-
On what should they 'turn around'? Announce a second referendum, support remain, support the single market, or what do you mean?
They could take up the cause of all the workers who are going to lose their jobs - for e.g. Nissan, who when they leave will inflict substantial damage on the economy of the North East.
The problem with doing this is that their policies (ending FOM, some sort of cake-and-eat-it version of the single market) is identical to Theresa Mays, and therefore they have no answer.
Labour would need to change their current, stated policy positions relative to CU/SM/FOM, or come up with something that no one else has thought of in order to stop manufacturing draining from the UK to Europe over the next 3-5 years.
Dammit-
I haven't followed the industrial side of it that much. They have been very clear about workers' rights and have most certainly courted business, though. I also don't think they want to end freedom of movement so much as to ensure better workers' rights and similar pay everywhere so that they're not exploited because different countries have vastly different standards. However, I don't really understand what policy Labour has at the moment in relation to all that, and that's obviously part of the problem.
Oliver Schick
Sorry, meant to reply earlier but didn't get round to it.
(I don't want to come across as a total Labour apologist in the following, I just think they've made a good fist out of a bad hand so far.)
andyp:
JWestland:
Needless to say, I completely agree that invoking A50 was a mistake--but an odd one, as it sprung the trap that it was purportedly designed to spring (according to the British official who wrote it, if I remember correctly), meaning that on the one hand it was attractive to those who might want May's government to get into difficulty over it, and on the other hand attractive to those who thought it opened up the, to them desirable, possibility of Britain crashing out without a deal. (I don't think that Rees-Mogg really believes 'no deal' would be desirable, as no-one could be that stupid, but that he is trying to use it as a negotiating tactic--the latter is also stupid, as the EU is still operating the longer lever (as you say in German)).
I would certainly prefer it if we hadn't been A50'd, but there you go. I do seem to remember, though, that when the decision came about, it was widely seen also as a test for Labour. It was the first big test of commitment to the referendum result (which obviously didn't call for the swift activation of A50 and has been abused and re-interpreted in all sorts of ways), and I think that voting against it wouldn't have worked for Labour (not to mention that Theresa May still had a majority at the time). I think it, too, would have damaged the party. All the smaller policy statements since haven't attracted much anger in the way that I think voting against A50 would have done.
Obviously, I may be wrong about that and yes, I do agree that it was stupid to do A50 without any preparation, but again there I think that it didn't allow May to open up a clear front against Labour on 'Brexit'. Who knows, perhaps she even called the election partly because of how Labour behaved around A50--trying to portray the election as a choice between a good 'Brexit' and a bad 'Brexit'/remaining (or however she put it, I can't remember) may have been a second attempt at creating the same kind of division. That didn't work and having voted for A50 also allowed Labour to essentially ignore 'Brexit' in the election and concentrate on all their other policies which led to electoral advances. Who knows, really, I'm just speculating.
This I don't understand. Labour was under immense pressure both from within and without to become divided and become completely unelectable. It's weathered all of that and is now much stronger, it seems to me. What exactly are you referring to by 'not coming up with a credible alternative and cherrypicking'? They've articulated their policy positions throughout, said early on that they would keep the UK in a customs union, that they'd guarantee the rights of EU citizens, etc. Sure, there's still a lack of clarity on the single market (see below), but as far as I know apart from that they've consistently shadowed the government and in some areas jumped well ahead of it.
No, on the single market their position is clearly undefined because the single market is a mixed bag from Labour's perspective, too. I don't fully understand their position, either (much though it clearly isn't finalised), but I personally don't think the single market as it exists is a good thing without reservations--the hasty introduction of the euro has worsened the discrepancy between smaller and larger economies and shouldn't continue in its current form. I think the rushing in of the euro, even though the pre-defined economic tests were not met, was essentially Kohl's doing, to gloss over his extremely poor and allegedly corrupt handling of German reunification and his unjust economic policies which made the German economy over-reliant on exports, as 36 years of more or less conservative governments (Kohl, the Blairite Schröder, and Merkel in various coalitions) have had the long-term consequence of impoverishing millions of Germans in a way that you wouldn't expect in one of the world's supposedly strongest economies. Needless to say, millions of impoverished people exist in Britain, France, etc., too, and I'm not at all surprised that Labour don't think this is all hunky-dory, though probably for different reasons than the above.
On what should they 'turn around'? Announce a second referendum, support remain, support the single market, or what do you mean?