Westminstenders: And so it begins

[RedToothBrush]

Promises made that can not be kept.

We have already fallen at the first stumbling block: the desire for parallel talks on exit and future relationship that May wanted has been rejected. Not that this is a surprise seeing as we were told this.

This isn't two years of negotiations for a good deal. Forget any suggestions that it is. It's two years of damage limitation and domestic pr.

For both the UK and EU.

I do believe that May's attitude - which seemed to be more friendly in her speech and letter yesterday - has burnt all our bridges.

This talk of the world needing the EU's 'liberal democracy' isn't aimed at the EU though. Her use of the words that produced uproar in the HoC yesterday was deliberate. Why use it? It was always going to produce a reaction.

When May says she will have a consensus at home to achieve this goal one of two things must happen: to prove just how much we need the EU to make a political reversal possible at the expense of her head or to vilify the EU to a point that Remainers suddenly change their mind.

To get a good deal for the UK she can not satisfy her hard line Brexiteers. It is impossible purely because to do otherwise is like breaking the laws of physics. Trade is done mostly with who you are closest too. This is the inescapable truth. We are leaving the EU but not Europe as keeps being pointed out.

If we want to trade we have to accept EU regulations. If we do not, we do not trade. Rules we can now no longer influence by must obey.

We can not reduce immigration. We have had control of non-Eu immigration and that is not going down due to skills shortages. To combat this schools are getting less money.

In terms of sovereignty and British parliament we just gave that away. The 'Great' Repeal Act is a power grab by the executive. It seems to give the powers of the monarch to Mrs May and take them away from parliamentary scrutiny. At the same time we are forced to become beholden to Trump's America. A man who screws people for a living and has not a shred of honour.

Using security as our bargaining chip misses the obvious. If we do not cooperate we endanger Brits abroad and ourselves domestically. Are we really prepared to stop?

The opportunities of Brexit Britain are bleak. This will be normalised.

Good luck folks. We are gonna need it.

That's a good break down, BigChocFrenzy.

I'd add a little to this: "He and his supporters are a nasty embarassment, but imo haven't had much effect on Labour's electability.
Every party had embarassing people; although the problem is much worse when the leader clearly tolerates them and doesn't genuinely think they are wrong."

I think they've had an enormous effect on Labour's electability.

a. It's alienated a lot of people. Seriously, I am a Labour supporter and I love my MP - but I cannot face the idea of going out canvassing.

b. We're (inevitably) talking about problems within the Labour Party, rather than a way forward/how to oppose Hard Brexit - because there is no other narrative.

c. It is absolutely, utterly clear that a coherent, functioning Party - a Party determined upon and capable of taking power, would have dealt with this, effectively, a while ago.

And the cherry on the cake is that all of this will come up again next year when the suspension comes up for discussion again. Which really just underlines how completely ineffective Labour are at the moment.

We need to get away from party politics as a start.

MPs are elected to represent their constituents in parliament. Not their party.

I had a brief surge of hope when the Tories (of all parties) floated a primary type candidate selection. But then it transpired democracy is much easier to talk about than do.

Of course, as voters, we are as much part of the problem. If we actually bothered to educate ourselves about the issues, rather than voting for rosettes, the parties might have to change.

Which really just underlines how completely ineffective Labour are at the moment.

Ineffective ? Or irrelevant ?

Yes, LH.

The problem is the numbers, I think. The historical impact of FPTP and (essentially) the three party system (well, two party in effect) exerts an inertia on change.

But I think Brexit has just made it very clear that it doesn't work effectively like that any more.

I'd say ineffective. Because of the numbers, and that historical dead weight, I think the problems with Labour are far from irrelevant. They are horribly relevant to preventing a coherent opposition to what is the most pressing political issue in the UK for a generation.

I think the problems with Labour are a large part of what has led us to this particular Brexit.

Whether Labour can be a solution is a huge question.

For me, part of the problem is that there's no one-size fits all political party that I can call myself a "supporter" of (whatever that means).

