Wednesday 22nd November 2017

[Willow904]

From AS blog

Anushka Asthana
Shelter have some interesting research that shows why Philip Hammond really need to think about policies on housing- and not just home owners but renters too.

In 2010, the Conservative party was ahead by a few points among people living in the private rented sector, but in 2015 Labour had a lead of just over 10 points with that group - and by 2017 it was well over 20 points. That rises to over 30 for the social rented sector. The Tory lead has even been squeezed to just a few points for those with mortgages.
The figures also shows that the Tories’ support dropped most dramatically in English marginals with the highest proportion of renting households.

It also shows that groups labelled as “young JAMs and liberal youth” consider housing to be one of the issues they care most about, with the vast majority thinking the situation is getting worse and worse.

I'm expecting a lot on housing, but nothing that's actually needed such as reversal of spare bedroom tax, end of right to buy, end of household benefit cap, reversal of council tax benefit cuts, increase in social housing, increase in council housing, private rent reforms such as moves towards longer term leases, more money for council housing departments to prevent homelessness, UC housing benefit to revert to direct to landlord and end of help to buy that simply went to pockets of house builders. Because, of course, our housing problem isn't a problem, it's Tory party policy and the younger generation primarily affected are sensibly voting accordingly and hopefully won't be hoodwinked by nice words about building more houses.

[citizenJA]

From AS blog

Anushka Asthana
Shelter have some interesting research that shows why Philip Hammond really need to think about policies on housing- and not just home owners but renters too.

In 2010, the Conservative party was ahead by a few points among people living in the private rented sector, but in 2015 Labour had a lead of just over 10 points with that group - and by 2017 it was well over 20 points. That rises to over 30 for the social rented sector. The Tory lead has even been squeezed to just a few points for those with mortgages.
The figures also shows that the Tories’ support dropped most dramatically in English marginals with the highest proportion of renting households.

It also shows that groups labelled as “young JAMs and liberal youth” consider housing to be one of the issues they care most about, with the vast majority thinking the situation is getting worse and worse.

Yeah, that could explain Tory government's yearning towards the re-establishment of villeinage

[HindleA]

"Philip Hammond will announce that £4.5m raised from the fines imposed on banks for Libor-rigging will go to charities helping veterans"

[AnatolyKasparov]

Why would they grow a pair when they know the opposition won't back them?

Labour needed to be a counterweight to Hard Brexit. Instead, it backed it.

There have been plenty of opportunities offered by "hard Brexit backing" Labour to improve things in this current round of HoC votes.

Not a single one has been taken up by the "principled" Tory "rebels".

You evidently believe this is all Corbyn and McDonnell's fault, others are entitled to draw from the evidence available a different conclusion.

[Willow904]

Introducing loans instead of payment of mortgage interest for homeowners who would otherwise qualify for housing benefit as mentioned and then deleted by a certain shy someone is another example of malicious Tory policy.

Paying mortgage interest is generally far cheaper than paying rent and as capital is not paid, the benefit is worth no more to the recipient than housing benefit is to someone in similar circumstances who just happens to rent, so it definitely belongs in the above list of policy choices that appear to deliberately exacerbate the housing crisis without significantly reducing the structural deficit.

I wonder how many other such policies are missing from my list?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Of course, this is the one day of the year when literally nobody cares about PMQs

[citizenJA]

Corbyn's questions outstanding
May responded with lies

[AnatolyKasparov]

Corbyn's questions outstanding
May responded with lies

The usual, then?

[SpinningHugo]

Why would they grow a pair when they know the opposition won't back them?

Labour needed to be a counterweight to Hard Brexit. Instead, it backed it.

There have been plenty of opportunities offered by "hard Brexit backing" Labour to improve things in this current round of HoC votes.

Not a single one has been taken up by the "principled" Tory "rebels".

You evidently believe this is all Corbyn and McDonnell's fault, others are entitled to draw from the evidence available a different conclusion.

Of course it isn't "all their fault". Who would claim such a preposterous thing?

Are they however free from blame that Labour is a party of Brexit, and Hard Brexit at that? No.

