Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: David Miliband puts case for new referendum

Ex-Foreign Secretary David Miliband has called for a fresh Brexit referendum, saying it should not only be an option "when everything else has failed".

The one-time Labour leadership contender, who is no longer an MP, said there was a democratic, economic and social case for another public poll.

People's Vote campaigners bidding for a new referendum believe they will fail without support from Jeremy Corbyn.

But the Labour leader is pressing forward with his party's Brexit vision.

Mr Corbyn's bid to change Theresa May's Brexit plan proposes a public vote but only on "a deal or proposition" that is supported by a majority of MPs.

And it is thought his amendment to the prime minister's proposal on the next move in the Brexit process - one of 14 tabled by MPs - will struggle to win cross-party backing.

Instead, Mr Miliband said, Labour should throw its weight behind a more widely supported proposal from backbencher Yvette Cooper.

It aims to delay Britain's exit from the EU for an unspecified period beyond the current date of 29 March to avoid a no-deal Brexit.

"What she's saying is it's our job is to defend the country from danger and she sees real danger in no deal, rightly in my view," Mr Miliband told BBC News's Nick Robinson, for the Political Thinking podcast.

Many MPs fear leaving the EU without a formal withdrawal agreement would cause chaos at ports and disruption for businesses, although the option is supported by some Brexiteer MPs who believe this view is exaggerated.

'Last man standing'
People's Vote representatives said, on Thursday, they would support efforts to delay Brexit but suggested that - without a parliamentary majority for any version of Brexit - a further public poll would eventually be inevitable.

However, Mr Miliband argued that a public poll should be considered before it was the "last man standing".

"There is a democratic case for a second referendum," he told BBC News. "There is an economic case, as well as a social case.

"It starts with the fact that the Brexit people were promised is not on offer and so it's right that they should have the chance... to affirm their vote now that the details are known."

Mrs May faces widespread opposition from MPs of all parties to the withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship she negotiated with the EU.

But she has repeatedly ruled out a further referendum, saying it's Parliament's job to deliver the will of the people, and insists Britain will leave the EU on 29 March.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has said delaying the Brexit process would be "worse than no deal" and accused pro-Remain MPs of trying to "steal Brexit" from the people.

And prominent Leave campaigner Boris Johnson, one of Mr Miliband's successors at the Foreign Office, has said it would be "shameful" to delay Brexit.

 

[the dza]

As I read it, thats what Im seeing.

So what are you saying then - because I seem to be missing something.

Brown lost 97 seats, Milliband lost another 26. Corbyn gained 30 seats on a swing of 9.6% of the vote. Gaining that much on the swing means that lots more seats are potentially in play for Labour next time, because now there are lots of marginal seats that Labour can crack if they get it right. Which is why the Tories are sh1t scared of calling an election right now.

There are 48 seats where the Cons have a majority of less than 3000 (17 of them, it's less than 1000). Labour are in 2nd place in 41 of those 48 seats. Obviously, they have their own marginals to defend as well, but if the overall polling favours Labour come election day, they can easily pick up enough seats to become the largest party (I don't think they'll win a majority, but an outside chance).

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Right. They did well before, you think theyll do well again - but not enough for a decent majority. Hence theyll end up in bed with the SNP much like May/DUP.

Which is what I said.

So what am I missing?

 

[the dza]

Right. They did well before, you think theyll do well again - but not enough for a decent majority. Hence theyll end up in bed with the SNP much like May/DUP.

Which is what I said.

So what am I missing?

That Labour would be in government (minority government) and would get their legislation through on the back of SNP votes (for reasons I put forward in a previous post). Or are you asking me why Labour and their voters would want this, as opposed to a Tory government?

 

[Baleforce]

The terminology around a peoples vote needs to be changed, it's not a second referendum, 2016 was a referendum on opportunity, this would be a referendum on reality.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That Labour would be in government (minority government) and would get their legislation through on the back of SNP votes (for reasons I put forward in a previous post). Or are you asking me why Labour and their voters would want this, as opposed to a Tory government?

Im asking why focus solely on a minority government, and be subject to the whims of that nutter Sturgeon, when they can take a slightly longer route and end up with a decent majority.

