Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I wonder how long Starmer will last once in power.

Well Labour have basically never got rid of a leader (there's maybe two arguable cases) - and it seems mad they'd turn on a leader who is on course to take them from their worst result in 80 years to landslide in a single parliament.

But I think there's a lot to the Caro line that power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. And I think we will learn a lot about Starmer.

With this, with the u-turns/broken leadership promises - there are multiple possibilities. I think we'll see and I don't know. My instinct given everything we know about Starmer's background is that the naivety/manipulated marionette arguments are not particularly plausible.

[Tamas]

I think it's hard to judge at the moment because my impression is, anything less done than what Starmer has done would have seen the Corbynites still messing things up. I know it's easy to attribute the landslide polls only to Tory incompetence (and that's indeed the major reason) but FFS people voted for Boris Johnson rather than seeing Corbyn and his ilk in power. Labour needed a clear and clean cut from the far left and that sadly included policies which could be smeared with accusation of far-left-ery.

But yeah, will see what he actually does with all the power.

[Josquius]

I think it's hard to judge at the moment because my impression is, anything less done than what Starmer has done would have seen the Corbynites still messing things up. I know it's easy to attribute the landslide polls only to Tory incompetence (and that's indeed the major reason) but FFS people voted for Boris Johnson rather than seeing Corbyn and his ilk in power. Labour needed a clear and clean cut from the far left and that sadly included policies which could be smeared with accusation of far-left-ery.

But yeah, will see what he actually does with all the power.

Its a bit of a balance. They need to hew towards the centre to improve their odds of getting into power but at the same time once there we want them to actually do something useful.
Blair's time in power, though overall positive, was quite the big missed opportunity with all sorts of things he should have fixed being left to fester.

Its worth noting most of Corbyn's policies polled positively. It was just the nature of them all being thrown out so scatter gun with little coherence, and the big one, Corbyn himself, that crushed Labour. I do think even if you just copy and pasted the Corbyn manifesto which came from the centre of the party, and put a right of the party figure head on it rather than a left of the party one (one who wasn't very good at that) then Labour could well have won in recent elections.

[Duque de Bragança]

So the honey moon with Starmer is over before it even started. 

[Sheilbh]

I think it's hard to judge at the moment because my impression is, anything less done than what Starmer has done would have seen the Corbynites still messing things up. I know it's easy to attribute the landslide polls only to Tory incompetence (and that's indeed the major reason) but FFS people voted for Boris Johnson rather than seeing Corbyn and his ilk in power. Labour needed a clear and clean cut from the far left and that sadly included policies which could be smeared with accusation of far-left-ery.

I don't particularly have any attachment to those policies he had as part of his leadership - and I voted against Starmer because I thought he wouldn't go far enough.

But I totally agree. The Tories certainly helped but going from worst defeat since the 1930s to a potential landslide in five years is astonishing and a large part of that is Starmer and his strategy. I don't think people would be voting for Labour in this election if Corbyn or his wing were still in charge (I actually think that the invasion of Ukraine might have been the issue that would cause a split in the party if the hard left were still in the leadership).

We won't know until he's in power but my read is that Starmer's incredibly focused on winning and he's barrister so he is flexible and nimble. So I think he ran for the leadership on the basis that was most likely to win, Corbynism without Corbyn (which was too weak for someone like me), but that's not the way you can win the country so he ditched all of that, withdrew the whip from Corbyn and pivoted very much, as everyone notes, to a Ming vase strategy. I think those were probably the right calls (and I think it as less accusation of far-left-ery than demonstrating change in the Labour Party - he keeps talking about the "changed Labour Party" and how he's "changed the Labour Party").

I think it's going to be very interesting to see how that translates in power - in a way there is a ruthlessness, dishonesty etc to it that might make him a very effective Prime Minister On the other hand I think winning is enough of a strategy for an opposition leader, it's nowhere near enough for a PM. So I do wonder what the vision or strategy is - I think there's some idea but it's still pretty hazy.