Even before I could vote (thanks to an engaged DM) I was aware that I liked some ideas and policies, but opposed others.

I've never been keen on the leftist notion of public ownership (probably because I remember the 70s). However I also consider the Tory mantra of "the market for everything" as equally brain dead. (Putting to one side the fact that the Tories have never ever actually implemented that anyway. All they've given us is buddy-buddy asset stripping and legislatively-skewed markets so their mates can rake it in.)

Moderation in all, really. Against that backdrop, the Blair illusion of a "3rd way" was seductive (not that I voted Labour at the time).

Ideally we need a synthesis of left and right policies, based on evidence, not dogma. But that just isn't the English (can't speak for Scotland).

I do believe "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I also believe that education should be free to the highest level as long as a person is able to undertake it. Not sure which parties are promising that this week ?

In an ideal world, the pro-EU tories and pro-EU Labourites would form a centrist party.

One thing Labour could learn from the Tories is how to hide internal dissent. I felt in 1997 that the issue of Europe would be the Tories Clause-IV/Militant battleground, and was surprised it was never mentioned. I guess there are advantages to having a poodle press.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/05/ken-livingstone-faces-fresh-enquiry-hitler-zionism-remarks?CMP=twt_gu
Ken Livingstone faces fresh inquiry over Hitler Zionism remarks
Jeremy Corbyn criticises former mayor for refusing to apologise while other senior Labour figures say he should be expelled from party

Kevin Schofield‏*@PolhomeEditor*
More than 100 Labour MPs and peers sign statement saying the party's institutions "have betrayed our values" over Ken Livingstone ruling:

"This week the institutions of the Labour Party have betrayed our values. We stands united in making it clear that we will not allow our party to be a home for anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism. We stand with the Jewish community and British society against this insidious racism. This was not done in our name and we will not allow it to go unchecked."

Two points:
Labour have 229 MPs and 202 Lords. That makes 431. So why didn't the others sign it?
Shami Chakrabarti defended the decision. If it is somehow overturned what happens to her?

It will be interesting to see who has signed (and who hasn't).

The war was started by the USA for oil and they were always going to have their war, their loot, their torture and their rapes.
The UK was a v minor player and did not make the war more likely, or more bloody.
So, the actual effect on Iraq of poodle Blair was zero, as usual with US poodles

I'm sorry but this just reads as more minimising BigChoc. We were a key player in Iraq. Our forces were involved in their own bloodshed. We are partially responsible for the death, chaos and destruction in that country. We colluded in torture - our forces handed over Iraqis to the US to be tortured. We were involved in Rendition (1622 flights - 51 different UK airports were used by 84 different rendition aircraft - only the US and Canada were visited more).

We see today the love affair half the US seems to have with victimising and torturing Muslims

We do, it started in Iraq, and we are complicit. The rise of Islamophobia is an international phenomenon.

In an ideal world, the pro-EU tories and pro-EU Labourites would form a centrist party

Quite. So where are they? What are they doing.

Lurking, that's fairly similar to myself. Moderation and pragmatism.

I tend to have a belief that power itself is corrupting or breeds complacency, so a turnover of government is not always a bad thing after a good long run in the job. If for no other reason but to bring in fresh blood and ideas.

One of the problems with this Conservative government is there is none of that. There is a harking back to the days of Thatcher or some nostalgic idea of Empire which is long dead. But no fresh thinking.

We desperately need young people to stand for election and bring those ideas and knowledge about how technology is shaping our society to the table in order to be proactive and forward looking rather than reactionary and backward looking.

I'm not sure we will get those people in government for another 20 odd years.

