Brexit negotiations

Because it would be political suicide. Both parties are having to balance not upsetting leavers with the realities of what a hard Brexit would do, the regional assessment of a Hard Brexit was devastating.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Because it would be political suicide. Both parties are having to balance not upsetting leavers with the realities of what a hard Brexit would do, the regional assessment of a Hard Brexit was devastating.

I would have thought it would be a masterstroke politically and certainly what I would do in his position.

Brexit was the wrong decision as I think the majority of the country would agree now and in all likelihood if another referendum was held today the Remain vote would win.

The biggest group opposing Brexit are those under 25 and potential lifetime voters for the political party that wins their votes now.

The Labour Party itself is pro-Europe, so to its vast number of MP's and also the vast number of MP's of all parties in the rest of Westminster.

He therefore will be in a powerful position with just a few Tory dissenters, to win key votes when required.

The country WILL suffer financially after leaving the EU, I think everybody accepts that, so even if he failed to stop Brexit he would still have the high ground to say he tried to stop it and blame the Conservatives for forcing it through.

Surely it is a better strategy than pushing for - and in all probability moving towards what probably all politicians see as the least worse outcome of Brexit - namely Brexit in name only - and he would have the youth vote on his side and no doubt be swept to power at the following General Election.

Seems a win/win to me - if he stops Brexit he will win power and if he doesn't he will hold the youth vote and have the high ground going into the next general election.

Better than letting Brexit occur and him sitting on his hands simply watching it happen.

The reason Corbyn looks so shifty on brexit is because I suspect he actually supports it!

Thanks Sluffy it's an interesting theory and maybe you're right, but Labour's and the Tories professional strategists clearly disagree with you.

Staying in the Customs Union is clearly as far as they're willing to go on this, I don't agree with you that everyone agrees the country will suffer financially, unfortunately there are still a lot out there in both the mainstream media and Tory party who have dismissed the governments own forecasts.

While that narrative still exists there will be those who believe anything but a Hard Brexit is a betrayal of the referendum vote and will portray it as so.

xmiles wrote:The reason Corbyn looks so shifty on brexit is because I suspect he actually supports it!

Corbyn has spent his political life denouncing the EU, seeing it  as a rich man's club.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Thanks Sluffy it's an interesting theory and maybe you're right, but Labour's and the Tories professional strategists clearly disagree with you.

Staying in the Customs Union is clearly as far as they're willing to go on this, I don't agree with you that everyone agrees the country will suffer financially, unfortunately there are still a lot out there in both the mainstream media and Tory party who have dismissed the governments own forecasts.

While that narrative still exists there will be those who believe anything but a Hard Brexit is a betrayal of the referendum vote and will portray it as so.

Well the last time the professional Tory strategists got put to the test - presumably giving the green light for May to go to the country - was hardly a glowing success and the Labour ones probably had the same thoughts about Corbyn's future as a Labour party leader as most of his Shaddow Cabinet did on mass this time last year!

As for what Corbyn said today - it's all just political manoeuvring - see the BBC's analysis -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43197428


For what it is worth people like strong leaders and will vote for them - Thatcher kept getting re-elected, Trump got elected(!), would there even been a Brexit if Boris had not led the campaign? - if Corbyn took a decisive stand over Brexit now he may not win the battle but he would certainly become the next Prime Minister imo.

I know it’s political maneuvering I said that in my opening post?

This is a decisive move, fine if you want him to go further but the significance of this should not be underplayed it could be Corbyns route to office.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I know it’s political maneuvering I said that in my opening post?

This is a decisive move, fine if you want him to go further but the significance of this should not be underplayed it could be Corbyns route to office.

I think he would be a disaster personally.

I can even picture in my mind a scenario where he is beaten by Boris at the next General Election.

His moment is now but he's not bold enough to go for it.

Not much point going for Brexit in name only and somehow thinking he's achieved something - he's not going to build a socialist empire once he realises how many billions being outside the EU will cost the country - and how he can't stop immigration as many still will want.

Anyway, little to nothing I can do about it so I'll let the wheels move on and deal with things when they happen.

Yes the Matthew D'Ancona piece I read this morning said his team have realised that now is 'peak Corbyn' and have gone for it accordingly. Going for the Customs Union puts him that bit closer to remaining than the Tories that will make all the difference in the House of Commons, but still gives them an angle to say 'Brexit means Brexit' with the large number of Labour voting leavers.

It's a significant move, which i think you're underestimating.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Yes the Matthew D'Ancona piece I read this morning said his team have realised that now is 'peak Corbyn' and have gone for it accordingly. Going for the Customs Union puts him that bit closer to remaining than the Tories that will make all the difference in the House of Commons, but still gives them an angle to say 'Brexit means Brexit' with the large number of Labour voting leavers.

It's a significant move, which i think you're underestimating.

It's odd the way some Labour MPs obsess about the Labour voters who voted for brexit when twice as many Labour voters voted to remain, which is pretty much the opposite of the situation with Tory voters.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Yes the Matthew D'Ancona piece I read this morning said his team have realised that now is 'peak Corbyn' and have gone for it accordingly. Going for the Customs Union puts him that bit closer to remaining than the Tories that will make all the difference in the House of Commons, but still gives them an angle to say 'Brexit means Brexit' with the large number of Labour voting leavers.

