How Long Before A Vote Of No Confidence In Johnson Government?

[maxflinn]

Of course, you wouldn't expect me to not know what I was talking about . I thought it lacked coherence. It argued that Boris Johnson, Theresa May, David Cameron and Tony Blair were divisive and harmful to the country, yet somehow we need Corbyn's divisiveness. "But division is just what our broken politics needs".

Gassor, I don't think that's a correct summation of it. See the quoted part below:

Corbyn is a divisive figure, but so is Boris Johnson, so were Theresa May and David Cameron, so was Blair. It’s just that the people who were divided away by them weren’t considered important. The poor, the “loony left”, the disabled, the foreign – none of them mattered and so the solid core of people who remained could say: “Look how unified we are, look how we compromise like adults.” But it’s a shallow kind of compromise, where you only ask the people who already broadly agree with you.

Corbyn’s divisiveness in this context is what underlies his appeal, and that’s why the calls for him to step aside for a more unifying figure are so tone-deaf. If he were acceptable to the current holders of power in this country, then he wouldn’t be any use to us.

Exposing division is not the same as causing it. Eventually we are going to have to stop saying “you’re dividing us” and start asking: “Which side do I need to be on?”

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...corbyn-divisive-broken-politics-labour-leader

I think the author's point is that Corbyn divides because he doesn't subscribe to the same neoliberal orthodoxy that all the rest named do, or did.

As he said; if he did, and 'were acceptable to the current holders of power in this country, then he wouldn't be of any use to us'.

He sees many issues with the status quo, and wants big changes which aim to deal with the growing inequality, housing issues, poverty etc. The rest just want more of the same kind of policies that have created many of these problems in the first place. So while they're divisive in different ways, they're all on the same page in general.

We need people like Corbyn with fresh ideas, willing to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, or nothing will change, and the trajectory we're on will continue, just with different faces at the helm.

This is why I see centrism as so pointless. It basically represents the neoliberal status quo, sometimes with mild tweaks. I guess that's fine if you're financially snug. Not so much if you're not.

 

[Still]

I guess that's fine if you're financially snug. Not so much if you're not.

You are projecting.

 

[maxflinn]

You are projecting.

How so? Is it not the case that people who are financially snug are far less affected by the issues of the day, like growing inequality, job insecurity, severe lack of affordable housing etc, and thus can afford to support the centrism that does nothing to rectify any of these problems?

 

[Still]

How so? Is it not the case that people who are financially snug are far less affected by the issues of the day, like growing inequality, job insecurity, severe lack of affordable housing etc, and thus can afford to support the centrism that does nothing to rectify any of these problems?

Projecting because you assume everyone acts in their own interest.

 

[maxflinn]

Projecting because you assume everyone acts in their own interest.

I assumed no such thing.

 

[Still]

I assumed no such thing.

You appeared to.

This is why I see centrism as so pointless. It basically represents the neoliberal status quo, sometimes with mild tweaks. I guess that's fine if you're financially snug. Not so much if you're not.

 

[gassor]

Gassor, I don't think that's a correct summation of it. See the quoted part below:



https://www.theguardian.com/comment...corbyn-divisive-broken-politics-labour-leader

I think the author's point is that Corbyn divides because he doesn't subscribe to the same neoliberal orthodoxy that all the rest named do, or did.

As he said; if he did, and 'were acceptable to , then he wouldn't be of any use to us'.

He sees many issues with the status quo, and wants big changes which aim to deal with the growing inequality, housing issues, poverty etc. The rest just want more of the same kind of policies that have created many of these problems in the first place. So while they're divisive in different ways, they're all on the same page in general.

We need people like Corbyn with fresh ideas, willing to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, or nothing will change, and the trajectory we're on will continue, just with different faces at the helm.

This is why I see centrism as so pointless. It basically represents the neoliberal status quo, sometimes with mild tweaks. I guess that's fine if you're financially snug. Not so much if you're not.