Maybe it wasn't possible to ameliorate this, either at the time of the original vote on the notification Act (where Labour used a three line whip to vote for triggering art 50 without conditions) or now (when it is too late to do much really). But Labour hasn't seriously tried, and so we'll never know. The vote on the Customs Union being emblematic.

Why, because the Campaign group have long opposed the EU. Corbyn and McDonnell's behaviour before, during and after the referendum have made that clear.

Plenty of others to blame of course (Davies, Johnson, IDS, Fox, Farage) and Corbyn and McDonnell are not the biggest baddies in this calamity. But, Labour is on the wrong side on the most important issue by far of our era.

The Budget today, for example, is a sideshow because we are all *already* around £600 per household worse off as a result of Brexit

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-cost-of-brexit ... =hootsuite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am glad to have voted for a party that actually opposed making the poor poorer.

[HindleA]

Usual totally irrelevant and ridiculous response from May from question regarding removal of SDA under UC from T.Perkins,no idea where he got that question from.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Usual totally irrelevant and ridiculous response from May from question regarding removal of SDA under UC from T.Perkins,no idea where he got that question from.

Hmmm, that's in your neck of the woods isn't it?

[SpinningHugo]

Hard hitting on the Hague convictions

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

[gilsey]

Whatever Philip Hammond announces today, Britain’s public sector faces hefty spending cuts over the next few years.

That’s due to austerity measures announced since 2010, as our colleague Alan Travis explains:

The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that existing plans mean that there will be a further £12bn cut in welfare spending by 2020/21, that the NHS will face its tightest funding period since the 1950s and that prisons will see a real-terms cut of 22%, followed by a tight settlement for the next two years.
(Politics Live, Guardian)

There are 2 things Hammond could do.
a) Nothing, to all intents and purposes, which is what he will do.
b) Rip all that stuff up, along with the scheduled tax reductions, and start again with a blank sheet of paper.

I can't remember any Chancellor being so constrained by the actiions of his predecessor, Osborne seemed to be obsessed with writing detailed budgets for 5+ years rather than one.
I can remember Chancellors committing to overall spending totals, but then only for a couple of years. Serious question, is there a historical parallel?
Usually we complain that a change of CoE means screeching u-turns on policy, even within the same party.

[SpinningHugo]

Oh God, the growth forecasts.

We are so stuffed.

[adam]

Why, because the Campaign group have long opposed the EU. Corbyn and McDonnell's behaviour before, during and after the referendum have made that clear.

I saw McDonnell during the campaign, my partner saw him and Corbyn during the campaign, doing what they were doing every night of the campaign in labour heartlands, in events organised by local labour parties - saying that the EU was no a perfect organisation by any means but that we were much much better in than out, that a leave vote would be at least dangerous and in reality damaging, and especially dangerous and damaging to more economically disadvantaged populations, that the kind of stuff the even more extreme tories are coming up with at the moment about Singapore and so on is exactly what would face on leaving, and that we had to work hard to campaign to vote to remain.

They did this night after night during the campaign. Labour votes appear to have turned out to vote Remain in roughly the same proportion as SNP, Green and Lib Dem voters. The conservatives really didn't. Cameron and Osborne lost the remain campaign.

My only experience of Labour fouling up the remain campaign was from local anti-Corbyn councillors sitting on campaign material and having to be forced to give it out to local activists to distribute it.

I think Labour's behaviour since the vote has been very poor indeed, and everything that has been coming out in recent months should have been addressed by the opposition before any votes for Article 50 happened - because even if nobody would listen in the country during the referendum campaign, and they wouldn't, and even though every other attempt to hold the government to account at that time was greeted with cries of 'treason', it was still the right thing to do, and they didn't.

Reading you, this whole charade has nothing at all to do with the government, nothing. Nothing to do with UKIP, nothing to do with Cameron and Osborne, nothing to do with Fox, Gove and Johnson, the only people worth talking about are Labour's leadership.

[adam]

Increased duties on diesel cars but not on diesel vans or lorries - a little soundbite on not affecting white van man. Ridiculous.

[SpinningHugo]

Why, because the Campaign group have long opposed the EU. Corbyn and McDonnell's behaviour before, during and after the referendum have made that clear.

