FlyTheNest

SpinningHugo wrote:I really don't get the likes of S Kinnock

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... migration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No wing of Labour seems to want to represent me.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:I really don't get the likes of S Kinnock

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... migration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No wing of Labour seems to want to represent me.

Morning.

I find this a very revealing comment. And one that could be written by folk from all over the political spectrum.

Should a political party seek to be a coalition of fragmented "wings" representing different demographics (if you like)?

Or, should it seek to articulate a set of high level values, that can then be interpreted in different contexts in different ways?

My approach would be the latter, but that's just my view.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:I really don't get the likes of S Kinnock

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... migration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No wing of Labour seems to want to represent me[/ib].

Morning.

I find this a very revealing comment. And one that could be written by folk from all over the political spectrum.

Should a political party seek to be a coalition of fragmented "wings" representing different demographics (if you like)?

Or, should it seek to articulate a set of high level values, that can then be interpreted in different contexts in different ways?

My approach would be the latter, but that's just my view.

I loathe all talk of values. It is just motherhood and apple pie that everyone rational has to sign up to. Give me some specifics (eg do you want to end freedom of movement) and I'll be able to tell if we are on the same side.

The likes of Umunna etc aren't Blairites, at least not as I understand that term. Their proposals are not evidence based.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all. Feels like the first day of autumn here today - long sleeve shirt on and as I;m into the library to start work on my thesis corrections, I won't be around much later.

A party has to have values otherwise how do people know what you stand for - so you have to articulate them clearly. Otherwise you end up where the LibDems are now with a majority of people polled not knowing what they're for.

Angela Rayner is turning out - albeit by accident rather than by design - to be a bit of a star.

The Tories are letting the country down on apprenticeships funding

http://feweek.co.uk/2016/09/22/the-tori ... s-funding/

And with her background she is the ideal person to lead the Labour stance on grammar schools.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is much better from Labour, in particular McDonnell and Thornberry.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -mcdonnell" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With May on the back foot from the pig share's comments on her Brexit stance, show how Labour will help protect the vulnerable from the (albeit idiotic IMO) referendum result.

yahyah wrote:Something to cheer us up Paul.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed ... my-8915068" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah wrote:Carwyn Jones is no lightweight as Welsh Labour leader.
He's won out against Corbyn for a vote for Wales and Scotland to be represented on the NEC.

yahyah wrote:Something to cheer us up Paul.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed ... my-8915068" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Of course we've got to speak to Remainers... but we, the Labour Party , have got to speak to the people who voted to Leave as much if not more because they feel their voice has not been heard in politics."

Willow904 wrote:

yahyah wrote:Something to cheer us up Paul.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed ... my-8915068" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doesn't cheer me up. Just makes me more depressed:

"Of course we've got to speak to Remainers... but we, the Labour Party , have got to speak to the people who voted to Leave as much if not more because they feel their voice has not been heard in politics."

The majority of people who voted to leave were Tory or Ukip voters and many of those who weren't are likely to want similar things - hard Brexit and an end to immigration. Ed's making the same mistake as Corbyn. There may be some truth to the idea that people let down by neoliberal economics voted "out" because our national political choices have left some communities behind, but identifying this and resolving to change our neoliberal economics for the better, although a good policy, is not the same as listening to people who voted out. They have identified immigration as the cause of their problems and want immigration fixed as a result. And you can't give them what they want and keep pro-EU, pro single market voters at the same time. You have to choose one side or the other, hard Brexit or soft, and make your case for it. Although I didn't agree with Owen Smith on everything, I think he was right to be honest and upfront about his desire to remain in the single market. I really don't think you can fudge this issue and hope you can hold on to both leave and remain voters, both hard and soft Brexit voters.

Labour government would ban fracking in UK

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -this-year" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is that when Ed M says something like that, I can actually hope it means something more than witless pandering a la Chuka?

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:I really don't get the likes of S Kinnock

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... migration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No wing of Labour seems to want to represent me.

Morning.

I find this a very revealing comment. And one that could be written by folk from all over the political spectrum.

Should a political party seek to be a coalition of fragmented "wings" representing different demographics (if you like)?

Or, should it seek to articulate a set of high level values, that can then be interpreted in different contexts in different ways?

My approach would be the latter, but that's just my view.

I loathe all talk of values. It is just motherhood and apple pie that everyone rational has to sign up to. Give me some specifics (eg do you want to end freedom of movement) and I'll be able to tell if we are on the same side.

The likes of Umunna etc aren't Blairites, at least not as I understand that term. Their proposals are not evidence based.

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is that when Ed M says something like that, I can actually hope it means something more than witless pandering a la Chuka?