If Corbyn champions a change* to "save Brexit", if he leads a proper opposition and makes things happen from that side of the house - what does that do to his chances of a proper majority in the inevitable GE that follows anyway?

 

[scaramanga]

So @the dza , you're saying that doing almost as badly as Brown but improving on the performance of the worst Labour leader in 2 generations is good?

I'd say that improving on Miliband is a given - Harold Shipman could have done that. To only win four more seats than Gordon Brown is shameful and he (along with his supporters) should be embarrassed by such a result.

 

[the dza]

So @the dza , you're saying that doing almost as badly as Brown but improving on the performance of the worst Labour leader in 2 generations is good?

I'd say that improving on Miliband is a given - Harold Shipman could have done that. To only win four more seats than Gordon Brown is shameful and he (along with his supporters) should be embarrassed by such a result.

No, I'm saying gaining enough seats to take away May's majority whilst also gaining enough votes to put marginals into play next time is a good result. A similar performance would see Labour as the largest party next time and forming a government. You keep telling yourself that the election was just like when Brown lost 90+ seats if it makes you feel better about it.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

So @the dza , you're saying that doing almost as badly as Brown but improving on the performance of the worst Labour leader in 2 generations is good?

I'd say that improving on Miliband is a given - Harold Shipman could have done that. To only win four more seats than Gordon Brown is shameful and he (along with his supporters) should be embarrassed by such a result.

It was apparently somewhat self inflicted by not running an 'attacking' campaign and the central office was working against leadership.

These wont happen this time, which presumably means there will be further improvement.

Even so it will likely lead to a similar situation with the SNP as the Tories have now with the DUP.

If I am understanding dza properly.

Ill take his word on it, I dont understand the inner workings of Labour well enough to argue the point at all.

Though I do wonder what all this says about them. The ran poorly before, had internal conflict, and didnt do well - but supposedly they will run better this time, in a cohesive manner, and still not really do well enough.

 

[the dza]

Im asking why focus solely on a minority government, and be subject to the whims of that nutter Sturgeon, when they can take a slightly longer route and end up with a decent majority.

If Corbyn champions a change* to "save Brexit", if he leads a proper opposition and makes things happen from that side of the house - what does that do to his chances of a proper majority in the inevitable GE that follows anyway?

There are no guarantees. But the sooner they can get rid of this government, the better imo. I explained why I don't think the SNP would be a problem for Corbyn so long as a soft-Brexit that they could live with was delivered. As long as the legislation gets passed, it makes no difference to me, it's the same result.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

There are no guarantees. But the sooner they can get rid of this government, the better imo. I explained why I don't think the SNP would be a problem for Corbyn so long as a soft-Brexit that they could live with was delivered. As long as the legislation gets passed, it makes no difference to me, it's the same result.

Alright. Lets assume thats all completely fine. Personally I dont like the approach, but whatever.

Then what?

What is so great about Labour getting in?

Its pretty obvious for a start Corbyns idea of Brexit wont happen, and he seems more likely than May to leave us hamstrung under the EU. What next?

 

[Baleforce]

Corbyn would be straight into the frying pan May is dancing around in imo, his party is no more united than the Tories.

 

[the dza]

It was apparently somewhat self inflicted by not running an 'attacking' campaign and the central office was working against leadership.

These wont happen this time, which presumably means there will be further improvement.

Even so it will likely lead to a similar situation with the SNP as the Tories have now with the DUP.

If I am understanding dza properly.

Ill take his word on it, I dont understand the inner workings of Labour well enough to argue the point at all.

Though I do wonder what all this says about them. The ran poorly before, had internal conflict, and didnt do well - but supposedly they will run better this time, in a cohesive manner, and still not really do well enough.

The funding allocations in the last general election amounted to a defensive campaign, i.e. they were more concerned with holding seats they had than attacking marginals. This is because a lot of people in the central office didn't trust Corbyn and bought into the scare stories of a heavy defeat. They planned for damage limitation.

But Labour did much better than that. They gained seats and put marginals into play with an increased vote share. So this time, the campaign would more aggressively target those winnable marginals. I don't assume that Labour could win a majority, but I think they can do well enough to be the largest party and govern as a minority government, with the SNP lining up behind their legislative program (because, they pretty much do line up with it).

