Westminstenders: Stuck in the twilightzone

[RedToothBrush]

Just want to remind everyone if what really matters and what the priority if Theresa May is.

May isn't interested in a new referendum. There is barely time to hold one, and anyone remotely interested in one, isn't named Theresa May. Forget it. Its not happening.

Nor are Brexit talks the most important thing. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn seems finally to be playing with some sort if EEA type solution he's not the one named Theresa May. If she doesn't want one, then it won't happen.

May does seem to favour something along these lines but she has to sell it to her party. If she ends up relying on the support of Labour to push it through against what her party want, then that doesn't end well for her or her party. So Corbyn seeming to squeeze her here isn't necessarily a good thing. It could push her to no deal.

Why?

Cos petty party politics.

THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING, and don't forget this, is the EU withdrawal Bill. As it stands, May has to concentrate her efforts on this. If it doesn't pass by the art 50 deadline then we have legal chaos. May isn't big on the courts, but I'm not sure she would want that situation either. It would be even more unthinkable than queues at Dover coupled with food shortages.

If it doesn't pass, and the Lords will do all they can to delay and obstruct as long as they can, May's only option is to beg for an art 50 extension. Which the EU might not be inclined to give. Which might leave us in a situation where our only option is to revoke a50.

The only predictable thing, is this will be last minute brinkmanship.

All the talk of a second ref is a distraction. Talk of Labour's position at this point, is all about positioning for the next election and not about Brexit at all.

So try to keep your eyes on what really matters and what battles are May's big ones and which are merely side shows.

I wonder who Side Show Bob will turn out to be.

What an excellent post, TheCat.

I think that deep down, UK politics is all incredibly backwards looking; no matter how the landscape changes, the reversion to atavism is a reliable constant. You get the odd rational hiccup in the form of the Greens or the LibDems, but most of the time you see the middle either tentatively occupied or a completely decimated no-man's land, and dog whistle political discourse triumphant.

Meanwhile, Scotland takes steps to climb out of the dynamic that is dominated by Westminster and create one of its own.

You write brilliant philosophical posts thecatfromjapan which really get to the nub of the issue.

I'm really glad I'm in Scotland where we do have PR - but we still have to suffer the consequences of FPTP in Westminster

Sergio Tavares @ sergiotavaresuk
Refer to Barnier's staircase. Each step downwards is dictated by UK's self-imposed red lines. Abandon them and the scope of the deal widens. For instance, have you noticed a UK softening on the ECJ issue?

Charles Grant @ CER_Grant
Yes, I have picked up a gentle softening of UK stance on ECJ. Even last Aug UK officials were briefing they could live with EFTA court. Then the deal on citizens' rights. Now the UK proposals on regulatory alignment implicitly accept a role for ECJ where we align. @CER_EU

^Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with
Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now
completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books,
pamphlets, films, sound-tracks, photographs--all had to be rectified at
lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that
the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference
to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in
existence anywhere.^

You don't think what Diane Abbott said was creepy?

The retroactive changing of history to conform to the new political consensus is Orwellian shit. It's doublethink, as people strive to change their own thinking. It's newspeek, as people try to change what others believe by changing the words used to express those ideas.

Abbott is deliberately and openly telling people they should to this to conform with the new political consensus as to not do so means you are not part of the current party.

Everything Abbott says seems to be either incoherent or creepy.

Trumpeting that Labour party members are now denying their pasts is incredibly worrying

Thanks Math and prettybird.

It's a bit much, really, isn't it?

Red the hazing - and that's how it feels - just infuriates me. I'm really, really, really fed up with the constant demonisation of New Labour. I want to see something from Corbyn's Labour with the same depth of research, thoroughness, and groundbreaking intent as SureStart (for example) and all I see is the energy that went into producing the joined-up thinking around that being poured into memes dissing Blair and Brown, paranoia about Progress, and plans to change the selection procedures at CLP level. It's not good enough.

Eeeow. No. There aren't a lot of choices on the table.

Agh! I cannot cope with being this negative. I think I'm going to have to go and hunt for a good news story!

This has potential to be a good news story, cat

Jeremy Corbyn under pressure to shift Brexit policy

Jeremy Corbyn is under huge pressure to shift party policy on Brexit as an exclusive poll for the Observer reveals a substantial majority of existing and potential Labour voters want him to back permanent membership of the EU’s single market and customs union.

...Significantly, even among Labour voters who backed Leave, 37% said they want Corbyn to support permanent single market and customs union membership compared with just 26% who did not.

lala and

Japancat excellent posts!

Abbott is deliberately and openly telling people they should to this to conform with the new political consensus as to not do so means you are not part of the current party.