Ed's approach is similar to Corbyn's and both are better than Reeves and Umunna's blunt call for restrictions on immigration, but both ignore the basic fact that you are either in the single market or you are out. You either accept freedom of movement or you accept being poorer as a country. "Listening to leave voters" is akin to listening to the Daily Mail and Express for the most part. Genuine Lexit supporters, like Corbyn, are likely to be a very small minority. I'm not especially keen on our economic future being decided by people who agree with everything they read in the right wing press, even if they are genuine working class voices, their words come straight from the likes of Murdoch. If this is "democracy", its shit and we'll all be the worse off for it.

SpinningHugo wrote:I loathe all talk of values.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is that when Ed M says something like that, I can actually hope it means something more than witless pandering a la Chuka?

Ed's approach is similar to Corbyn's and both are better than Reeves and Umunna's blunt call for restrictions on immigration, but both ignore the basic fact that you are either in the single market or you are out. You either accept freedom of movement or you accept being poorer as a country. "Listening to leave voters" is akin to listening to the Daily Mail and Express for the most part. Genuine Lexit supporters, like Corbyn, are likely to be a very small minority. I'm not especially keen on our economic future being decided by people who agree with everything they read in the right wing press, even if they are genuine working class voices, their words come straight from the likes of Murdoch. If this is "democracy", its shit and we'll all be the worse off for it.

But Willow freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

citizenJA wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Ed's approach is similar to Corbyn's and both are better than Reeves and Umunna's blunt call for restrictions on immigration, but both ignore the basic fact that you are either in the single market or you are out. You either accept freedom of movement or you accept being poorer as a country. "Listening to leave voters" is akin to listening to the Daily Mail and Express for the most part. Genuine Lexit supporters, like Corbyn, are likely to be a very small minority. I'm not especially keen on our economic future being decided by people who agree with everything they read in the right wing press, even if they are genuine working class voices, their words come straight from the likes of Murdoch. If this is "democracy", its shit and we'll all be the worse off for it.

But Willow freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

As much as I agree with the freedom of movement distinctions you've made, it'll be rendered moot if government take the UK out of the EU.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is that when Ed M says something like that, I can actually hope it means something more than witless pandering a la Chuka?

Ed's approach is similar to Corbyn's and both are better than Reeves and Umunna's blunt call for restrictions on immigration, but both ignore the basic fact that you are either in the single market or you are out. You either accept freedom of movement or you accept being poorer as a country. "Listening to leave voters" is akin to listening to the Daily Mail and Express for the most part. Genuine Lexit supporters, like Corbyn, are likely to be a very small minority. I'm not especially keen on our economic future being decided by people who agree with everything they read in the right wing press, even if they are genuine working class voices, their words come straight from the likes of Murdoch. If this is "democracy", its shit and we'll all be the worse off for it.

But Willow freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Ed's approach is similar to Corbyn's and both are better than Reeves and Umunna's blunt call for restrictions on immigration, but both ignore the basic fact that you are either in the single market or you are out. You either accept freedom of movement or you accept being poorer as a country. "Listening to leave voters" is akin to listening to the Daily Mail and Express for the most part. Genuine Lexit supporters, like Corbyn, are likely to be a very small minority. I'm not especially keen on our economic future being decided by people who agree with everything they read in the right wing press, even if they are genuine working class voices, their words come straight from the likes of Murdoch. If this is "democracy", its shit and we'll all be the worse off for it.

But Willow freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

And how do you achieve that? Inside the EU we had influence. Now we have nothing. Perhaps as a member of the single market we could try to build a consensus for change, but much less likely than when we were in the EU. The alternative is hard Brexit. That means being poorer as a country in the short to medium term. That means opportunities for future Tory governments to strip away workers rights, regulations and open us up to the extremes of free market economics. I can't choose between "might be's", all I can do is look at the alternatives right in front of me. Membership of the single market is the least worst option as far as I'm concerned and I can't support a party that will risk taking us fully out.

AngryAsWell wrote:David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen 3h3 hours ago
For Leavers who tell Remainers to "over it" I have set out 19 hurdles and respectfully invite them to get over those

The many hurdles of Brexit – a short summary post

http://jackofkent.com/2016/09/the-many- ... mary-post/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JonnyT1234 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen 3h3 hours ago
For Leavers who tell Remainers to "over it" I have set out 19 hurdles and respectfully invite them to get over those

The many hurdles of Brexit – a short summary post

http://jackofkent.com/2016/09/the-many- ... mary-post/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hurdle 20: the enormous cost of exiting the EU in terms of time, resource and money. It's going to paralyse the apparatus of the state - legal and civil - for years.

HindleA wrote:Values

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Ed's approach is similar to Corbyn's and both are better than Reeves and Umunna's blunt call for restrictions on immigration, but both ignore the basic fact that you are either in the single market or you are out. You either accept freedom of movement or you accept being poorer as a country. "Listening to leave voters" is akin to listening to the Daily Mail and Express for the most part. Genuine Lexit supporters, like Corbyn, are likely to be a very small minority. I'm not especially keen on our economic future being decided by people who agree with everything they read in the right wing press, even if they are genuine working class voices, their words come straight from the likes of Murdoch. If this is "democracy", its shit and we'll all be the worse off for it.