The author likes Corbyn and tries to make a positive out of his divisiveness that's all. But it's all a bit conspiratorial eg "the current holders of power in this country". Vague or what? Of course the prevailing orthodoxy always has to be challenged, that's a given for anyone involved in politics who wants society to improve. The way in which society improves is by creating wealth and sharing it out. The present orthodoxy has come up short and should be adjusted to stop the widening gulf between the very richest and the poor. But the author wants us to decide “Which side do I need to be on?” like we're facing each other down and should get ready to do battle. Standard Marxist/Trotskyist diatribe and not very "brilliant".

The centrism you wish to abandon has produced not only the NHS, but the minimum wage, Health and Safety legislation, anti-discrimination laws and a whole host of other benefits and generally has made the lives of most ordinary folk a hell of a lot better than it has ever been. It's not perfect, but what is?

 

[Seanm]

Sean, the key issue is that the referendum is not just a matter of counting Leave votes, Remain votes have to be counted as well. It is no use if a football manager bangs on about his team scoring 4 wonderful without mentioning that his team lost 6-4. Yes the middle classes produced the most Leave votes, but overall they voted to Remain. Without the working class vote, we would still be members of the EU. If only the working class were allowed to vote in the ref we would be in the same boat drifting up the same creek as we are now.

And without the middle class, there wouldn't have been a referendum. It's a crank Tory issue: it was always going to invite involvement chiefly from the middle classes, and on the working class side, working class Tories.

Where you stand on this is always going to be a matter of perspective, but I just hope the figures serve as grit in the gears of this story about the working class doing Brexit (and therefore deserving the consequences): the leave vote was 59% ABC1 and 41% C2DE, with the DE supplying 24%.

 

[Seanm]

The centrism you wish to abandon has produced not only the NHS, but the minimum wage, Health and Safety legislation, anti-discrimination laws and a whole host of other benefits and generally has made the lives of most ordinary folk a hell of a lot better than it has ever been. It's not perfect, but what is?

Attributing any of these things to centrism is a hell of a stretch! And not historically meaningful, unless by "centrism" you just mean "what those in power grudgingly accept is necessary."

 

[droodzilla]

Promoting Brexit *is* sharing a platform with Nigel Farage! The whole thing is a right-wing nationalist/isolationist project that was (in almost all respects) actually created by Farage and his billionaire disaster-capitalism backers! The Tories happily went along with it as they have always had deep racist/nationalist internal divisions and similar financial speculators and gamblers pulling the strings that are happy to short the UK for their own personal gain (Rees Mogg etc). Labour have no such excuses. There is no logical reason to support, endorse or capitulate to such an ugly and destructive hard right-wing project. The other progressive parties all grasped this from the off.

Now you're changing the goalposts, so I wont pursue the point any further.

On the wider issue, I voted Remain and will vote Remain again in a second referendum (with a somewhat heavy heart). However, there is nothing intrinsically racist about preferring different trading arrangements with members of the EU, otherwise, what should we say about the likes of Norway? There was a brief window of opportunity after the referendum when Theresa May could have adopted a conciliatory approach and hammered out a messy "soft Brexit" compromise with other party leaders. That would have ended the uncertainty that's caused much economic damage. Instead, she went full xenophobe and drew the hardest of red lines around a possible deal in order to outflank UKIP. Boris Johnson is now doubling down on this strategy and is more than willing to stoke the divisions it creates, so yes, Brexit has become a de facto hard-right project.

Labour has never supported any such project, and has consistently opposed No Deal and a hard Brexit. The party's main error has been to cling on, for too long, to the idea that a soft Brexit compromise is possible, as the debate has become more polarised, the longer it's gone on. Owen Jones wrote a good piece about this after the European elections:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-referendum-labour-corbyn-leave-remain-tories

In any case, Labour now supports a second referendum with a Remain option. In this context, your determination to tar all Labour MPs with the same brush is not only wrong (in my view) but it's also in danger of becoming self-defeating because the vast majority of Labour MPs are now on your side, and any route to stopping Brexit must go through them. The 20+ Labour MPs who are sceptical about a second referendum but aren't hard Brexiteers will be crucial in any VoNC, and need to be kept on board. I believe Corbyn's proposal is the one most likely to do that (you could argue that Corbyn's genuine attempt to compromise and respect the referendum result has earned him the credibility he needs with that group of MPs to get them "over the finish line").

