How would you vote in a General Election?

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

But let's just say that a soft Brexit with Labour, however unlikely, is still about a billion times more likely than any of the remain parties actually doing what they're promising to do, and stopping Brexit. That is not in their power and it never will be. It's not in any way a likely prospect. So what are you voting for?

I'm voting for a party that says it wants what I want. Call me an idealist, but if more people did that, we might get some representation around these parts. I've been effectively disenfranchised my whole life, so all I can do is support the party that prioritises the things I value.

Of course it can't fix it. But it won't stop Labour fixing it either - and to claim otherwise is dogma. Soft Brexit simply would not be the devastating event that some people seem to need it to be.

I'd much rather soft Brexit weren't a devastating event, and something like Norway + clearly wouldn't be as damaging as a harder option, but you're asking people to vote on trust: Vote Labour for a soft Brexit and an end to Austerity. The latter I can buy, the former I am still to be persuaded would happen. And absent the former, whither the latter?

My point is that once you strip away the economic alibi, these other facets are what we're left with - and what you're prioritising over ending austerity and reforming the economy: they're your values. And, as with the Faragists', they're identarian: openness, European identity and so on. That's fine: I mean, openness at least is a positive value. But why not own it? Why not say, These values are so important that I think that 5 more years austerity, and a hard Brexit, are a price worth paying to uphold them?

This is sophistry though, isn't it. It's just a dressing up of that 'Vote X, get Tories' argument (where X is not-Labour). It's the kind or bullying politics I tend to react against. If Labour fails to get elected, it will be because Labour failed to persuade or convince enough of the electorate. That's down to Labour; God knows the end to Austerity ought to be a persuasive argument, but it's turning to ashes in the hands of Corbyn's crew. Telling voters 'vote for us, or else' isn't a winning strategy. Don't you dare try to pass the blame to people who have not been persuaded.

 

[TheDecameron]

For who? This kind of talk just shows remainers' hand, and the poverty of it.

That’s Labour’s essential problem- so busy labelling and containerising voters, strategising, that your party has been overtaken rapidly by events and overtaken by other parties. There is one other problem of course- people don’t sign up to something that might cost them big unless they actually know what it is they’re paying for or if the guy who took their money is still going to be in business.

 

[Tony L]

Strategically, that's just bananas: the level of co-ordination it would require to get just the right balance for a hung parliament would be simply impossible. Get it wrong - and only sheer dumb luck would get it right - and inevitably, if this strategy is followed, the balance will tip in favour of no deal Brexiteers. It's the single most reckless thing I've heard from Remain. Have you contacted The Guardian?

Its the most logical outcome as Corbyn is absolutely incapable of winning a majority. Try looking at the statistics rather than spouting Momentum dreams! Labour are nowhere near popular enough to get even close to a majority, and you can hiss, stamp your feet and blame the millions of deserting voters all you like, but the cold hard reality is the product you are selling is simply not one most people want to buy.

Elections are popularity contests and your Corbyn dream is falling down exactly the same annoyingly familiar rabbit hole as Foot, Scargill, Hatton and all the other fringe nutters that guaranteed Labour stayed in opposition for election after election after election. If you actually want to win start attracting rather than alienating centrists! That is the only place elections are ever won or lost; the entrenched extremes of left and right don’t matter as they never move. To win any election Labour need to start flipping moderate Tory, Liberal and SNP votes. The militant clowns selling Socialist Worker etc don’t matter, they are unflippable, so no need to pander to that mindset. The votes up for grabs are the exact ones Labour had with Blair, Brown etc and are now flying out the door to the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens etc as the party is alienating them day after day. Welcome to the wilderness, the place this particular Labour Party actually deserves to reside.

 

[SteveS1]

Yes, practically speaking it's no deal or remain, as far as I can see, and Labour will inevitably come down on the side of remain. (Sorry, 5D chess!) But by then it will be too late for many here, because Jeremy is not pure of heart: he will just be chasing votes, like a typical slimy politician! He doesn't feel European in his soul!

Bit dramatic, he doesn't have to 'feel the love' for Europe. Just recognise that his task of righting the Tory damage will not be helped by a Brexit wrecked economy.