I saw McDonnell during the campaign, my partner saw him and Corbyn during the campaign, doing what they were doing every night of the campaign in labour heartlands, in events organised by local labour parties - saying that the EU was no a perfect organisation by any means but that we were much much better in than out, that a leave vote would be at least dangerous and in reality damaging, and especially dangerous and damaging to more economically disadvantaged populations, that the kind of stuff the even more extreme tories are coming up with at the moment about Singapore and so on is exactly what would face on leaving, and that we had to work hard to campaign to vote to remain.

They did this night after night during the campaign. Labour votes appear to have turned out to vote Remain in roughly the same proportion as SNP, Green and Lib Dem voters. The conservatives really didn't. Cameron and Osborne lost the remain campaign.

My only experience of Labour fouling up the remain campaign was from local anti-Corbyn councillors sitting on campaign material and having to be forced to give it out to local activists to distribute it.

I think Labour's behaviour since the vote has been very poor indeed, and everything that has been coming out in recent months should have been addressed by the opposition before any votes for Article 50 happened - because even if nobody would listen in the country during the referendum campaign, and they wouldn't, and even though every other attempt to hold the government to account at that time was greeted with cries of 'treason', it was still the right thing to do, and they didn't.

Reading you, this whole charade has nothing at all to do with the government, nothing. Nothing to do with UKIP, nothing to do with Cameron and Osborne, nothing to do with Fox, Gove and Johnson, the only people worth talking about are Labour's leadership.

I *expect* Ukip and the Tory right to be in favour of Brexit. That has long been the case.

I didn't expect the party I once voted for to vote to leave the EU without any conditions attached. Which is what Labour, under a three line whip, did in March.

You're on the wrong side. You're with the Tories. I'm not.

[AnatolyKasparov]

"How NOT to win friends and influence people - the manual"; author - SH

[AngryAsWell]

Christian Odendahl‏
@COdendahl
Follow Follow @COdendahl
More Christian Odendahl Retweeted Andrew Neil
One of your problems, Andrew, is that you cannot read German. Poll was taken yesterday. --> http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutsch ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … Always glad to help out.

Andrew Neil still digging deeper holes for himself over Germany

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

I am in close proximity to him and Skinner as it it happens but in enemy territory.Have thought of physically moving border signs but that doesn't count apparently.Parents are "in"

[SpinningHugo]

"How NOT to win friends and influence people - the manual"; author - SH

If you just want everyone to nod along in agreement, I know another place.

[AnatolyKasparov]

That isn't what I want, as the quip actually indicates I find genuine debate and discussion a good thing.

[SpinningHugo]

Oh God. The GDP oper capita forecasts for the next 5 years come in at 1% per annum. Absolutely terrible. The UK is broken, and it was Brexit that bust it.

All the rest is a complete sideshow, deck chairs being shuffled about.

There are going to be no goodies to distribute, politics will remain awful, and a remotely competent opposition cannot help but win next time.

Grim, grim, grim.

[AngryAsWell]

A thread for SH -

Sam ❄Butler‏
@SamuelTBButler
Follow Follow @SamuelTBButler
More
Yesterday's whip of Labour MPs was CONTRARY TO PARTY POLICY AND TO THE EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE MEMBERSHIP. Please excuse me for shouting. 1/

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

The extra £350m per week for the NHS appears to have shrunk to £350m per winter.

[AngryAsWell]

UK insists EU to have custody of Farage at weekends in Brexit divorce settlement

https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/07/14 ... orce-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[55DegreesNorth]

Oh God, the growth forecasts.

We are so stuffed.

Said no true Green believer.

[Willow904]

Willow

I did answer it on my blog months ago.

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2017 ... awal-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It makes no sense to have different human rights regimes applicable to different parts of UK law post Brexit based on historical source.

I missed this reply earlier. Presumably, a commitment in the withdrawal bill to ensure the HRA is updated to the Charter minimums would address the "two regimes" objection whilst ensuring no erosion of rights?
I still feel any erosion of rights should be opposed if possible. Two regimes being a bit complicated and inconvenient doesn't entirely justify a reduction in rights IMO.

[55DegreesNorth]

Plenty of others to blame of course (Davies, Johnson, IDS, Fox, Farage) and Corbyn and McDonnell are not the biggest baddies in this calamity. But, Labour is on the wrong side on the most important issue by far of our era.

