EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

This has it covered I think

its already hugely unattractive

round them up in a fake tapas all you can eat for a £5 scam

If Labour knew it was a losing game with the amendments, don't put in a whip.
Make a shitload of noise. (see SNP)

Or alternatively REFUSE to vote for article50 and explain that you cannot safeguard workers rights, but clearly point out it's the fault of the Tories, and you will vote for it when the safeguards are in, which the Tories won't do, see it's THEIR fault.

The SNP is equally stuck here, but they've sent the right messages and tried harder.

Scottish voters voted 60/40 to remain. A lot of constituencies of Labour MPs voted to leave, which put those MPs in a difficult situation as they couldn't really be seen to vote against this bill.

What Labour should've done is make it clear that the EU referendum only asked the question on whether we should leave the EU or not. It did not mention anything about leaving the single market or exiting the customs union. Those should've been raised at every opportunity and could have been used as a reason to vote against the bill en masse by Labour MPs, whilst maintaining some credibility with their constituents.

How are the SNP stuck? The position from their electorate is pretty clear.

New page fail.

I agree with Andy, but that's because I agree with that position. If I were a leave voter and labour did that... Which is the crux of Oliver's point.

But so are the reasons why people voted "leave" in left wing heart lands. Labour is now letting them down as well, by letting Article50 pass. They were told Leave was the fix, well see how it's going so far with May threatening to turn the UK into a tax haven!

Corbyn committed himself to protecting workers rights etc. some time ago. But in the end, Labour does nothing by letting Article 50 pass.

I agree with what @andyp said, that could have been a good strategy also. Unfortunately the hard left is also suffering from a simplistic anti-EU reasoning with wish full dreams of a world that will suit them.

All Labour cares about is power, in the end. They are not in power, so they have no influence and what they did have they have thrown away by the "will of the people" mantra.

Could Labour have fulfilled the "will of the people" requirement whilst voting against, making it clear that they were doing so due to no amendments having been added which would have protected the rights of said people?

I have to say I admire Ken Clark for voting as he did.

Historically, the Labour party has been more of a social movement than a party seeking power, i.e. it gave a voice to the working classes. That rarely led to power, which is what Blair and Brown recognised, but since losing the 2010 election the party has completely lost it's way. The leadership now is so out of it's depth, and so unelectable that, frustratingly, a long period in the political wilderness beckons, if it survives at all.

At a time when a strong and united opposition is needed more than ever, we're left with Corbyn and his wishy-washy brand of far left activism.

reactivism

The leadership now is so out of it's depth, and so unelectable that, frustratingly, a long period in the political wilderness beckons, if it survives at all.

It's worth reminding ourselves that Labour was (statistically) unelectable before Corbyn et al came to power. The underlying problem in the UK is the electoral system, which, once again, we can thank the Lib Dems for fucking us over on (a bit of hyperbole here).

And once/if Scotland leaves, unless the Tories split, this country is fuuucked.

Are there a lot of Leave voters who would change their mind if Leave involved leaving the single market and customs union? I haven't seen anything on it either way but I'd have though it would be a biggish story if that were the case.

The easiest thing for Corbyn would have been to leave it as an open vote to the Labour party members rather than a three line whip. He could have made it clear that it wasn't just a party politics issue and that he wanted members to have the freedom to vote with their conscience/their constituents.

I suspect a lot would have voted in line with their constituents and it wouldn't really make a difference but it would have avoided all the bad publicity of Diane Abbott disappearing off ill and influential members defying the whip.

What are the 'far left' policies that Corbyn has advocated?

tolerance of forrins

What do you think Corbyn could/should have done?

Well what he promised to do would be a good start: oppose article 50 if Labour's demands (common market access, worker's rights etc.) weren't met. He has broken that promise and I believe it will be at the expense of the British people.

What I think he/Labour should have done is oppose Brexit tooth and nail. Their popularity is already at rock bottom, so worrying about upsetting leave voters was a red herring. But it's a bigger issue than the Labour party's popularity - they should have done what's right for the country. If they then lost - which the numbers do probably make inevitable - at least they would have tried. It's better to fight and fall than live without hope, as the Völsunga saga says.

He tweeted yesterday to say the fight starts now - what, in the Lords? It's too late. As someone said on the Today programme he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

Down the line I think the Brexiteers will be judged to have been on the wrong side of history. If so Corbyn's lack of leadership and ineffective opposition means he'll be lumped in with them.

And once/if Scotland leaves, unless the Tories split, this country is fuuucked.

And yet Blair won by 150+ seats in 1997... The Labour party is in deep trouble at the minute, but there's people out there (and enough of them) who would vote for them if they offered something palatable to those voters.
Of course, this assumes that what you want from your Labour party is a position which is much more of a compromise offering compared to Corbyn et al.

The problem may just be that the UK isn't left enough. What Corbyn proposed is more centre-left, banking regulation, redistribution etc. Nothing too mad. I supported him initially as all the media bias/un-electability is part BS. Or, well it was...