 

[Seanm]

I'm voting for a party that says it wants what I want. Call me an idealist, but if more people did that, we might get some representation around these parts. I've been effectively disenfranchised my whole life, so all I can do is support the party that prioritises the things I value.


I'd much rather soft Brexit weren't a devastating event, and something like Norway + clearly wouldn't be as damaging as a harder option, but you're asking people to vote on trust: Vote Labour for a soft Brexit and an end to Austerity. The latter I can buy, the former I am still to be persuaded would happen. And absent the former, whither the latter?


This is sophistry though, isn't it. It's just a dressing up of that 'Vote X, get Tories' argument (where X is not-Labour). It's the kind or bullying politics I tend to react against. If Labour fails to get elected, it will be because Labour failed to persuade or convince enough of the electorate. That's down to Labour; God knows the end to Austerity ought to be a persuasive argument, but it's turning to ashes in the hands of Corbyn's crew. Telling voters 'vote for us, or else' isn't a winning strategy. Don't you dare try to pass the blame to people who have not been persuaded.

Look, vote for what you believe in. It's the demand to be courted I struggle with: "Why hasn't Labour persuaded me!" It's a variation of "I'm exactly the type of voter Labour need to attract!" that is, a demand to be at the centre of things. Ultimately, Labour hasn't persuaded you because they believe in different things to you, and have different priorities, and because nothing will persuade you short of abandoning those values and priorities and reflecting your own back at you. Lots of parties are doing that already, it seems to me: you can't expect them all to do it.

 

[Seanm]

That’s Labour’s essential problem- so busy labelling and containerising voters, strategising, that your party has been overtaken rapidly by events and overtaken by other parties. There is one other problem of course- people don’t sign up to something that might cost them big unless they actually know what it is they’re paying for or if the guy who took their money is still going to be in business.

Yes, all this strategy, all this politics! Just f___ing stay! It's simple!

 

[Seanm]

Its the most logical outcome as Corbyn is absolutely incapable of winning a majority. Try looking at the statistics rather than spouting Momentum dreams! Labour are nowhere near popular enough to get even close to a majority, and you can hiss, stamp your feet and blame the millions of deserting voters all you like, but the cold hard reality is the product you are selling is simply not one most people want to buy.

Elections are popularity contests and your Corbyn dream is falling down exactly the same annoyingly familiar rabbit hole as Foot, Scargill, Hatton and all the other fringe nutters that guaranteed Labour stayed in opposition for election after election after election. If you actually want to win start attracting rather than alienating centrists! That is the only place elections are ever won or lost; the entrenched extremes of left and right don’t matter as they never move. To win any election Labour need to start flipping moderate Tory, Liberal and SNP votes. The militant clowns selling Socialist Worker etc don’t matter, they are unflippable, so no need to pander to that mindset. The votes up for grabs are the exact ones Labour had with Blair, Brown etc and are now flying out the door to the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens etc as the party is alienating them day after day. Welcome to the wilderness, the place this particular Labour Party actually deserves to reside.

You are planning to follow a strategy which I would say has a 99.9999% chance of delivering a Brexit Party/No Deal Tory government should enough people be reckless enough to follow it, for the sake of a fundamentalist attachment to a single issue, and you are still shouting 1983 Daily Mail headlines about left wing extremists. It's just wild.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Look, vote for what you believe in. It's the demand to be courted I struggle with: "Why hasn't Labour persuaded me!" It's a variation of "I'm exactly the type of voter Labour need to attract!" that is, a demand to be at the centre of things.

Oh, ffs Sean. I'm not demanding to be courted, you're holding a Tory-shaped gun to my head.

Ultimately, Labour hasn't persuaded you because they believe in different things to you, and have different priorities, and because nothing will persuade you short of abandoning those values and priorities and reflecting your own back at you. Lots of parties are doing that already, it seems to me: you can't expect them all to do it.

