What is Corbyn thinking?
Bernard Porter
Jeremy Corbyn is getting a lot of stick just now – certainly on the anti-Brexit Facebook pages I subscribe to – for not coming out clearly in favour of a second referendum, and for Remain. The Guardian is especially critical: but when hasn’t it been, of this untidy bearded radical who flouts even liberal standards of political respectability? I have to say, a part of me is disappointed too. I’d have liked Labour to have taken more of a pro-European lead. But then I think again.
There are three reasons for suspending judgment on Corbyn until the whole sorry affair has worked itself out. First, he is at least being consistent in his career-long Euroscepticism, which is more than you can say for Theresa May: pro-Europe one day, leading the anti-Europe charge the next. What would the press have made of a similar volte-face by the famously principled Corbyn?
Second, he has always been a Eurosceptic, not an anti-European; and for totally different reasons from the right-wing antis: he sees the EU as having been taken over by global capitalism and so an obstacle to the democratic socialism he wants for Britain. That’s why he must be against a form of Brexit that releases Britain from the hands of Brussels only to send it into the claws of Trump, and America’s lower product and labour standards. The emphasis in Corbyn’s speeches has always been on jobs and workers’ rights; which could be secured either within a reformed EU (there are plenty of Leftists there to help him) or by a ‘soft’ Brexit arrangement that kept Britain within the single market. In the present chaos it isn’t clear which is more likely. So Corbyn is – sensibly and intelligently – holding his fire. Of course the Manichaean tabloids are too thick to see this; or else assume their readers are.
The third reason for giving Corbyn the benefit of the doubt is that he has his Northern working-class and other ‘left-behind’ voters to think of. Insofar as they and others voted against Europe (and they may not have been as solidly Brexit as the popular press makes out), it was largely for all the wrong reasons; but they don’t like being told this, especially by ‘elitists’ and 'experts', and so are building powerful and expert-resistant barricades – ‘You lost, accept it’; ‘What part of democracy don’t you understand?’; ‘We’re not idiots, we knew what we were voting for’; ‘Brexit means Brexit’ – against any sign that they might be about to be ‘betrayed’ by the ‘Establishment’. At the very least it may be wise for Corbyn not to come out as a Remainer until the practical flaws in the Brexit enterprise have been clearly revealed to everyone, as well as the cheating on the Brexit side.
Much of the working-class Brexit vote was a blind expression of anger, or a desperate cry for help. Only the elitist leaders of the movement cared much about Europe. Any solution to the problem that doesn’t address this, or even exacerbates it, could intensify the dangerous divisions that the debate has opened up in Britain. This is an important consideration, which only Corbyn’s more subtle approach – if I read it correctly – takes proper account of.
My money’s on an eventual Norway-style settlement – membership of the single market with free movement, and the freedom to nationalise things. Corbyn’s ‘red lines’ would be fundamentally different from May’s, and he might be more successful with them. But in the present situation nothing can be predicted.
In the meantime we should try to see the problem from Corbyn’s – and Labour’s – point of view. The party’s priority must be to make radical changes to Britain’s economy and society. The relationship with Europe is secondary to this. A social democratic Britain could be reconciled either with membership of a reformed EU or with a soft Brexit. But it isn’t compatible with any Tory policy towards Europe, either out or in. So: an election must come first; followed either by a renegotiation on Labour’s terms, or another referendum, with Remain as an option, which should give us a more accurate picture of the ‘people’s will’ – a more informed will this time. It might even allow us to crawl back, tail between our legs, into the EU. (That would be my preference; but then I live there.)
Last, but by no means least, this just might undo some of the domestic harm done by this wretched contest, smoothing out the political divisions between Brexiters and Remainers, and enabling the British to live at least moderately happily together again. Johnson and Rees-Mogg, and the rest of the public school crowd, would be pushed back to the margins where they belong. On this view, Corbyn’s way could even be seen as ‘patriotic’. Or am I crediting him with too much good sense?
Comments
The support assembled at Westminster to enable Britain to go to war in Iraq (a support known to be assembled on lies) is a more important political development since 1945.
Corbyn was very contradiction-free on that Issue, as he is on opposing Britain arming Saudi Arabia, UAE with weapons to massacre civilians in Yemen.
Alan Bennett calls it "cowardice" to opt out rather than ally with left-wingers within the EU to allay the right-swing sweep across the board.
Britain is already rotten with corporate capitalism: it's led the corporate way in Europe for 40 years. As a socialist, and pessimistic about any chance for a civilized society, I don't know that it makes much difference to a doomed scenario either way. I don't think the issue gets to the heart of what we've already lost, and we lost it while we were IN the EU.
Human rights have been abused in Britain long before anyone drafted a new charter to dump some theoretical obligations. Middle class commentators may not have noticed this, but the disadvantaged clocked it without a voice.
The European issue, so vital to all commentators in all publications in Britain now, might be so much fiddling while Rome burns anyway - - in London, land of artful dodgers.
Porter reminds us that he ‘has his Northern working-class and other ‘left-behind’ voters to think of … it may be wise for Corbyn not to come out as a Remainer until the practical flaws in the Brexit enterprise have been clearly revealed to everyone’. Well, I wonder when that will be Bernard. Long after a time when it might have been possible to shape events, and almost certainly long after Brexit.