Finally, your claim that all other parties grasped the nature of Brexit "from the off" isn't accurate. The referendum result shocked all mainstream politicians and there was a period of several months, during which the main parties tried to make sense of it and determine their response. Here's Mr "Bollocks to Brexit" himself, three months after the referendum:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...e/news/79094/vince-cable-hits-out-tim-farrons

One Lib-Dem MP never reconciled himself to the position the party eventually adopted: Stephen Lloyd resigned the whip to vote for May's deal last year.

The truth is, and always has been, that Brexit cuts across traditional party boundaries and that's precisely why it's so disruptive. It can be stopped, now the Labour Party fully supports a second referendum. A lot rides on Corbyn's meeting with other party leaders and rebel tories next week, so let's hope all involved get their shit together.

 

[gassor]

And without the middle class, there wouldn't have been a referendum. It's a crank Tory issue: it was always going to invite involvement chiefly from the middle classes, and on the working class side, working class Tories.

Where you stand on this is always going to be a matter of perspective, but I just hope the figures serve as grit in the gears of this story about the working class doing Brexit (and therefore deserving the consequences): the leave vote was 59% ABC1 and 41% C2DE, with the DE supplying 24%.

Sean, the figures you present don't serve as any grit in any gears. I keep repeating this but the middle-class (ABC1s) overall voted to Remain. You can't just look at their numbers who voted for Brexit, you have to have a peek at their number for Remain. As for the middle classes being responsible for the referendum I think you need to look at the social class make up of the Brexit/UKIP party. Without Farage there would have been no referendum.

 

[gassor]

Attributing any of these things to centrism is a hell of a stretch! And not historically meaningful, unless by "centrism" you just mean "what those in power grudgingly accept is necessary."

I didn't see anything like "what those in power grudgingly accept is necessary." when same-sex marriage and anti-discrimation laws were introduced. Was that what the Min Wage Act and the NHS, as well as all the H&S regs, were all about?

 

[zarniwoop]

Where you stand on this is always going to be a matter of perspective, but I just hope the figures serve as grit in the gears of this story about the working class doing Brexit (and therefore deserving the consequences): the leave vote was 59% ABC1 and 41% C2DE, with the DE supplying 24%.

A different perspective here, including a challenge to the idea that C1 is middle class: https://discoversociety.org/2019/07/03/brexit-working-class-revolt-or-middle-class-outlook/

Also noting that ABC1 make up 55% of the population so might be expected to contribute more of the votes.

I don’t think anyone deserves the consequences of Brexit other than the likes of Cameron, Farage and Johnson and they are insulated from it.

However, those who did not vote are just as responsible for the outcome as those who did.

 

[Mullardman]

I just want to cry...

 

[maxflinn]

You appeared to.

This statement does not assume everyone acts in their own interest:

This is why I see centrism as so pointless. It basically represents the neoliberal status quo, sometimes with mild tweaks. I guess that's fine if you're financially snug. Not so much if you're not.

 

[maxflinn]

The author likes Corbyn and tries to make a positive out of his divisiveness that's all. But it's all a bit conspiratorial eg "the current holders of power in this country". Vague or what? Of course the prevailing orthodoxy always has to be challenged, that's a given for anyone involved in politics who wants society to improve. The way in which society improves is by creating wealth and sharing it out. The present orthodoxy has come up short and should be adjusted to stop the widening gulf between the very richest and the poor. But the author wants us to decide “Which side do I need to be on?” like we're facing each other down and should get ready to do battle. Standard Marxist/Trotskyist diatribe and not very "brilliant".

Gassor, it appears to me that the author believes you won't fix the problems caused by the prevailing orthodoxy by voting for more proponents of the prevailing orthodoxy, but that you might by voting for someone who isn't a proponent of the prevailing orthodoxy, but has other ideas to try to rectify said problems, like Corbyn.

In this sense then yes, I think you do need to pick a side. This seems more basic logic than Marxist/Trotskyist thinking; you want more of the same, or you want change.

