to expose the inordinate waste in terms of money, pointless projects and social cohesion going on that would not happen under its tenure, showing the practicable means whereby it could be held accountable, while reminding people that the postwar international debt was not paid off until Brown was chancellor of the exchequer, and showing how borrowing to fund a way out of austerity would pay off longterm. The borrowed money would be used to introduce a Roosevelt-type New Deal. And secondly it has to re-establish or strengthen its fraternal (?) and organisational links with sympathetic allies in Europe as well as here, including Green parties.

[teamsaint]

I’m far from certain that the best way for Labour to have thwarted or shaped Brexit would have been outright opposition, and a solid remain position. It’s a cross party issue, like it or not, and the the labour policy makers have had to work hard to construct a policy that would keep enough of its members , supporters and MPs on board, and in the case of MPs, they haven’t even managed that completely successfully.
For remainers, the game is not yet up, and it could have been. Its not clear to me how a full on Remain position by Labour would have won the day for remain by now.
And whether we like it or not, the Labour party leadership do have to consider other policies, the next election , and so on. And in fairness, brexit has probably been more or less all consuming for them .

[MrGongGong]

I’m far from certain that the best way for Labour to have thwarted or shaped Brexit would have been outright opposition, and a solid remain position. It’s a cross party issue, like it or not, and the the labour policy makers have had to work hard to construct a policy that would keep enough of its members , supporters and MPs on board, and in the case of MPs, they haven’t even managed that completely successfully.
For remainers, the game is not yet up, and it could have been. Its not clear to me how a full on Remain position by Labour would have won the day for remain by now.
And whether we like it or not, the Labour party leadership do have to consider other policies, the next election , and so on. And in fairness, brexit has probably been more or less all consuming for them .

I think the fundamental problem is that the parties we have no longer represent the divisions of opinion in the country.
BUT they are all so obsessed with their histories that they are unlikely to start again from a different basis.
YES, there are some really important things in the world, not least Climate Change... which the two main parties we have are both wedded to economic growth which is the cause NOT the solution.

[Richard Tarleton]

Unless the right wing press can continue dredging up allegations of antisemitism or the like

Surely not just the right wing press, S_A? The charges of antisemitism appear to come from within the Labour party, as much as anywhere else.

[Richard Barrett]

For remainers, the game is not yet up, and it could have been. Its not clear to me how a full on Remain position by Labour would have won the day for remain by now.

Quite. What many people don't seem to remember is that (a) Brexit hasn't happened yet, and probably still stands a chance of not happening for one reason or another, as I've been saying all along, so all the disaster talk is still something of a waste of breath; (b) it has been clear through all the tedious manoeuvrings of parliament that there is, at this moment, no majority there for either reversing Article 50 or for holding a second referendum (whose result is once again by no means certain), whatever Corbyn may or may not say or do; (c) if Corbyn's Labour hadn't increased its vote share as much as it did in 2017 we would already be out on something like May's terms; (d) there is no chance at all of either a "soft Brexit" or no Brexit while the Tories are in power.

[DracoM]

Anvil - Us - sledgehammer - whack.
That's what it feels like, anyway.

[Serial_Apologist]

Surely not just the right wing press, S_A? The charges of antisemitism appear to come from within the Labour party, as much as anywhere else.

From both, wouldn't one say? From the right-wing press, for obvious reasons. From within the labour Party because I would imagine most party members would feel the same as me, namely that of a moral equivalence between any antisemitism whatever existing within Labour or any party purporting to stand against racism and police corruption or paedophilia in religious or child care institutions. This makes it very difficult to speak out from within against such charges of antisemitism being deliberately confected or exaggerated for other reasons, such as "guilt by association" in the case of Corbyn's critical support for those under Israeli occupation being automatically tagged antisemitic.

[Serial_Apologist]

Anvil - Us - sledgehammer - whack.
That's what it feels like, anyway.

Yes, to me it feels for all the world rather like being in a quarrel with one's partner, in which she dredges up all sorts of previously unstated allegations and accusations one has never considered in support of her side of the argument, so that one has to go back and remember everything so as not to get tripped up over some detail!

You can imagine I've had some experience of this!

[MrGongGong]

Quite. What many people don't seem to remember is that (a) Brexit hasn't happened yet, and probably still stands a chance of not happening for one reason or another, as I've been saying all along, so all the disaster talk is still something of a waste of breath;

I'm not so sure
I spent most of this week working with a well known orchestra
The players were telling me that they have NO gigs in mainland Europe for the next 12 months
for this group it's most unusual and they are off to Korea, Japan etc etc
Now i'm sure the folks in the concert halls of Europe will be keen to have ensembles from the UK back once they know what is happening
BUT my experience is that once work goes eslewhere (I don't think there are "dark" nights where UK ensembles would otherwise be playing?) it doesn't often come back.

Hopefully it will all fall apart and we can get on with things

[DracoM]

Am in contact with a string quartet with precisely the same problems.
They are not yet famous enough to know if they can find engagements for the Europe tour having to be pulled, so they are anxious - and actually quite cross.

[Richard Barrett]

This is worth reading I think: "As they stand, EU rules certainly do not mandate the UK’s railways being as privately operated as they are now, and they probably never will. But in practice, the latest regulations will make it impossible to get rid of private operators entirely. In short, it would be possible to recreate British Rail, but not to have it running the whole system in the way it did before privatisation." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8968691.html

[french frank]

This is worth reading I think: "As they stand, EU rules certainly do not mandate the UK’s railways being as privately operated as they are now, and they probably never will. But in practice, the latest regulations will make it impossible to get rid of private operators entirely. In short, it would be possible to recreate British Rail, but not to have it running the whole system in the way it did before privatisation." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8968691.html

Yes, a very interesting article. Though it does seem to me (well, it would, wouldn't it?) that the idea of returning to the 'British Rail' of yesteryear, as one reason for the need to leave the EU, is being too rigidly doctrinaire. For me, as a train traveller, I want a system that is reliable and not too expensive. I wouldn't actually care how that happy state was arrived at ('renationalistion' is always a possibility to be considered), but I don't share that belief that state ownership should be pursued as part of the wholesale restructuring of the UK economy.

To answer part of the bit you quoted: "But in practice, the latest regulations will make it impossible to get rid of private operators entirely." Isn't it also doctrinaire to want to exclude all private operators? Isn't the important point that, as in Switzerland, private companies have statutory duties which serve the interests of the passengers?

[Stanfordian]

From what I read in today's papers and hear on the radio I wouldn't be surprised if Boris's chances might now have been scuppered or greatly diminished.