Its worth noting most of Corbyn's policies polled positively. It was just the nature of them all being thrown out so scatter gun with little coherence, and the big one, Corbyn himself, that crushed Labour. I do think even if you just copy and pasted the Corbyn manifesto which came from the centre of the party, and put a right of the party figure head on it rather than a left of the party one (one who wasn't very good at that) then Labour could well have won in recent elections.

But a figure from the right of the party couldn't run on that platform because that's not what they really believe in, anymore than Cobyn could have symbolically headed up New Labour. And on the individual policies, I just go back to Blair's points above.

Blair's time in power, though overall positive, was quite the big missed opportunity with all sorts of things he should have fixed being left to fester.

Yeah but could it have been any different?

The principle economic model was working in 1997 when Blair won so you wouldn't necessarily try to meddle with it. It was the end of history - the triumph of capitalist, market-driven liberal democracies. Globalisation appeared as - certainly as Blair saw it - an irreversible, historic inevitability. You look at the left globally at that time and it is the Blairish model - reformist on public services, doubling down on existing growth models but re-distributing the gains from those models (whether it's the pink tide in Latin America, Jospin, Clinton, Schroeder). I think Blair matters on Iraq and foreign policy as I'm not sure other Labour leaders would have made the same choices - but domestically I think he was more just a reflection of his time than significant. And yeah there's disappointments but the history of the left is always and always will be one of disappointment. It's got a utopian bent.

And I think the same broadly goes for Starmer. I can't think of anything that is specifically or interestingly Starmer and not something that reflects our context and other left-wing and democratic leaders across the world. Especially the tension of net zero, growth, reducing dependencies and with it trying to build some green industrial base.

[Tamas]

This article is telling me the spirit of the Post Office scandal is alive and well:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/29/thames-water-urged-to-test-supply-urgently-after-reported-illnesses

Basically an outbreak of some nasty disease is ongoing in SE London, VERY similar to the water-based bug recently discovered in Devon.

Thames Water tested the water of one person suffering from it test came back clean. So what do they do as people keep falling ill and ask for tests? They say no because they have already had one test so why bother.

[Josquius]

But a figure from the right of the party couldn't run on that platform because that's not what they really believe in, anymore than Cobyn could have symbolically headed up New Labour. And on the individual policies, I just go back to Blair's points above.

It wasn't what Corbyn believed in either. It was from the centre of the party and was very much at odds with many of his views.

Yeah but could it have been any different?

The principle economic model was working in 1997 when Blair won so you wouldn't necessarily try to meddle with it. It was the end of history - the triumph of capitalist, market-driven liberal democracies. Globalisation appeared as - certainly as Blair saw it - an irreversible, historic inevitability. You look at the left globally at that time and it is the Blairish model - reformist on public services, doubling down on existing growth models but re-distributing the gains from those models (whether it's the pink tide in Latin America, Jospin, Clinton, Schroeder). I think Blair matters on Iraq and foreign policy as I'm not sure other Labour leaders would have made the same choices - but domestically I think he was more just a reflection of his time than significant. And yeah there's disappointments but the history of the left is always and always will be one of disappointment. It's got a utopian bent.

And I think the same broadly goes for Starmer. I can't think of anything that is specifically or interestingly Starmer and not something that reflects our context and other left-wing and democratic leaders across the world. Especially the tension of net zero, growth, reducing dependencies and with it trying to build some green industrial base.

Sure its easy enough to say in hindsight. But even at the time it should have been clear some stuff was broken. The railways for instance.

[Gups]

This article is telling me the spirit of the Post Office scandal is alive and well:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/29/thames-water-urged-to-test-supply-urgently-after-reported-illnesses

Basically an outbreak of some nasty disease is ongoing in SE London, VERY similar to the water-based bug recently discovered in Devon.