Assuming, of course, that you forget about climate change (which no true Green believer would ever do)

[SpinningHugo]

Cutting stamp duty.

Just dumb.

Corbyn just shouting.

[SpinningHugo]

Plenty of others to blame of course (Davies, Johnson, IDS, Fox, Farage) and Corbyn and McDonnell are not the biggest baddies in this calamity. But, Labour is on the wrong side on the most important issue by far of our era.

Assuming, of course, that you forget about climate change (which no true Green believer would ever do)

As it happens, I think by far and away the best and easiest thing the UK could do to tackle climate change is remain in the EU, thereby co-ordinating both regulation within the EU and maximising our influence on other coutries.

[HindleA]

This is where the blocking or not thing is difficult because it is part 234 of SH's piss off if you don't like it/deliberate inflammation of readers/playing to rustytwitterface and his sidekick Ivordonnawhoopsie,so this may be into thin air,but quit this crap please SH.Anyway on record.

[SpinningHugo]

Willow

I did answer it on my blog months ago.

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2017 ... awal-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It makes no sense to have different human rights regimes applicable to different parts of UK law post Brexit based on historical source.

I missed this reply earlier. Presumably, a commitment in the withdrawal bill to ensure the HRA is updated to the Charter minimums would address the "two regimes" objection whilst ensuring no erosion of rights?
I still feel any erosion of rights should be opposed if possible. Two regimes being a bit complicated and inconvenient doesn't entirely justify a reduction in rights IMO.

I just don't accept the premise that "more rights are better". The Charter is a dog's dinner IMO, and Labour were right to try and opt out of it.

[AngryAsWell]

Gaby Hinsliff‏
@gabyhinsliff
14m14 minutes ago
More
Just a reminder that when @Ed_Miliband suggested getting similarly tough on land banking, Tories accused him of Zimbabwe-esque land grabs

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -documents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Autumn Budget 2017: documents

[howsillyofme1]

my view is that anyone who opposes Brexit should be glad Labour voted for A50 as if they hadn't then the remote chance of us getting out of this situation would have been lost as we would be seeing a Tory majority Government (perhaps with a much expanded majority as well) with hard Brexit on their minds

So we would have people happy that Labour had voted against A50 but still lost the vote, probably lost a whole lot of support and then been probably battered in a GE.

The idea that A50 was ever in Labour's hands was preposterous....it would have been a gesture and would have left us in an even worse position than we are in now - how did the Lib Dems do in the election - if Labour were so wrong why did the majority of Remainers vote Labour rather than the other option?

We have been over this time and again and it is a pain to repeat myself but one poster still keeps repeating the same stuff and I don't think we should let it go unchallenged

Labour did not vote to leave the EU, they voted to uphold the result of the referendum - there is a distinct difference between the two. I think the more valid criticism is asking why they voted for such an appallingly drafted referendum bill in the first place.

[HindleA]

And OBR

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/efo/ ... mber-2017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

Worth recalling that Ed M held out against an EU referendum, Harman decided to change that almost instantly in the first of several brilliant decisions of her second stint as interim leader.

[Willow904]

Willow

I did answer it on my blog months ago.

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2017 ... awal-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It makes no sense to have different human rights regimes applicable to different parts of UK law post Brexit based on historical source.

I missed this reply earlier. Presumably, a commitment in the withdrawal bill to ensure the HRA is updated to the Charter minimums would address the "two regimes" objection whilst ensuring no erosion of rights?
I still feel any erosion of rights should be opposed if possible. Two regimes being a bit complicated and inconvenient doesn't entirely justify a reduction in rights IMO.

I just don't accept the premise that "more rights are better". The Charter is a dog's dinner IMO, and Labour were right to try and opt out of it.

My original quote suggests some rights will be lost. I'm not supportive of government being given permission to remove rights we currently have without a proper debate about what those rights are and what the consequences of their removal may be. I think it right the opposition should be wary of allowing any human rights to be summarily removed, however much a dog's dinner they may be. It's not like parliament can't revisit the Charter and tidy it up at a later date. If it's such a trivial thing, as you suggest, why was Dominic Grieve seeking amendment in the first place? I really don't see why any sensible person would disagree with what he says:

“What we are asking for is for the government to consider maintaining the status quo until such time as parliament decides what it wants to do with such rights.”

