What is the point of Labour ?

[Zern]

On 09/06/2023 at 09:02, Fullerene said:

That is it.  The EU are not interesting in discussing the UK going back into the EU if there is a possibility that a subsequent Tory government will just cancel the talks.  It will only happen if every likely government is in favour of the idea.

With FPTP, the Tories are always wary of being outflanked by the Nigel Farage Party and will always be more extreme as a result.

Hopefully with PR, the Tories will still be detestable but the worse elements would not have so much influence.

The immediate consequences of ignoring electoral reform is that it makes any other planned reforms harder to make permanent. A future administration down the line can simply sweep away everything that the previous one achieved without ever needing a majority. Everything Brexit is an example.

It's also politically stupid. If The Labour Party were to introduce a policy of both PR and lowering the voting age. It would generate a lot of political goodwill and engagement that would surely guarantee them the largest share of the vote come the following election. It would also have a side benefit (from Labour's perspective) of vacating the SNP numbers in Westminster.

[Zern]

On 09/06/2023 at 10:56, Herc said:

There's likely to be a convergence with the EU and all the associated bodies over time without actually rejoining, which would probably require another referendum.

That would make sense. There are only two problems; membership of the CPTPP and the Retained EU Law bill, both of which are being progressed. The EU has a monitoring group that has highlighted those as potential conflicts with the existing TCA/WF.

Labour are promising a 'dynamic alignment'. This appears to be where a 3rd party country, outside the EU, aligns itself closely to enable trade. It has nothing to do with the EU itself though. 3rd party countries outside the EU are free to align how they want. It's something they can do all on their own. Be as dynamic as you want, the TCA allows for that. However, at this point it looks more like what Labour are promising is simply to fulfil the obligation of that are in the TCA/WF itself. All the stuff that the Tories have been delaying, postposing, or outright ignoring.

[MazzyStar]

13 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

There always has been but with the rise of UKIP it's pretty obvious that the Tories have moved to the right.

The party of Enoch Powell and many others like him moved to the right because of UKIP? Not buying that. They’ve always been this right wing, if not more. 

[btb]

11 hours ago, MazzyStar said:

The party of Enoch Powell and many others like him moved to the right because of UKIP? Not buying that. They’ve always been this right wing, if not more. 

Sure the Tories have always had their share of xenophobes over the last 50 years but the Cameron government was socially liberal or else they could not have tempted the Lib-Dems into coalition (2010-15). One of the affects of said coalition was to make it easier for Farage/UKIP to appeal to the "19^th Hole", reactionary segment of the Tory membership at the start of the last decade. Our FPTP system forced Cameron to make gestures towards Farage/UKIP by conceding the Brexit Referendum, the eventual aftermath of this was Johnson's hollowing out of the Tory party to "Get Brexit Done" which has ultimately led to an increased number of these types at Cabinet level. 

[StellarHibee]

7 minutes ago, btb said:

Sure the Tories have always had their share of xenophobes over the last 50 years but the Cameron government was socially liberal or else they could not have tempted the Lib-Dems into coalition (2010-15).

The tories could have been nazi-sympathisers under Cameron and the Lib Dems would have still jumped into bed with them for the power trip. They're not exactly the party of sensibility and decency that they try to portray.

[btb]

2 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

1. The tories could have been nazi-sympathisers under Cameron and the Lib Dems would have still jumped into bed with them for the power trip.

2. They're not exactly the party of sensibility and decency that they try to portray.

1. I disagree, in the aftermath of the 2010 GE the PLP still contained plenty of senior members tainted with the Iraq War plus any anti-Tory coalition would've had to include the various Celtic parties, at least informally - Cameron's Tories offered a surface level of decency.

2. One of the features of the Lib-Dems vote in the last 30-40 years is that many of the seats they are strong in down South are natural Tory seats where they are being used in Nimby stylee tactical voting to warn the Tories which IMO (and I've absolutely no evidence to back this up) results in these MPs being skewed in number towards the right of their party and having to avoid saying anything that might be considered left-wing.

[StellarHibee]

38 minutes ago, btb said:

1. I disagree, in the aftermath of the 2010 GE the PLP still contained plenty of senior members tainted with the Iraq War plus any anti-Tory coalition would've had to include the various Celtic parties, at least informally - Cameron's Tories offered a surface level of decency.

2. One of the features of the Lib-Dems vote in the last 30-40 years is that many of the seats they are strong in down South are natural Tory seats where they are being used in Nimby stylee tactical voting to warn the Tories which IMO (and I've absolutely no evidence to back this up) results in these MPs being skewed in number towards the right of their party and having to avoid saying anything that might be considered left-wing.

1. The tories backed the PLP all the way in the Iraq Wars as did the Lib Dems.

2. I would argue that it has nothing to do with warning the tories of anything, but rather positioning themselves in the hope of future hung parliaments where either Labour or the tories require them to hold the balance of power. I truly believe the Lib Dems will back any policies regardless of how harmful they are as long as it gets them a foot in the door.