I have voted Labour or LibDem nearly all my life, and I want to vote Labour now. I was delighted when Corbyn got in, because my reason for deserting Labour was Blair's Nu-Lab project. But, try as I might, I can't see Corbyn as somebody capable of delivery. He's spent the last three years absent on duty on the central issue of the day, and instead hammered away at 'but, Austerity...' because he's comfortable where he is, and that is on the barricades, objecting to Tory policies. So Labour hasn't persuaded me (despite me really wanting to be persuaded). Stop trying to make that my fault.

 

[Seanm]

Oh, ffs Sean. I'm not demanding to be courted, you're holding a Tory-shaped gun to my head.

I have voted Labour or LibDem nearly all my life, and I want to vote Labour now. I was delighted when Corbyn got in, because my reason for deserting Labour was Blair's Nu-Lab project. But, try as I might, I can't see Corbyn as somebody capable of delivery. He's spent the last three years absent on duty on the central issue of the day, and instead hammered away at 'but, Austerity...' because he's comfortable where he is, and that is on the barricades, objecting to Tory policies. So Labour hasn't persuaded me (despite me really wanting to be persuaded). Stop trying to make that my fault.

I'm not! Having different values to Labour is not your fault. Refusing to recognise it might be. For Labour, austerity is more important than Brexit, in every way that counts: that's a conscious position, and an expression of our values: it's not a personal failing on Corbyn's part, or sophistry, or a lack of persuasive skill. We care about different things, that's all.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I'm not! Having different values to Labour is not your fault. Refusing to recognise it might be. For Labour, austerity is more important than Brexit, in every way that counts: that's a conscious position, and an expression of our values: it's not a personal failing on Corbyn's part, or sophistry, or a lack of persuasive skill. We care about different things, that's all.

We care about the same things. We differ on priorities and timing, that's all.

Brexit preparations have furred up the arteries of Government, Parliament and the Civil Service for the last 2-3 years, and that's just the preparations. Implementation looks likely to require much the same again. And don't forget, so far all we have is a political declaration. If we agree to leave with a deal, we then have 21 months (or so) in which to thrash out the detailed terms of that deal and implement it. That's what the Transition Period is for. Leaving with a deal is a misnomer; we'd be leaving with an agreed form of a deal, but the deal is still vapourware at that point.

So, given all that, just how much time, resource and funding do you think you'll actually have to tackle the aftermath of Austerity with, in the next two years?

And if you've not made significant progress on unpicking Austerity by then, you'll be perceived as a busted flush.

That's why I prioritise Brexit over Austerity. It's not an ideological thing, it's a timetabling thing.

 

[Tony L]

That's why I prioritise Brexit over Austerity. It's not an ideological thing, it's a timetabling thing.

Indeed. It is a total daydream to think the damage from austerity can be tackled in a hugely declining and increasingly isolated post-Brexit economy. There won’t be the money to pay for the job losses already announced in the auto, aviation, steel and financial services industries let alone start rebuilding.

 

[Seanm]

We care about the same things. We differ on priorities and timing, that's all.

Brexit preparations have furred up the arteries of Government, Parliament and the Civil Service for the last 2-3 years, and that's just the preparations. Implementation looks likely to require much the same again. And don't forget, so far all we have is a political declaration. If we agree to leave with a deal, we then have 21 months (or so) in which to thrash out the detailed terms of that deal and implement it. That's what the Transition Period is for. Leaving with a deal is a misnomer; we'd be leaving with an agreed form of a deal, but the deal is still vapourware at that point.

So, given all that, just how much time, resource and funding do you think you'll actually have to tackle the aftermath of Austerity with, in the next two years?

And if you've not made significant progress on unpicking Austerity by then, you'll be perceived as a busted flush.

That's why I prioritise Brexit over Austerity. It's not an ideological thing, it's a timetabling thing.

There are things that a Labour government could do right away to end the suffering of austerity, even if the works were furred up: Universal Credit could easily be scrapped, benefits unfrozen, cuts to local funding reversed – there are local authorities all over the country with the will and the capacity to start rebuilding things immediately but which are instead devoting their energies to preparing for more cuts! I mean this is very low hanging fruit that would make a massive difference to people’s lives and which needn’t trouble Whitehall at all. The more ambitious stuff – a national investment bank, a massive house building programme, a new industrial strategy, tax reforms – could get going: deliberate blocking by the civil service is likely to be a more pressing problem than diverted resources.