But Willow freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

And how do you achieve that? Inside the EU we had influence. Now we have nothing. Perhaps as a member of the single market we could try to build a consensus for change, but much less likely than when we were in the EU. The alternative is hard Brexit. That means being poorer as a country in the short to medium term. That means opportunities for future Tory governments to strip away workers rights, regulations and open us up to the extremes of free market economics. I can't choose between "might be's", all I can do is look at the alternatives right in front of me. Membership of the single market is the least worst option as far as I'm concerned and I can't support a party that will risk taking us fully out.

StephenDolan wrote:Thornberry's speech reads well, anyone view it?

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1509545 ... ortfall-in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:Thornberry's speech reads well, anyone view it?

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1509545 ... ortfall-in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, bar one important thing* I liked it and hope Labour continue making clear Tory government's disastrous handling of the EU referendum is wholly Tory failure, an ongoing catastrophe without coherent plan or policy. Outlandish responses from Tory leadership, former Tory PM bunking off, currently May and her ministers acting behind closed doors, communicating little and seemingly without clear, rational plans for the UK now leaving people and country in an untenable position. Thornberry communicated this and more far better than I.

*The assumptions throughout Thornberry's speech that the UK is undoubtedly leaving the EU, Brexit is happening for sure are alarming to me and any assistance I can have from my friends here to allay my fears are most welcome. The UK leaving the EU, Brexiting, is a done deal? Is that correct?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:...freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

citizenJA wrote: As much as I agree with the freedom of movement distinctions you've made, it'll be rendered moot if government take the UK out of the EU.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I know. I just don't think agonising over the result of the referendum is likely to be fertile for Labour or anyone really. Let's leave the Tories to deal with the fall-out. I think Labour, Greens, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid can and should be making positive cases for how we can best engage with Europe in the future, regardless of whether the Tories actually succeed in Brexiting.

Time will change everything. There may end up being a second referendum without Labour having to call for it. We may leave then ask to go straight back in. Brexit may simply be deemed too hard and kicked into the long grass. For me, the important is to discuss what the EU should be and worry about getting there once we can control it. And if the broad left can do this, we may end up bringing parts of the EU with us, helping get the transformation of the EU that people are crying out for. Then it will make sense to call to scrap Brexit, or for a second referendum.

citizenJA wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:Thornberry's speech reads well, anyone view it?

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1509545 ... ortfall-in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, bar one important thing* I liked it and hope Labour continue making clear Tory government's disastrous handling of the EU referendum is wholly Tory failure, an ongoing catastrophe without coherent plan or policy. Outlandish responses from Tory leadership, former Tory PM bunking off, currently May and her ministers acting behind closed doors, communicating little and seemingly without clear, rational plans for the UK now leaving people and country in an untenable position. Thornberry communicated this and more far better than I.

*The assumptions throughout Thornberry's speech that the UK is undoubtedly leaving the EU, Brexit is happening for sure are alarming to me and any assistance I can have from my friends here to allay my fears are most welcome. The UK leaving the EU, Brexiting, is a done deal? Is that correct?

We have been given our instructions by the British people and we must act on them.

citizenJA wrote:*The assumptions throughout Thornberry's speech that the UK is undoubtedly leaving the EU, Brexit is happening for sure are alarming to me and any assistance I can have from my friends here to allay my fears are most welcome. The UK leaving the EU, Brexiting, is a done deal? Is that correct?

This post sets out my personal view of Brexit, and it also sets out what I believe to be my biases and preconceptions. ...
I did not expect ever to write any more than this on the topic: I assumed, like many people, that Remain would win and Cameron would get away with his political folly. Then Remain lost and Leave won, and a spectacular political-legal-policy mess was created. And, I am afraid, I found this mess fascinating. I still do.

JonnyT1234 wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:Thornberry's speech reads well, anyone view it?

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1509545 ... ortfall-in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, bar one important thing* I liked it and hope Labour continue making clear Tory government's disastrous handling of the EU referendum is wholly Tory failure, an ongoing catastrophe without coherent plan or policy. Outlandish responses from Tory leadership, former Tory PM bunking off, currently May and her ministers acting behind closed doors, communicating little and seemingly without clear, rational plans for the UK now leaving people and country in an untenable position. Thornberry communicated this and more far better than I.

*The assumptions throughout Thornberry's speech that the UK is undoubtedly leaving the EU, Brexit is happening for sure are alarming to me and any assistance I can have from my friends here to allay my fears are most welcome. The UK leaving the EU, Brexiting, is a done deal? Is that correct?

It's a done deal while the Tories remain in power, yes. May's position is too weak within her party for her to be able to over ride the dominance of her wing nut right on this issue. Even if Labour had the best leader in the world, ever, and were completely united, that paltry 12 majority means that May has to do her party's bidding. And that bidding is to get out.