[btb]

10 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

1. The tories backed the PLP all the way in the Iraq Wars as did the Lib Dems.

2. I would argue that it has nothing to do with warning the tories of anything, but rather positioning themselves in the hope of future hung parliaments where either Labour or the tories require them to hold the balance of power. I truly believe the Lib Dems will back any policies regardless of how harmful they are as long as it gets them a foot in the door.

1. Granted but it was Labour who were in power at the time of the Second Iraq War and they who came out of it with a tarnished reputation.

2. The Lib-Dems are a sorta Frankenstein party with in a schizophrenic manifesto of policies half of which can be ignored depending on which of the major parties they are trying to ally with. As an aside are the Lib-Dems any worse than Starmer's iteration of the Labour party on rowing away from left-wing policies to win power?

****************

Having said that I still feel that Cameron's government had a veneer of centre facing policies especially on Social Issues which attracted the Lib-Dems and gave them enough reason to enter a coalition in 2010 even with it's brutal austerity policies which probably weren't unattractive to the right-wing side of Lib-Dems. Sticking with the Tories till 2015 shows their love of Ministerial cars overshadowed any commitment to social equality.

[Fullerene]

All parties are a coalition of sorts.  The Labour Party includes MPs who love Jeremy Corbyn and those who despise him.   The Lib Dems has had members who lean left and those who lean right - for example Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg.  Similarly the Tory Party has MPs who believe in a small state, light touch government but are not interested in the culture wars or hostility to immigrants and so on, while it also has MPs who could easily defect to UKIP.

I think FPTP distorts things totally.  The threat from UKIP means the Tories have to move further right.  When we were in Europe, the Tories did not belong to the Centre-Right Group but went for a more xenophobic lot.  That was to appease the Tory/UKIP vote.  

[btb]

3 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

All parties are a coalition of sorts.  The Labour Party includes MPs who love Jeremy Corbyn and those who despise him.   The Lib Dems has had members who lean left and those who lean right - for example Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg.  Similarly the Tory Party has MPs who believe in a small state, light touch government but are not interested in the culture wars or hostility to immigrants and so on, while it also has MPs who could easily defect to UKIP.

I think FPTP distorts things totally.  The threat from UKIP means the Tories have to move further right.  When we were in Europe, the Tories did not belong to the Centre-Right Group but went for a more xenophobic lot.  That was to appease the Tory/UKIP vote.  

I heard Charles Kennedy leaned all ways as the evening progressed.

[strichener]

On 10/06/2023 at 08:14, DeeTillEhDeh said:

There always has been but with the rise of UKIP it's pretty obvious that the Tories have moved to the right.

The whole political positioning has moved to the right.  All parties.

[Zern]

5 hours ago, btb said:

As an aside are the Lib-Dems any worse than Starmer's iteration of the Labour party on rowing away from left-wing policies to win power?

Lib Dem pledges and Tory targets. They've become the thing they once hated.

The "Green investment pledge" has now been reduced. It was supposed to be a 28bn a year Green infrastructure and investment programme. Rachel Reeves said it would last for a decade.

Not any more. Something something to begin in the latter part of the 1st term with a total of 28bn in expenditure over its existence. 

It is no way as ambitious as the IRA that inspired it.

"securinomics" as Rachel would say.

[doulikefish]

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1668693777848868876?t=oBytVX_5dz4m5jXqE6sqpQ&s=19

[StellarHibee]

Just now, doulikefish said:

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1668693777848868876?t=oBytVX_5dz4m5jXqE6sqpQ&s=19

You couldn't make it up. 
 

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

What a county. 

[welshbairn]

13 hours ago, doulikefish said:

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1668693777848868876?t=oBytVX_5dz4m5jXqE6sqpQ&s=19

Starmer will do anything to avoid giving "soft on crime" ammo to the Tories after accusing Sunak of keeping paedo rapists out of jail.

[StellarHibee]

32 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Starmer will do anything to avoid giving "soft on crime" ammo to the Tories after accusing Sunak of keeping paedo rapists out of jail.

Or there's just a unilateral agenda at Westminster to turn the UK into the ultimate police state.

[Soapy FFC]

I'm unclear, do these new powers apply to Scotland, or just England Wales. I've glanced through the text of the SI used but can't really get my headt round it.

 

[Highlandmagar]

 

Labour almost as repugnant as the Tories.

[Zern]

21 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

I'm unclear, do these new powers apply to Scotland, or just England Wales. I've glanced through the text of the SI used but can't really get my headt round it.

 

UK legislation. Public Order Act. Govt uses a statutory amendment to change the definition of the main legislation by the back door. Green/LibDem/ind table a Fatal Motion to prevent this.

Labour abstain.

Tories win.