Regardless of the difficulties, if you want to talk about this kind of practical prioritisation then we really do have to face practical realities, and talk about the only two realistic choices, which is Labour vs a BP/Tory coalition: that’s reality holding a gun to your head, I’m just pointing it out. Labour are going to have a much better chance of implementing their programme in government than out, even if it’s carrying the dead weight of Brexit.

Indeed. It is a total daydream to think the damage from austerity can be tackled in a hugely declining and increasingly isolated post-Brexit economy. There won’t be the money to pay for the job losses already announced in the auto, aviation, steel and financial services industries let alone start rebuilding.

Show your working, otherwise it's dogma.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

There are things that a Labour government could do right away to end the suffering of austerity, even if the works were furred up: Universal Credit could easily be scrapped, benefits unfrozen, cuts to local funding reversed – there are local authorities all over the country with the will and the capacity to start rebuilding things immediately but which are instead devoting their energies to preparing for more cuts! I mean this is very low hanging fruit that would make a massive difference to people’s lives and which needn’t trouble Whitehall at all. The more ambitious stuff – a national investment bank, a massive house building programme, a new industrial strategy, tax reforms – could get going: deliberate blocking by the civil service is likely to be a more pressing problem than diverted resources.

Regardless of the difficulties, if you want to talk about this kind of practical prioritisation then we really do have to face practical realities, and talk about the only two realistic choices, which is Labour vs a BP/Tory coalition: that’s reality holding a gun to your head, I’m just pointing it out. Labour are going to have a much better chance of implementing their programme in government than out, even if it’s carrying the dead weight of Brexit.

Even accepting your first paragraph (I'm intrigued that you think Civil Service blocking would be an issue; IME the CS is more left wing than right wing - Home Office excepted), all that would be easier if you weren't also dealing with Brexit. And funding it would be easier if you weren't also dealing with Brexit fallout, such as industry/banking withdrawing, redundancies, etc.

The thing I just don't understand is why Labour can't or won't get off the Brexit fence and argue for Remain. Ideologically, Remain sits far more comfortably with the party's values, I would have thought. It certainly does with the membership. You keep presenting it as either/or. A stark choice between Remain or Labour government. Why not both? Why can't Labour stand up and stick up for what it believes in? The electoral arithmetic looks rather different now, to when the decision tree was planted.

 

[Seanm]

Even accepting your first paragraph (I'm intrigued that you think Civil Service blocking would be an issue; IME the CS is more left wing than right wing - Home Office excepted), all that would be easier if you weren't also dealing with Brexit. And funding it would be easier if you weren't also dealing with Brexit fallout, such as industry/banking withdrawing, redundancies, etc.

Yes I know! The point is that we might not be able to have both a Labour government and remain. If it comes to it I'd have the Labour government. Ideally we'd have both.

The thing I just don't understand is why Labour can't or won't get off the Brexit fence and argue for Remain. Ideologically, Remain sits far more comfortably with the party's values, I would have thought. It certainly does with the membership. You keep presenting it as either/or. A stark choice between Remain or Labour government. Why not both? Why can't Labour stand up and stick up for what it believes in? The electoral arithmetic looks rather different now, to when the decision tree was planted.

Because they're concerned it would keep them out of government, and the austerity show on the road! And once again, there is no one, unified thing that Labour "believes" in with regard to Brexit: there are lots of different positions, and leave/remain is probably the least significant cleavage. The most significant has to do with whether Brexit is THE thing, and a majority of both the PLP and the membership think that it isn't - despite also being pro-Remain.

Priorities!

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Yes I know! The point is that we might not be able to have both a Labour government and remain. If it comes to it I'd have the Labour government. Ideally we'd have both.


Because they're concerned it would keep them out of government, and the austerity show on the road! And once again, there is no one, unified thing that Labour "believes" in with regard to Brexit: there are lots of different positions, and leave/remain is probably the least significant cleavage. The most significant has to do with whether Brexit is THE thing, and a majority of both the PLP and the membership think that it isn't - despite also being pro-Remain.