Thames Water tested the water of one person suffering from it test came back clean. So what do they do as people keep falling ill and ask for tests? They say no because they have already had one test so why bother.

LOL, there was no way that was a centrist Labour manifesto.


Nationalisation of railways, utiliites, telecoms, postal service. £650bn national and green transformation funds, abolition of tuition fees, abolition of Lords, maximum 32 hour working week, free fibre broadband for everyone, more gveaways to pnesioners, abolition of academy schools, fully paid mat leave of 12 months, all companies have to give 10% of their shares to workers, 30 hours free nursery care, abolition of benefit caps, rent caps, £75bn for social housing, increased inheritance tax, increased income tax over £80K, increased corporation tax, windfall taxes on oil and gas comanies. Loands more but I can't be arsed transcribing them all.

No doubt Corbyn was held back by his shadow chancellor but it was a full fat, utterly unviable, impossible pipe dream of a manifesto.

[Josquius]

Centre of Labour= Moderate left.
Different thing to centrist. Centrists are the right of Labour. 

And as said last election the problem was throwing everything out in a big unfocussed unbelievable cluster,  and Corbyn himself. The policies themselves taken in isolation were popular and properly framed many would be big vote winners that would be in the best interests of the country.

[Sheilbh]

No doubt Corbyn was held back by his shadow chancellor but it was a full fat, utterly unviable, impossible pipe dream of a manifesto.

Also the areas of policy where Corbyn was forced to compromise were foreign policy (the area he cares about most). He was forced to back continued NATO membership. The party never went for unilateral nuclear disarmament (which is his view). And I think it's very likely that if he wasn't party leader he would have been campaigning for Leave.

That's why I think Ukraine might have been the issue that would break Labour under a Corbyn-ish leadership, because his views are so far away from the average Labour MP, member and the public on that, I think it would have been very difficult to reconcile.

And on Brexit it is interesting that a lot of the Corbynite left pin the 2019 result on Starmer specifically and the shift between 2017 from a manifesto that accepted the referendum result and would deliver Brexit to the 2019 second referendum stance. Obviously that's also trying to pre-emptively trash Starmer who was a likely leadership candidate not from their wing of the party and also trying to avoid responsibility that their policies and their leader had led to historic defeat (again).

[Gups]

Centre of Labour= Moderate left.
Different thing to centrist. Centrists are the right of Labour. 

And as said last election the problem was throwing everything out in a big unfocussed unbelievable cluster,  and Corbyn himself. The policies themselves taken in isolation were popular and properly framed many would be big vote winners that would be in the best interests of the country.

Yes, I was talking about centre of Labour

[Sheilbh]

Sure its easy enough to say in hindsight. But even at the time it should have been clear some stuff was broken. The railways for instance.

Sure - although I'm also saying it about Starmer now

And on the railways, Network Rail was a big deal and a huge improvement after the disasters of Railtrack.

[Sheilbh]

And as said last election the problem was throwing everything out in a big unfocussed unbelievable cluster,  and Corbyn himself. The policies themselves taken in isolation were popular and properly framed many would be big vote winners that would be in the best interests of the country.

Again I think Blair's point on the 3 second, 30 second and 3 minute conversation with a voter basically applied to all of those policies. Especially, as you say, given that they were basically just like a supermarket sweep of ideas.

[Sheilbh]

Tory campaign continues to possibly maybe be more performance art project than electoral campaign.

Iain Dale has been selected as their candidate in Tunbridge Wells. I really like Dale - he's a very long-standing blogger, radio host, podcaster and publisher etc on the right. Unfortunately that means there's lots of material for the Lib Dems to dig up, like this from 2022:
"I've lived in Tunbridge Wells since 1997, slightly against my will, in that my partner comes from Tunbridge Wells [...] I've never liked the place, still don't, and would happily live somewhere else"

As you might expect for a constituency centred on Royal Tunbridge Wells this should be a safe Tory seat. They've won over 50% of the vote in every election since 2005. It's target seat 49 for the Lib Dems who'd need a swing of about 14% - but it's classic blue wall and it seems like a pretty plausible win for them. Especially once they get that quote on every single leaflet in the constituency.