[adam]

my view is that anyone who opposes Brexit should be glad Labour voted for A50 as if they hadn't then the remote chance of us getting out of this situation would have been lost as we would be seeing a Tory majority Government (perhaps with a much expanded majority as well) with hard Brexit on their minds

So we would have people happy that Labour had voted against A50 but still lost the vote, probably lost a whole lot of support and then been probably battered in a GE.

Perhaps, probably, possibly, maybe?

In an election which had a result that surprised so many people so much, I don't know how much milage there is in hypothesising an alternate history. What would be the case is that the government would have been confronted with the questions that have finally been surfacing much later.

* How can you possibly square the circle of a policy of leaving the single market and customs union but keeping an open border with the Republic of Ireland?
* How can you possible expect to maintain the benefits of membership of international organisations and treaties but refusing to countenance staying within their regulatory frameworks?
* How can you possible expect to develop a free frictionless trade deal in the future when the reason there is free frictionless trade between members of the EU is that they are members of the EU?
* What are you going to agree to as a first stage process that must be resolved - and how will you ever move beyond the first stage when the impossible Ireland question is there

Would labour have been called treasonous for even asking these things? Probably - almost certainly by some. But they are sensible, clear and necessary questions that show up the governments complete lack of preparation and they should have been asked. They are not necessarily simple but one of the roles of political parties and of political leadership is teaching the public what these things mean. And perhaps, probably, possibly, maybe, a public who had a chance to see the detail would have supported the labour party against a floundering government who didn't have any answers if they had gone to the country.

The idea that A50 was ever in Labour's hands was preposterous....it would have been a gesture and would have left us in an even worse position than we are in now - how did the Lib Dems do in the election - if Labour were so wrong why did the majority of Remainers vote Labour rather than the other option?

I completely agree that the outcome was never in Labour's hands but they should have challenged in detail on the basis I've said above. Who knows what would have happened next. The assumption that it would have turned core labour areas and voters against them is no more valid, I would suggest, than the assumption that Labour would be destroyed in a general election in 2017.

Labour did not vote to leave the EU, they voted to uphold the result of the referendum - there is a distinct difference between the two.

There's not that much difference.

I think the more valid criticism is asking why they voted for such an appallingly drafted referendum bill in the first place.

I agree, but I don't really get the difference between saying that and agreeing with me about the Article 50 vote.

[frog222]

my view is that anyone who opposes Brexit should be glad Labour voted for A50 as if they hadn't then the remote chance of us getting out of this situation would have been lost as we would be seeing a Tory majority Government (perhaps with a much expanded majority as well) with hard Brexit on their minds

So we would have people happy that Labour had voted against A50 but still lost the vote, probably lost a whole lot of support and then been probably battered in a GE.

The idea that A50 was ever in Labour's hands was preposterous....it would have been a gesture and would have left us in an even worse position than we are in now - how did the Lib Dems do in the election - if Labour were so wrong why did the majority of Remainers vote Labour rather than the other option?

We have been over this time and again and it is a pain to repeat myself but one poster still keeps repeating the same stuff and I don't think we should let it go unchallenged

Labour did not vote to leave the EU, they voted to uphold the result of the referendum - there is a distinct difference between the two. I think the more valid criticism is asking why they voted for such an appallingly drafted referendum bill in the first place.

"" I think the more valid criticism is asking why they voted for such an appallingly drafted referendum bill in the first place.""


Not having a vote anywhere I didn't folllow this as closely as you people, but am still mystified that there were no safeguards in place for eventualities such as a 50% plus one vote situation. Surely most legislatures need 60% majorities for constitutional changes ?