PS: creating wealth and sharing it out is not what has been happening, hence the biggest ever gap between the rich and the poor (growing inequality). The rich who got richer since the 08 crash, and the poor got poorer. There's a lot more of them too.

The centrism you wish to abandon has produced not only the NHS, but the minimum wage, Health and Safety legislation, anti-discrimination laws and a whole host of other benefits and generally has made the lives of most ordinary folk a hell of a lot better than it has ever been. It's not perfect, but what is?

I'd have to check but like Sean I doubt these were all centrist policies.

Also, and with respect, I don't think you realise the reality of the situation if you think most ordinary folk have it better than ever.

Centrism is the status quo with sometimes mild tweaks, IMO. Definitely not perfect.

What's needed is radical change. That may not be perfect either but if the right changes are made it will be much better for many.

The establishment don't want it though. The 'divisive' Corbyn does.

Pick a side.

 

[Brian]

...
He sees many issues with the status quo, and wants big changes which aim to deal with the growing inequality, housing issues, poverty etc. The rest just want more of the same kind of policies that have created many of these problems in the first place. So while they're divisive in different ways, they're all on the same page in general.

We need people like Corbyn with fresh ideas, willing to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, or nothing will change, and the trajectory we're on will continue, just with different faces at the helm.

This is why I see centrism as so pointless. It basically represents the neoliberal status quo, sometimes with mild tweaks. I guess that's fine if you're financially snug. Not so much if you're not.

Some want to remain on the same trajectory.

You are projecting.

Projecting because you assume everyone acts in their own interest.

No, he wasn’t doing any such thing.

You’re still trolling along, you hardly stop.

The author likes Corbyn and tries to make a positive out of his divisiveness that's all. But it's all a bit conspiratorial eg "the current holders of power in this country". Vague or what? Of course the prevailing orthodoxy always has to be challenged, that's a given for anyone involved in politics who wants society to improve. The way in which society improves is by creating wealth and sharing it out. The present orthodoxy has come up short and should be adjusted to stop the widening gulf between the very richest and the poor. But the author wants us to decide “Which side do I need to be on?” like we're facing each other down and should get ready to do battle. Standard Marxist/Trotskyist diatribe and not very "brilliant".

And you dislike Corbyn, hence the grabbing of every the chance to criticise and in this post, to throw in the ‘marxist’ word.

The centrism you wish to abandon has produced not only the NHS, but the minimum wage, Health and Safety legislation, anti-discrimination laws and a whole host of other benefits and generally has made the lives of most ordinary folk a hell of a lot better than it has ever been. It's not perfect, but what is?

Hardly know what to say other than it seems clear your understanding of what is left, centre and right is different to say the least.

 

[Nick_G]

Now you're changing the goalposts, so I wont pursue the point any further.

On the wider issue, I voted Remain and will vote Remain again in a second referendum (with a somewhat heavy heart). However, there is nothing intrinsically racist about preferring different trading arrangements with members of the EU, otherwise, what should we say about the likes of Norway? There was a brief window of opportunity after the referendum when Theresa May could have adopted a conciliatory approach and hammered out a messy "soft Brexit" compromise with other party leaders. That would have ended the uncertainty that's caused much economic damage. Instead, she went full xenophobe and drew the hardest of red lines around a possible deal in order to outflank UKIP. Boris Johnson is now doubling down on this strategy and is more than willing to stoke the divisions it creates, so yes, Brexit has become a de facto hard-right project.

Labour has never supported any such project, and has consistently opposed No Deal and a hard Brexit. The party's main error has been to cling on, for too long, to the idea that a soft Brexit compromise is possible, as the debate has become more polarised, the longer it's gone on. Owen Jones wrote a good piece about this after the European elections:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-referendum-labour-corbyn-leave-remain-tories

In any case, Labour now supports a second referendum with a Remain option. In this context, your determination to tar all Labour MPs with the same brush is not only wrong (in my view) but it's also in danger of becoming self-defeating because the vast majority of Labour MPs are now on your side, and any route to stopping Brexit must go through them. The 20+ Labour MPs who are sceptical about a second referendum but aren't hard Brexiteers will be crucial in any VoNC, and need to be kept on board. I believe Corbyn's proposal is the one most likely to do that (you could argue that Corbyn's genuine attempt to compromise and respect the referendum result has earned him the credibility he needs with that group of MPs to get them "over the finish line").

