-
Very few people, you being in a small minority, will decide not to vote Labour because of them not opposing 'Brexit'.
my fb feed (which is an undeniable bubble) is also full of chat about this - people who feel like Dammit.
hoefla-
What people say aint what they do....
But yeah.
-
my fb feed (which is an undeniable bubble) is also full of chat about this - people who feel like Dammit.
Echo chamber effect, as you say. The question to ask is whether those people would really not vote Labour if faced with the choice between a seemingly fairly benign Labour 'Brexit' (not that I'm trying to greenwash 'Brexit', I think it would be stupid for Labour to plough ahead with it, too) or the chance of some political change around the issue (see above), or a Tory 'Brexit' that clearly is aiming at stripping back rights, environmental protection, etc.
In a proportional voting system, voting for a smaller party under those circumstances makes sense; in a first-past-the-post system (unless, as I said, you're in a constituency where a smaller party has a chance of winning a seat, e.g. Lib Dems or Brighton) it makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, of course Brexit would be a big issue if it happened under some kind of catastrophic deal/'no deal' arrangement. I wasn't talking about that, but about its significance as an election issue. Labour brilliantly outflanked May the last time when they talked about completely different things instead. As an electoral issue it's not nearly as important or immediate to most people as all the other things that are wrong. Most people can't predict how 'the economy' will go--on past form, most economists can't, either. Some powerful stock or currency gamblers perhaps can to some extent, but partly because they'll be influencing the outcome by where they put their money. People care about things they understand--public services (see the 'Brexit' NHS bollocks), how politics makes them feel, etc., not dire abstract warnings from 'Project Fear' (still ongoing). Obviously, the challenge for Labour is to actually get their vote out, but the strategy of moving the focus away from a problem the Tory party mainly has still seems right to me. And Labour simply are right not to disregard the referendum result. So far, they've made a very good fist of what for them is a very difficult situation.
Hammond will never be Tory leader. He has negative charisma. Even May is better (until she commits those unspeakable blunders like those that characterised her election campaign, fields of wheat and so on).
Howard
Oliver Schick
Of course opposition isn't futile, but Labour's time and energy is better used to work on issues, and compose a programme for government, where they're not bound by a referendum result. This is what they're doing. Their priority is to win power, when they would have a majority in Parliament and could actually do whatever they wanted to do about 'Brexit'. As Corbyn and co. know perfectly well (I think) that what they have put forward as their policy (seems to be customs union, maintaining EU institutions, guaranteeing EU citizens' rights, minus single market) would be more acceptable to the EU though still not be accepted by it, they would undoubtedly take a different tack once they were in power.
My hunch is that the first thing they'd do would be to buy time by applying for an A50 extension, citing the Tories' disastrous mishandling, and then calm the waters and get on with their other policy ambitions until the country's political climate changed. (As per usual, I don't think the Tories will risk a general election before boundary changes, but a week's a long time in politics.)
The referendum took the choice out of the compass of a political party's own decision-making power if they want to get elected. I know it should have been managed and explained better that it was only advisory, etc., but as Cameron and co. thought they'd walk it they didn't put any effort into that.
If Corbyn opposed 'Brexit' he'd be finished very quickly for that reason alone, but also simply because it would give the Tories a new lease of life and a welcome distraction from their deeply anti-social, vulnerable-people-victimising policies. 'Brexit' is not their weak point, no matter how much those against 'Brexit' would claim that it's a politically dominant issue--it's not. It's a symptom and not a cause, and what really matters are the issues behind it.
Corbyn understands that and chooses to address the causes (and provide real opposition there, in the proper substance of politics). The 'nothing's fair any more' / 'we have no control' (John Harris' recent videos for the Guardian show you a good range of views) that bolstered the 'Brexit' vote and pushed it over 50% and across main party boundaries is caused by many of the problems Labour are promising to address, e.g. in last year's manifesto and with the conference proposals just unfolding. If those were addressed, there would undoubtedly be a very different climate in which to address the EU issues.
Very few people, you being in a small minority, will decide not to vote Labour because of them not opposing 'Brexit'. It's definitely not a situation Corbyn wanted to be in, but there's nothing else he can do than what he's doing. And yes, as there are indications that Labour would win a general election before boundary changes, they want it asap (but again, they won't get it unless something very surprising happens).