Priorities!

It's the bit in bold I don't get. I did get it, at one point. There was a useful Grauniad opinion piece which spelt it out, as I recall. But that was then. The diehard Brexit brigade has ****ed off to BP, and was never really Labour's to lose, being either hardline Tory or UKIP anyway. There is, I believe, a huge swathe of middle-ground people who, like me, think Labour will be better for the country, but who are drifting off to Green or LibDem, because Labour is dithering over Brexit. Are the implacable Labour Leave faction really that fundamental to success that it is worth risking all the other losses, just to keep them on board? Only it seems to me that you risk losing the diehards in that faction, but the moderates would be amenable to the bigger picture you could paint, about recovery from Austerity being quicker and stronger without having to deal with Brexit issues.

 

[Seanm]

It's the bit in bold I don't get. I did get it, at one point. There was a useful Grauniad opinion piece which spelt it out, as I recall. But that was then. The diehard Brexit brigade has ****ed off to BP, and was never really Labour's to lose, being either hardline Tory or UKIP anyway. There is, I believe, a huge swathe of middle-ground people who, like me, think Labour will be better for the country, but who are drifting off to Green or LibDem, because Labour is dithering over Brexit. Are the implacable Labour Leave faction really that fundamental to success that it is worth risking all the other losses, just to keep them on board? Only it seems to me that you risk losing the diehards in that faction, but the moderates would be amenable to the bigger picture you could paint, about recovery from Austerity being quicker and stronger without having to deal with Brexit issues.

I tend to share this analysis, but I'm not confident in it, basically: I would like it to be correct but think it could easily be wrong. We may have more leavers to lose, in more key seats, than we have remainers to win back. And we don't know what Labour entering the culture war in a full throated way would actually result in.

I think things will be clearer when the Tories make their move, and that there's no point committing unconditionally to a PV - the idea of which really upsets a lot of moderate leavers and remainers - when the time has probably passed for it, and it may be both more practical and less damaging to campaign for remain in a GE against a no deal Tory Party. That's all very 5D of course but if you want simple answers there's no shortage of people selling them.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It may be a media problem, Sean, but I don't hear any of the sort of messaging you're giving out, from Labour, specifically Corbyn.

Maybe he's getting drowned out by the din from Brexit, but it looks increasingly like Corbyn just wants to lurk in the background and quietly get on with his own brand of Labour politics. If so, I have considerable sympathy for his plight, but Labour needs to be a force which people will rally round and cleave to. It needs to be a broad church, because the needs of poor, vulnerable, exploited or underprivileged people come in many forms. Such people have more which unites them than divides them, and Labour should be embracing them all. Whereas what it is doing is muttering darkly into its beer and allowing one thing above all else (Brexit) to drive that wedge between them.

Yes, bang on about austerity, and how it can be unpicked and undone; but why not also bang on about how much easier that would be from within the EU?

 

[stephen bennett]

Without Brexit we would be having a GE next year that I think Corbyn could have won. I certainly would have been campaigning for that, as would all those new young Corbyn supporters.

As it turns out, Labour (and all) leave voters have effectively prioritised Brexit over austerity.

Stephen

 

[Romulus]

Labour needs a strong socialist leader with strong held morals, who is realistic with current events and will always be protector of the vulnerable. A sort of person that the people would believe in and a politician who can persuade people by reasoned arguments. Jermyn Corbyn is definately not that person and that is the fundamental problem with labour.

 

[sean99]

Labour needs a strong socialist leader with strong held morals, who is realistic with current events and will always be protector of the vulnerable. A sort of person that the people would believe in and a politician who can persuade people by reasoned arguments. Jermyn Corbyn is definately not that person and that is the fundamental problem with labour.

At this point it's hard to tell what Corbyn is, but Brexit has been his undoing. In 2017 I thought he had strongly held morals and could persuade by reasoned argument, but Brexit has shown him to be completely out of his depth when faced with a crisis. It's a shame, and he seems like a really decent guy, but he needs to step aside for the good of Labour and the country.