Finally, your claim that all other parties grasped the nature of Brexit "from the off" isn't accurate. The referendum result shocked all mainstream politicians and there was a period of several months, during which the main parties tried to make sense of it and determine their response. Here's Mr "Bollocks to Brexit" himself, three months after the referendum:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...e/news/79094/vince-cable-hits-out-tim-farrons

One Lib-Dem MP never reconciled himself to the position the party eventually adopted: Stephen Lloyd resigned the whip to vote for May's deal last year.

The truth is, and always has been, that Brexit cuts across traditional party boundaries and that's precisely why it's so disruptive. It can be stopped, now the Labour Party fully supports a second referendum. A lot rides on Corbyn's meeting with other party leaders and rebel tories next week, so let's hope all involved get their shit together.

Drood, Brexit was always the brainchild of the hard right: Farage/UKIP and the gutter press. What's more, like fascists before them, they started relatively sane in the run-up to the referendum, but in the last 3 years have got gradually more and more insane, so that in 2016, a Norway-style Brexit was often suggested, and No Deal was considered too insane to even be an option. Now it seems like the latter is the most likely outcome. What's even more scary is their demagoguery and propaganda seem to be working: 44% apparently support the idea of proroguing Parliament to force No Deal through. Where will this madness end?

This is why I think Labour should have been strongly against Brexit right from the start. Corbyn suggesting that Article 50 should be invoked immediately the day of the result was incredibly stupid, and probably why many don't trust him. I'd also suggest that the referendum result shocked many because no-one thought that so many would fall for obvious lies and bullshit. It can be summed up by inverting Labour's tagline:

Brexit: for the few, not the many

BTW, have you watched The Great Hack? If so, please do!

 

[TheDecameron]

Drood, Brexit was always the brainchild of the hard right: Farage/UKIP and the gutter press. What's more, like fascists before them, they started relatively sane in the run-up to the referendum, but in the last 3 years have got gradually more and more insane, so that in 2016, a Norway-style Brexit was often suggested, and No Deal was considered too insane to even be an option. Now it seems like the latter is the most likely outcome. What's even more scary is their demagoguery and propaganda seem to be working: 44% apparently support the idea of proroguing Parliament to force No Deal through. Where will this madness end?

This is why I think Labour should have been strongly against Brexit right from the start. Corbyn suggesting that Article 50 should be invoked immediately the day of the result was incredibly stupid, and probably why many don't trust him. I'd also suggest that the referendum result shocked many because no-one thought that so many would fall for obvious lies and bullshit. It can be summed up by inverting Labour's tagline:

Brexit: for the few, not the many

BTW, have you watched The Great Hack? If so, please do!

^ Nick has put it perfectly.

 

[Tony L]

And without the middle class, there wouldn't have been a referendum. It's a crank Tory issue: it was always going to invite involvement chiefly from the middle classes, and on the working class side, working class Tories.

Again the left-wing class warrior perspective doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny. The whole Brexit problem was created by a highly cynical and manipulative UKIP who realised the long-term fracture in the Conservative Party could be split and capitalised upon by actively mobilising working class xenophobes and nationalists with a Tea Party/Trump-like rhetoric. They played a very clever and highly duplicitous card and even managed to get a remarkably dumb/naive David Cameron to agree to a referendum rather than risk losing a couple more of the real idiot Tory MPs to UKIP.

Without UKIP and a highly favourable far-right working-class targeting tabloid press Brexit would never have happened. The Tory divisions would have remained under their rock and everything would carry on as usual. The whole thing was a con-trick paid for by Farage, Banks and some other highly dubious backers from the off. They knew they had some leverage in the more racist areas of the post-industrial north that the Tories wouldn’t use and they relentlessly played that card.

PS We can also place a fair bit of blame on the BBC for giving what was only ever a highly cynical financial speculator-financed racist/xenophobic pressure group the oxygen of publicity to such a ridiculous degree.