The latter had declared that Israel is too small to take in refugees but they have now declared they will take in 100 orphaned children
Israel is the same size as Wales and has a population of 8.1 million
Britain is 65m?
Bibi Netanyahu is right wing shite.
May is a right wing shite.
Israel has to be pally with US to survive.
May is pally with US.

www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Benjamin-Netanyahu/Netanyahu-Israel-is-looking-to-absorb-injured-Syrians-from-Aleppo-476006

"The director of one hospital that has been treating Syrians said his staff had helped over 2,500 civilians and fighters since February 2013.
Dr. Salman Zarka, director of the Ziv Medical Center in the city of Safed, said he was “proud “ to have provided thousands of Syrians “with assistance”, reported Haaretz.
"Despite hostilities between Israel and Syria, there is a need to help Syrians for medical assistance,”, he added".

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-taking-in-aleppo-refugees-syria-war-assad-regime-evacuation-a7489116.html

Agree RBT which is also the reason I much prefer the french or the German system that has many political parties.
It allows for more ideas and issues to be raised, more opposition (and not being stuck with one party in the opposition).
Also when a government has to govern with a coalition, it means that one view of how things should be done has to be moderated.
In effect, it allows for less risk of 'extremism' (which is what we see now. One part of the Tories have decided that Brexit means xxx and no one seem to be able to oppose them, incl in their own part)., more transparency (issues between different view point on the right or left are aired in public rather than behind the closed or of the party) etc... it also allow other ideas (e.g. The greens, the LD to be heard)

Listening to the excellent "Infinite Monkey Cage" yesterday (driving). The theme was "Epic fails" wrt to science.

One of the guests put forward an interesting view (from someone else) that democracy is a tacit acceptance that the public aren't ever able to "get it right", so we have this cycle of rinse-and-repeat elections, which he compared to the scientific method of theory, experiment, observation, refinement, theory ...

One of the tropes which arose from some thick brexiters was this immediate almost religious reaction to the suggestion of a second referendum. Quite aside from revealing an odd insecurity in the "winning" side (although it did underscore the narrowness of their "victory") it also runs counter to the fact that we hold elections every so often (or used to) precisely because circumstances change.

One of the oft-repeated reasons for FPTP is that it "prevents the extremism we see in countries with proportional representation".

Well, that's that fairy story well and truly busted. Irritatingly after we had a chance to change things.

Maybe - if I have any - my grandchildren will get the chance to change it again. I doubt my DS will (and he's only voted once).

Trump newsflash:

Steve Bannon off NSC

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39508351

One of the oft-repeated reasons for FPTP is that it "prevents the extremism we see in countries with proportional representation".

Well, that's that fairy story well and truly busted.

Like.

I see EU Parliament has voted for 3 years max for a transition deal & phased Brexit negotiations (ie no tandem talks). Comfortable majority.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/05/european-parliament-red-lines-resolution-brexit-negotiations

It will be interesting to see who has signed
and a lovely opportunity to encourage JC to spend more time with his anti semitic jam jars.

Has this been posted?

From today's New Statesman:

"to suggest the tyrant who murdered six million Jews supported a Jewish homeland is like saying the 9/11 terrorists supported the redevelopment of lower Manhattan. In both cases the only intention, from start to finish, was death and destruction. To peddle any other analysis is to lie...Livingstone’s idiosyncratic philosophy is old anti-Semitic wine in new bottles. It’s intellectual anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. Any fool can deny Hitler’s crimes. It takes a real piece of work to use them against the Jews all over again"

From same article NinonDeLanclos
"Hitler didn't support Zionists any more than he supported gypsies, gay rights or step-free wheelchair access. He was, however, a big fan of sterilisation, slave labour and slaughter for all these causes.
Talking of any fool, former British National Party leader Nick Griffin breathlessly backed Livingstone, tweeting after his initial suspension last year: “One day the world will know that #RedKen was right.” Some endorsements speak volumes"

red Ken was right.
Jam man has put on some votes.

Here's the link:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/04/ken-livingstone-verdict-labours-relationship-british-jews-now-damaged-beyond

This really is the death knell of the Labour party.

Kind of weird seeing so much criticism for KL and TB on a left of centreish Remain discussion thread since they are 2 of the figures most clearly associated with a Remain position within Labour

If there is to be a PLP Remain grouping who would lead it?