No I don't see it as creepy because I didn't read her words as doing this at all. She wasn't telling people what to think, she was making an observation about the fact that certain MPs have suddenly revised their own pasts for their own gain. This happens all the time! Thatcher got voted in multiple times, yet there was a point when you would suddenly be hard-pressed to find anyone who would admit to having voted for her outside hardcore conservatives. This is a phenomenon that has even been talked about on these thread around a number of subjects.

I find your interpretation her words disingenuous and bordering on deliberately smearing to be honest.

In the case of Corbyn there were members of the labour party who actively attempted to sabotage his leadership to the point of almost tearing the party apart. They resigned on mass from his cabinet and pushed through a vote of no confidence. They are not martyrs to some cause of freedom of expression. They have made a choice to stop taking abut the wonders of Blair because of their desire for a continued career in the labour party now it is clear the party membership is moving back to the left. Party of left wingers did similar when Blair was popular. It's politics innit.

Agree with you BiglyBadgers

Abbott is deliberately and openly telling people they should to this to conform with the new political consensus as to not do so means you are not part of the current party.
I've read the article several times and its very Dolores Umbridge. Its the attack on the plp that gives it away. Its one thing to point out people are hiding their pasts but combined with the blame game it comes out very creepy.

I assumed this is the quote you are referring to Hashi: “Now we made up the ground over the course of the general election, but if the PLP had not been so hostile, who’s to say whether we might not have won that election?”

I am sure there is a certain amount of bitterness considering the abuse Abbott and Corbyn received from many in the PLP. I think i would find it hard to restrain myself from a comment or two after the lengths they went to in order to sabotage a democratically elected leader and the damage caused to the party during their months of backstabbing and personal opportunism. I also think she has a fair point when you think back to what was going on. It seems to me that the PLP are not the only ones with convenient memory gaps, but some people are forgetting just how vicious and destabilising the attacks from some of the PLP were.

I think i would find it hard to restrain myself from a comment or two after the lengths they went to in order to sabotage a democratically elected leader
Odd choice of leaver phraseology there

“Now we made up the ground over the course of the general election, but if the PLP had not been so hostile, who’s to say whether we might not have won that election?”

I haven't read Abbott's article, but I won't forget the behaviour of the PLP in the summer of 2016. With the Tories in complete disarray, they should have hammered them. Instead they snatched the ball and scored own goal after own goal, and let the Tories off the hook. Corbyn was going to make the party unelectable - well, they weren't elected, but he certainly improved their position, so now the Blairites have shut up.

Even in the last election there were vicious personal attacks on Abbott.

Is it?

The fact is members of the PLP did force a vote of no confidence against a leader that was elected by the membership and clearly still had overwhelming support of the membership. It is arguable and I'm not convinced, but maybe if they had focused on opposing the conservatives instead of trying to chuck out Corbyn labour would have managed a win. I see nothing particularly creepy in stating that.

I do find it creepy the way some people are trying to revise history to make out these parts of the PLP are some sort of oppressed voice of the put upon labour majority.

And I find it creepy the way that my arguement is dismissed due to being accused of using a "leaver phraseology", sounding very much like you are trying to police the way in which I talk. If you are going to accuse others of trying to silence people you might want to consider the way in which your own words come across.

I agree with Bigly. I am not a particular fan of Corbyn, and I find him a bit disappointing at PMQs, but he certainly showed where his abilities lay at the last election. He was able to get the vote out; something which Theresa May singularly failed to do for her party.

Don't forget though that Blair came along 20 years ago now - he was right for his time, but his time is well and truly past now. As is Thatcherism, for those Tories harking back to the old days.

A democratic vote means shut up and suck it up, very brexit.

Fwiw both the Tories and Labour have been terrible and not having leaders who are willing to unify their internally disparate parties. If it brings the end of two party politics and/or fptp then there's a big bonus.

Don't get why it is odd to say they tried to sabotage a democratically elected leader. Whether you support Corbyn or not, that's what the did.

A democratic vote means shut up and suck it up, very brexit.

What it means is forcing a vote when the previously noted for view still clearly hold the majority is stupid and only serves to make things worse. The very reason so many on this thread are not so keen on holding another referendum until we are sure opinion has really changed.

Democracies are meant to be allowed to change their minds. Otherwise what are we doing here? Why bother pressing MPs.

Whether it's stupid or has the desired effect is a different matter.

Yes, of course they can change their minds. But they were not trying to change minds. They were briefing against and sabotaging their own party. They forced a vote that almost tore the party in two when it was absolutely obvious that minds had not been changed back to their point of view. If anyone was trying to stop the changing of minds it was those members of the PLP who could not accept that the members had changed their minds away from Blairism towards a more left wing point of view.

You are arguing that we must be able to change our minds to defend people who threw all their toys out the pram because people changed their minds.

You are arguing that we must be able to change our minds to defend people who threw all their toys out the pram because people changed their minds.
What do leavers accuse us of?
Same narrative.