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The funding allocations in the last general election amounted to a defensive campaign, i.e. they were more concerned with holding seats they had than attacking marginals. This is because a lot of people in the central office didn't trust Corbyn and bought into the scare stories of a heavy defeat. They planned for damage limitation.

But Labour did much better than that. They gained seats and put marginals into play with an increased vote share. So this time, the campaign would more aggressively target those winnable marginals. I don't assume that Labour could win a majority, but I think they can do well enough to be the largest party and govern as a minority government, with the SNP lining up behind their legislative program (because, they pretty much do line up with it).

And as you see in the post you quote - Im not arguing against that.

 

[the dza]

Alright. Lets assume thats all completely fine. Personally I dont like the approach, but whatever.

Then what?

What is so great about Labour getting in?

Its pretty obvious for a start Corbyns idea of Brexit wont happen, and he seems more likely than May to leave us hamstrung under the EU. What next?

Well firstly, being in government isn't only about Brexit -- the legislative program would be radically different to that of the Tories. I am left-wing, I agree with what Labour want to do and disagree with Tory policies. But to deal with Brexit, Labour don't have the red-lines that the Tories do, so can easily end up at a Soft-Brexit.

 

[the dza]

And as you see in the post you quote - Im not arguing against that.

I was just fleshing out my previous point a little bit more.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Well firstly, being in government isn't only about Brexit -- the legislative program would be radically different to that of the Tories. I am left-wing, I agree with what Labour want to do and disagree with Tory policies. But to deal with Brexit, Labour don't have the red-lines that the Tories do, so can easily end up at a Soft-Brexit.

Again, I know.

Im asking what is so great about it?

I liked the idea of a lot of their renationalisation policies last time. I absolutely hate their general attitude to the welfare state.

I also question just what we get out of a soft brexit. Clearly you dont mind, but many, many will - on both leave and remain sides.

Its a terrible outcome in many ways.

So sell it to me. "Im left wing and I like Labour" doesnt do it.

Labour get in government, they get the SNP to play nice, they dont implode like the Tories - what are they going to do that will make me a believer?

 

[the dza]

Corbyn would be straight into the frying pan May is dancing around in imo, his party is no more united than the Tories.

He wouldn't be dragged towards hard Brexit by the ERG though, quite the opposite infact. Labour are likely to deliver a soft-Brexit and if everything really goes tits up and Parliament are unable to agree on anything except preventing no-deal, then a 2nd ref. But I'd prefer a soft brexit and just get back to the domestic agenda.

 

[the dza]

Again, I know.

Im asking what is so great about it?

I liked the idea of a lot of their renationalisation policies last time. I absolutely hate their general attitude to the welfare state.

I also question just what we get out of a soft brexit. Clearly you dont mind, but many, many will - on both leave and remain sides.

Its a terrible outcome in many ways.

So sell it to me. "Im left wing and I like Labour" doesnt do it.

Labour get in government, they get the SNP to play nice, they dont implode like the Tories - what are they going to do that will make me a believer?

I don't need to sell it to you, you're an intelligent person. Read about what Labour want to do in government, compare it to what the Tories have been doing and then make your own mind up as to what's best and vote accordingly.

Re. a soft-Brexit. My opinion is that if we were starting from scratch, our current arrangement inside the EU is about the best we can do. Now that's being done away with, a soft-Brexit is the least worst option. It satisfies the box that was ticked to 'leave' (as people keep saying, it was only 'leave' or 'remain' on the ballot). And it is straight-forward compared to the other types of brexit, in terms of risk to jobs, the irish border problem etc. I understand why people would be unhappy with it, but it's still my opinion that it's the least worst option. Enough people could tolerate that outcome, both inside and outside of parliament, to make it do-able.

 

[Baleforce]

He wouldn't be dragged towards hard Brexit by the ERG though, quite the opposite infact. Labour are likely to deliver a soft-Brexit and if everything really goes tits up and Parliament are unable to agree on anything except preventing no-deal, then a 2nd ref. But I'd prefer a soft brexit and just get back to the domestic agenda.

He’d still be being dragged in a direction he doesn’t want to go and having to focus on his party rather than the country.