They also have an interesting candidate who's been running or the last 18 months. He's Mike Martin who was former British Army (fluent in Pushtu) then went into academia doing a PhD in War Studies at King's College where he's now an academic. You may recognise him because especially early in the war he did lots of threads on the invasion of Ukraine that got widely shared.

On interesting candidates also worth flagging Roh Yakobi who is the Labour candidate for The Wrekin and has an extraordinary story. I believe he's Hazara, he was a refugee as a child having been held and tortured by the Taliban. He fled to Iran and Pakistan where he was a child labourer in factories and construction sites. He eventually got to the UK in 2004 and similarly has since become an academic focusing on security and foreign policy:

Roh Yakobi for The Wrekin
@RohYakobi
Overwhelmed by your responses. Thank you!

There have been a few tears. Have been thinking of the village and the punishing lives its people had. Of my mother, who lived the most tragic life and whose burial place I don't know. Of my father who fought the Soviets and then the Taliban, and sacrificed so much. Of my little brother who died in front of me of hunger under Taliban blockade.

Of that July 1999 day the Taliban came after me, the cell, the torture. Of running away and struggling to protect myself in Pakistan and Iran. Of the sweatshops, factories and building sites.

Of Britain, this wonderful, great country of ours, which I owe so much to. Of the @UKLabour I joined the day I became a British citizen in 2010.

Hugged my wife and kids and we wept together. I am ready to serve, ready to pay the debt I owe to our country.

Ready, with your support, to turn #TheWrekin red.

Please join my campaign.  #VoteRoh #VoteLabour

I think Parliament would be better off if both of these won - however much I quite like Iain Dale

[Sheilbh]

And it goes on with the purge of the left.

Faiza Shaheen who was a rising star of the left and previously ran in Chingford against IDS (where she almost won) has been suspended from the party and deselected as candidate in Chingford this time round. She had liked a tweet referring to the "hysterical" Israel lobby and calling Labour "institutionally Islamophobic".

Lloyd Russell-Moyle who is the MP for Brighton Kemptown (also young but not, I'd argue, a rising star ) has told activists that he has been suspended from the party following a complaint (he believes to be malicious) about an incident eight years ago. Given the time to the election there's not enough time for the disciplinary process to finish before nominations, so he's been told he can't run and has been deselected.

One is a safe seat and the other is very winnable. I suspect that given there won't be enough time for a normal nomination process, they'll just select a couple of Starmer loyalists.

If you were being cynical you might suggest that the leadership basically kept this on a low boil until the election so there'd be no time for normal process and they can just remove sitting MPs/candidates and impose their own very easily.

It's extraordinary the extent the Labour right have pushed their advantage. They are really trying to basically get rid of the Labour left from the parliamentary party. When, inevitably, there's a backlash the Labour left factional reaction is going to be very extreme.

Edit: Also rumours that the local party of Apsana Begum is seeking to deselect her from the NEC. She's currently a sitting MP and deselection is tough - largely it's been a demand of the Labour left who want "party democracy" where they'd be able to hold the threat of deselction over sitting MPs and use it. So not clear if the Labour NEC will allow it. But if they do 48 hours with Abbott, Shaheen and Begum would I think strengthen the perception that they have an issue with minority women. Abbott was the first black woman MP, Begum is one of the only British Bangladeshi MPs and Shaheen is also of Pakistani heritage. There may not be an issue (I'm not sure that's right), but it certainly looks like there's one.

Edit: And it is particularly striking when you have, say, Neil Coyle (MP near me) still standing who is by all accounts quite unpleasant, but also had allegations of racism and sexual harassment against him which have been upheld. But he's on the right of the party.