[howsillyofme1]

On the debate on the first page I tried to give my view yesterday which people decided not to engage with so don't know what they thought

The gist of it is that the Labour Party suddenly deciding to unequivocally support a poorly drafted amendment on the CU now wihtout making a coherent argument to why they have changed from being focused on the mechanism rather than the outcome is not sustainable from my view

Saying we need the CU in order to protect jobs and to facilitate cross-border trade may be right technically but is it going to be Something that will appeal to the UK population, especially changing the minds of people? I suggest it is too close to the 'Project Fear' argument that is now discredited (although was probably right but the timing and urgency was oversold) to make any headway

NI though is a concrete area that I cannot see being solved from outside the CU and could provide the reason for Labour favouring being in the CU for NI at least (and GB would possibly follow soon after)

You can disagree with my view but it does not mean I am wrong and you are right, just a different way of looking at it. Hugo assumes he is right and that is what annoys

I work in Change Management - I can tell you from my experience the approaches being suggested for 'what Labour should do' ignore the fact that the have to provide a reason for people to change their minds without damaging their own credibility.

One part of it would be the 'burning bridge' which is what would drive the people to be open to change by themselves - and that has not yet happened despite the predictions, and will likely not happen quickly enough. The other is to provide a concrete reason for people to change and drive that message - this is the harder way to do it. Labour's way may not be perfect but it is much more likely to succeed that that proposed by Hugo

[adam]

They're planning on building an awful lot of houses on an awful lot of green and pleasant conservative constituencies.

[AnatolyKasparov]

They're planning on building an awful lot of houses on an awful lot of green and pleasant conservative constituencies.

Except that they aren't really, given how their various housing "pledges" going back years now have actually been followed up (or not)

[PorFavor]

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s verdict is out!

The independent watchdog confirms that it has cut its productivity and growth forecasts:

We have revised down our productivity and GDP forecasts and, despite lower borrowing this year, revised up our forecast for the budget deficit. The Chancellor has raised the deficit further with higher public spending and a net tax giveaway.

[This chart confirms that the] deficit will be almost twice as big as previously forecast in 2021-22.

(Sorry - no chart but it's over at Politics Live, Guardian - which is where the quote comes from)

So it's been all pain for no gain.


Edited - brackets

[howsillyofme1]

my view is that anyone who opposes Brexit should be glad Labour voted for A50 as if they hadn't then the remote chance of us getting out of this situation would have been lost as we would be seeing a Tory majority Government (perhaps with a much expanded majority as well) with hard Brexit on their minds

So we would have people happy that Labour had voted against A50 but still lost the vote, probably lost a whole lot of support and then been probably battered in a GE.

Perhaps, probably, possibly, maybe?

In an election which had a result that surprised so many people so much, I don't know how much milage there is in hypothesising an alternate history. What would be the case is that the government would have been confronted with the questions that have finally been surfacing much later.

* How can you possibly square the circle of a policy of leaving the single market and customs union but keeping an open border with the Republic of Ireland?
* How can you possible expect to maintain the benefits of membership of international organisations and treaties but refusing to countenance staying within their regulatory frameworks?
* How can you possible expect to develop a free frictionless trade deal in the future when the reason there is free frictionless trade between members of the EU is that they are members of the EU?
* What are you going to agree to as a first stage process that must be resolved - and how will you ever move beyond the first stage when the impossible Ireland question is there

Would labour have been called treasonous for even asking these things? Probably - almost certainly by some. But they are sensible, clear and necessary questions that show up the governments complete lack of preparation and they should have been asked. They are not necessarily simple but one of the roles of political parties and of political leadership is teaching the public what these things mean. And perhaps, probably, possibly, maybe, a public who had a chance to see the detail would have supported the labour party against a floundering government who didn't have any answers if they had gone to the country.

The idea that A50 was ever in Labour's hands was preposterous....it would have been a gesture and would have left us in an even worse position than we are in now - how did the Lib Dems do in the election - if Labour were so wrong why did the majority of Remainers vote Labour rather than the other option?

I completely agree that the outcome was never in Labour's hands but they should have challenged in detail on the basis I've said above. Who knows what would have happened next. The assumption that it would have turned core labour areas and voters against them is no more valid, I would suggest, than the assumption that Labour would be destroyed in a general election in 2017.

Labour did not vote to leave the EU, they voted to uphold the result of the referendum - there is a distinct difference between the two.

There's not that much difference.

I think the more valid criticism is asking why they voted for such an appallingly drafted referendum bill in the first place.

I agree, but I don't really get the difference between saying that and agreeing with me about the Article 50 vote.