But such policies tend to go together with higher tax rates and solidarity. The solidarity is shot atm with Brexiter VS Remainer, and it's difficult to sell higher taxes if there's no government trust.

And it's very hard to sell this solidarity in Brexit, I could have gotten onboard with a non xenophobic and more left brexit, and I understand the lexit arguments (though the timing is horrendously wrong and it would always result in problems as the Torys are in power and the left was in tatters before brexit...) but this xenophobic protectionist twattery is too much for me.

But young people (Momentum?) wanted to stay in the EU mostly, and Corbyn messed that up, so they may have lost the battle and the war.

And as an EU worker who knows... I may lose all rights to benefits or have to earn 35K a year like USA immigrants. There are 3.3 million people in that boat, there's already a drop in nurses wanting to work here, universities cannot access the horizon 2020 money with Mays stance. It's a mess.

And yet Blair won by 150+ seats in 1997... The Labour party is in deep trouble at the minute, but there's people out there (and enough of them) who would vote for them if they offered something palatable to those voters.

Things have changed since 1997:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/28/boundary-review-changes-affect-200-labour-party-seats-robert-hayward-report - I haven't done the analysis, but it would be interesting to know whether Labour could ever win a majority without Scotland with these seats gone. I don't think so?

The collapse of the Lib-Dems also favours the Tories. This is reversible, but doesn't give Labour a majority.

A move to the centre could also push voters to other parties (Green in particular) which is a huge risk in marginal seats.

Point being: I concede that Scotland isn't the only issue for Labour, but it's the biggest and the one that can't be turned around if they leave.

Politics is full of examples of politicians doing the exact opposite of what their supporters want. For example, it's well reported that most people would vote to restore the death penalty, but the politicians are never going to do that. You don't always have to do what your electorate want, especially if you think that they are wrong.

At the end of the day most of Labour's core brexit voters would vote Labour no matter what. It's not them that Corbyn has to pander to if he wants to win an election, it's everyone else. He could probably win the next election if he campaigned on a "No Brexit" platform, but he has never liked the EU.

What Labour should've done is make it clear that the EU referendum only asked the question on whether we should leave the EU or not. It did not mention anything about leaving the single market or exiting the customs union. Those should've been raised at every opportunity and could have been used as a reason to vote against the bill en masse by Labour MPs, whilst maintaining some credibility with their constituents.

I don't think that would have worked--again, not because it would have been bad or wrong or anything like that, but just because the distorting power of the UK press is so great that it would have ended up being presented as a total nonsense that would constantly have put Labour on the back foot. To be fair, the EU was rather daft to immediately pounce on how the 'four freedoms' were inseparable and non-negotiable, etc. All that being as it may, it wouldn't have caused Labour et al. to win a vote in the Commons.

But so are the reasons why people voted "leave" in left wing heart lands. Labour is now letting them down as well, by letting Article50 pass. They were told Leave was the fix, well see how it's going so far with May threatening to turn the UK into a tax haven!

They don't have a parliamentary majority and it was extremely unlikely that Theresa May would face a Tory rebellion on this.

Corbyn committed himself to protecting workers rights etc. some time ago. But in the end, Labour does nothing by letting Article 50 pass.

They did something, they didn't do nothing. I think what they did was the better strategy than making a futile stand.

I agree with what @andyp said, that could have been a good strategy also. Unfortunately the hard left is also suffering from a simplistic anti-EU reasoning with wish full dreams of a world that will suit them.

I really think characterising Jeremy Corbyn as 'hard left' now is utter nonsense. What he has said as party leader so far, with the exception of Trident, have been moderate social democratic commonplaces, perhaps all the less inspiring for that. I think of all the slurs on him the 'hard left' one is the most damaging (which is why it's relentlessly pushed by the right-wing press).

The easiest thing for Corbyn would have been to leave it as an open vote to the Labour party members rather than a three line whip. He could have made it clear that it wasn't just a party politics issue and that he wanted members to have the freedom to vote with their conscience/their constituents.

Again, I think that would have been exploited to create the impression (a) that Corbyn's a weak leader and (b) that Labour's anti-Brexit.

I suspect a lot would have voted in line with their constituents and it wouldn't really make a difference but it would have avoided all the bad publicity of Diane Abbott disappearing off ill and influential members defying the whip.

I think those are extremely minor stories that won't damage the party.

Things have changed since 1997:

but it's the biggest and the one that can't be turned around if they leave.

Yep, I completely agree with both of these things. Yet (and I'm not saying anything new here so much as just restating my old Corbyn moan), that 1997 majority was huge and surely suggests that there's enough people in the country who will float and vote Labour if you can convince them (even with FPTP).

I can't believe that there's that many marginal seats that would be at risk if the party moved more to the centre (became 'less left'). I don't know any numbers though, and your posts in this thread suggest you're more informed than me :)