It's a significant move, which i think you're underestimating.

Maybe you are right.

I'm not overly political myself but Corbyn with what seems like 1970's retro Labour policies he seems to have been mooting recently doesn't exactly thrill me - particularly as I saw them fail disastrously the last time around and opened the door for Thatcher to step through.

Seems to me that a choice of being the country's next leader between Corbyn and May to be totally underwhelming and that if Boris plays his cards right he could trump them both.

Brexit and Corbyn/May/Johnson as the next PM - not a great deal to look forward to really is there?

Retro 1970’s or policies that are common - and successful - across modern day Europe. To me a significant change in how government operates in this country is exciting. For someone who doesn’t vote (I believe?), and with no political allegiance I can see how it doesn’t peak your interest.

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Yes the Matthew D'Ancona piece I read this morning said his team have realised that now is 'peak Corbyn' and have gone for it accordingly. Going for the Customs Union puts him that bit closer to remaining than the Tories that will make all the difference in the House of Commons, but still gives them an angle to say 'Brexit means Brexit' with the large number of Labour voting leavers.

It's a significant move, which i think you're underestimating.

It's odd the way some Labour MPs obsess about the Labour voters who voted for brexit when twice as many Labour voters voted to remain, which is pretty much the opposite of the situation with Tory voters.

A big reason (I think) is the fact so many Labour voters were lost to UKIP in the 2015 election, and Labour aren’t ready to abandon those voters as lost just yet.

Well if you've not experienced it before then it would be something different for you to look forward to - however the fact these 1970's policies such as nationalisation date back to just after WWII, failed, were scrapped decades ago - and perhaps more telling - never reintroduced when the Labour party next regained power (or ever since) - should at least make people cautious that they have failed massively once - with no guarantee that they will work this time either.

As you do know I haven't voted in years - I'm not ashamed to say this, nor is it a proud boast - I just can't see the point in the constituencies I've found myself in over the years, its just a reality thing in that the outcome in general/local elections if I voted or not would be the same.

Similarly I have no party allegiance, I've professional and personal dealings with people in all parties, met many good people and some questionable shall we say and been involved in court cases regarding electoral fraud.

I've said before that I was taught there were only two rules in politics, the first being to get power, the second to keep it.  If you always keep that in mind you won't go far wrong in political analysis imo.

You’ve ignored the main point though, nationalised industries continue to succeed in countries all over the world. Just takes a politician who looks beyond the short term to actually do something for this country in the long term. 

Examples of shit bags who didn’t: Cameron and Osborne, privatising profitable national assets to help their balance sheet for a year, leaving us all out of pocket long term. National register, Royal Mail, East coast mainline and our share of Eurostar.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You’ve ignored the main point though, nationalised industries continue to succeed in countries all over the world. Just takes a politician who looks beyond the short term to actually do something for this country in the long term. 

Examples of shit bags who didn’t: Cameron and Osborne, privatising profitable national assets to help their balance sheet for a year, leaving us all out of pocket long term. National register, Royal Mail, East coast mainline and our share of Eurostar.

I've not ignored anything.

I've experienced nationalisation and known people who have worked in nationalised industries - have you?

Nationalised industries have a long history of being inefficient - and often propped up by central governments on an ongoing basis.

I've also been involved in 'privatising' council services and advised against how the council was doing it - not through any ideology but purely rational concerns - and recently those services were taken back by the council because my concerns turned out to have been justified. Not that that means anything to anyone after the number of years the contract ran and the unnecessary costs that would have had to be bourn by the council over that time.

I'm indifferent if a service is privatised, nationalised, or private - as long as I/we need only pay a fair price for the service. Unfortunately political medalling and/or private greed often distorts the market to the determent of most of us.

Such is life.

If you think you can make it better then please do.

One day the penny will drop that political ideology and human nature simply don't match each other and no matter how hard you try or how well intended your aims and ambitions are, they will never be fulfilled.

I hope you aren't too disappointed when that day comes.

Until then keep up the good fight.

You’re either ignoring my point or missing it, nationalised industries have proved successful in many countries so why not here? 

Not every industry, but for essentials we all rely on day to day, and are becoming more and more unaffordable in private hands - the railways and energy companies for example. Take it on a case by case basis and don’t take the option of nationalisation off the table purely for ideological purposes.

Your point on human nature and political ideology makes little sense in the context of what we’re talking about here. You’ll have to explain what you mean.

And yes I doubt there are many on here who haven’t experienced privatisation in their career or that of a close acquaintance, these are not rare scenarios in this day and age.

I'm not arguing, particularly on something I'm not even interested about.

And I certainly don't have to explain myself to you (or anyone else, on the internet) what I mean despite your apparent order for me to do so.

I couldn't give a monkey's if things are privatised here or not - there's nothing I can do about it one way or the other anyway even if I was bothered.

If you think nationalisation is the way forward then bully for you.

You might well be right, you may well be wrong but I doubt very much I'll be around in thirty odd years time to evaluate which it was.

Yes you’re so disinterested you brought it up and wrote 2,000 words on the topic. Just like you have no interest in politics, yet have an opinion on every political thread the site hosts.

Give it a rest Sluffy.