I am not sure who was suggesting an alternate history adam but I stick by my view that the Labour Party would have been pulled apart by voting against A50 - I have seen nothing convincing that makes me change my mind on that - yes all those questions could have been asked and pushed but I stick by my view that there would have been no desire of the UK people to respond to them in the way you suggest

If my assumption is right then Labour voting against A50 was better for those of us who want to get out of the mess than if they had voted the other way

Do we have any polling that suggest the Labour voters wanted them to vote against A50?

The point about the motives for the vote are significant. Yes, the outcome is the same but the resoning behind it is important. Are you suggesting the motive behind the vote was to Leave the EU as Hugo keeps saying?

Looking back at all the debate was that Labour voted to uphold the result of the refrendum - I cannot find the numbers but I seem to remember that there was a significant majority of people (inyluding remainers) that supported the invocation based on that.

I respect your view and I understand why you think what you do - but I do not agree with you

I make no claim to being definitely right, which you do not do either. Hugo does though and that is what annoys

[adam]

On the debate on the first page I tried to give my view yesterday which people decided not to engage with so don't know what they thought

The gist of it is that the Labour Party suddenly deciding to unequivocally support a poorly drafted amendment on the CU now wihtout making a coherent argument to why they have changed from being focused on the mechanism rather than the outcome is not sustainable from my view

Saying we need the CU in order to protect jobs and to facilitate cross-border trade may be right technically but is it going to be Something that will appeal to the UK population, especially changing the minds of people? I suggest it is too close to the 'Project Fear' argument that is now discredited (although was probably right but the timing and urgency was oversold) to make any headway

NI though is a concrete area that I cannot see being solved from outside the CU and could provide the reason for Labour favouring being in the CU for NI at least (and GB would possibly follow soon after)

You can disagree with my view but it does not mean I am wrong and you are right, just a different way of looking at it. Hugo assumes he is right and that is what annoys

I work in Change Management - I can tell you from my experience the approaches being suggested for 'what Labour should do' ignore the fact that the have to provide a reason for people to change their minds without damaging their own credibility.

One part of it would be the 'burning bridge' which is what would drive the people to be open to change by themselves - and that has not yet happened despite the predictions, and will likely not happen quickly enough. The other is to provide a concrete reason for people to change and drive that message - this is the harder way to do it. Labour's way may not be perfect but it is much more likely to succeed that that proposed by Hugo

I agree completely that NI is one, and is the most immediate, issue that makes the government's 'plans' (for which read 'desires') completely unworkable.

I think Labour missed a very significant and very real opportunity at the beginning of this year to dig deep into what this process would actually mean. Instead they agreed to start the clock running on a timed process that is likely to come to an end at a particular time come what may, deal or not. They had the 'gift' in January of being in opposition, and therefore of not having the power to actually effect change but just to make a serious fuss, and facing nearly three more years until an election (at that time), and they had the opportunity of raising a range of very real very practical considerations, all of which have come to the fore to some degree or another as they actually become live issues in talks. We should, of course, have gone through all of this before the referendum, and I'm not suggesting here that we shouldn't, but at the same time I don't think anybody who didn't already want to hear would have been listening. In January Labour could have given people that reason to change their minds - this is what you voted for, but this is what it is actually going to mean. They didn't.

It's absolutely not good enough for a government to now respond to 'why didn't you think this through before' with 'why didn't you make us' - this is their catastrophe, not Labours. But that doesn't mean that Labour should have done a better job in January - and if i say any more I think I'm just repeating myself even more than I already am.

[HindleA]

Presumably getting people pissed and driving themselves off a cliff is basically his policy.

[PorFavor]

Liz Truss doing a good job of stepping into Chloe Smith's shoes on BBC2's budget coverage.

[howsillyofme1]

Hi Adam

Do not disagree Labour could have made a better job of articulating the arguments and it may (although I don’t think so) have made a difference

Talking to my friends at home (in Wednesfield by the way) I get the idea they think of A50 as part of the referendum and didn’t separate the two. Even amongst the remainders I have heard few,if any, saying that it should not have been invoked

As I say this is all from my own experiences and I could be wrong but have seen nothing concrete to make me change