But says Porter, only Corbyn’s ‘more subtle approach’ adequately recognises that ‘Much of the working-class Brexit vote was a blind expression of anger, or a desperate cry for help’. There was blind anger, maybe a plea for help too, but it was a great deal more than that. Too much middle-class comment thinks about the working class as a largely unthinking mass, moved this way or that by economic injustice. Neither Porter’s sympathy nor Corbyn’s slogan of ‘jobs and rights’ address the politics of the working class leave vote. 60% of the leave vote was middle class (A, B, C1 (Dorling)). The coming together of this constituency with a sizeable element of the working class was only partly historical accident or mismatch, it was also political in origin, including shared ideas about ‘the nation’, about democracy, immigration and Britain’s place in the world and it has a long history. There is nothing subtle about an approach that overlooks the politics.
The argument that the EU is not the main question anyway will ring a bell with those wanting to call down a plague on both houses, the EU and British capitalism. ‘The party’s priority must be to make radical changes to Britain’s economy and society. The relationship with Europe is secondary to this. A social democratic Britain could be reconciled either with membership of a reformed EU or with a soft Brexit’. Actually, in an international economy, the relationship to Europe – and the rest of the world – is almost certainly critical. A social democratic Britain isn’t impossible outside the EU but it will be a great deal easier to blunt the hostility of European and world capitalism, and to find allies to build on what British socialists want to do, if fighting from within.
The big strategic question that Corbyn must address first is about Britain’s place in the world. If geography, politics, and economics dictates that it is in Europe, the fate of British socialism will be bound up with the struggle for the same things in Europe. We won’t get a reformed EU this side of Brexit and a social democratic Britain will have zero influence on EU reform after. Nor will there be any kind of reconciliation in a soft Brexit which clings to some economic advantages at the price of political influence. Corbyn’s subtlety looks more like irrelevance.
As I don't live in the UK - and I've learned more about British politics in the last 2 1/2 years than I did in my whole life before Brexit - I realize the value of any comment of mine is suspect, but I'd like to take the author up on his interest in comments that address his article.
I'll start by summing up: the article underscores important domestic issues that outsiders like myself can too easily overlook, but the point that is repeatedly made is that Corbyn is to be let off the hook for not leading.
First, I am to at least admire the consistency of his career-long Euroskepticism. Sorry, but consistency isn't admirable to me; I'd rather see a person change and grow. More importantly, I have not seen this consistency. Corbyn is campaigned in some way for Remain in 2016 (or so one is told); then this year he said he would not know how he would vote in a second referendum; then a week or so ago he finally came out as a full-on Brexiter. So, no, I can't give him points for consistency, even if I did think it was an admirable quality: Corbyn is inconsistent in the most obviously shallow political way.
Second, I'm supposed to applaud Corbyn for "holding his fire" as he must be "against a form of Brexit that releases it from the hands of Brussels only to send it into the claws of Trump." But the "form of Brexit" was (unlike the Remain option) an unknown in the language of the 2016 referendum, when Corbyn, in all his consistency, should perhaps have taken the Brexiter reigns and shown the UK what the possibilities meant for him. He still hasn't. But, of course, that would be leading rather than holding one's fire...
Third, I'm to consider that "it may be wise for Corbyn not to come out as a Remainer until the practical flaws in the Brexit enterprise have been clearly revealed to everyone." In other words, I'm to suppose that Corbyn qualifies as a leader precisely in his refusal to lead. This is a truly odd thing to hold up as a quality in person with leadership ambitions. From where I live, it seems that what the UK needs is a leader in the Remainers' corner, not someone who sits back and sees how it all shakes out. And anyway, this is a strange line of argument - how can Corbyn "come out" as a Remainer when he's just getting comfortable as a Brexiter?
Well, this is a view from a small town in the US. In summary, I don't think there's anything clever or subtle about Corbyn, and while the article is educational, its invitation to let Corbyn continue in his evasive way is, I think, letting him have too much. I believe he subscribes to Boris Johnson's cake-and-eat-it philosophy: in Corbyn's case, this means wishing for March 29 to pass without a deal, so that all hell breaks loose and an election is possibly called that he might think he has a chance of winning.
He'd be a Brussels-free Prime Minister with no Brexit dirt on his hands - an ideal situation for a non-leader with his complex constituency, and one that recalls to me the famous words of that American anti-hero Bart Simpson: "It was like that when I got here."
He is nothing more than a political coward, afraid to come down on either side of the debate, and an opportunist, wishing the worst for the UK, so he can step in and pick up the pieces.
The good thing is that age isn't in his favour, and Labour will need a new leader shortly.
I still think pseudonyms are disreputable, however long they've been used on the web. I've given my reasons in previous blogs, including the LRB one (which the editor won't thank me for referring back to). They're a feature of modern life that I believe to be corrosive; akin to 'anonymous letters' in pre-internet days, or the wearing of disguises. (And I've written on the history of 'secret service' and 'dirty tricks'. It may be this that has made me so hostile to the practice.) I've never used pseudonyms, and would feel embarrassed at doing so. We should have enough confidence in our views to acknowledge them openly. There are exceptions, of course: where openness might be dangerous to oneself. But otherwise one should have the courage of one's convictions.
And by the way, you'll notice that I did not write that 'any' criticism of Corbyn 'probably' comes from the Israelis. Only that it might do - and has in some instances. The stated purpose of my last comment was to reassure me that this isn't true in the cases cited here. I'm happy to be reassured. Thanks.
As for Corbyn's possible anti-Semitism: Netanyahu has time and again (one might think of his intercourse with Orbán, Kaczyński, Fico or Dragnea) proven that he will not let that bother in pursuit of his political aims.
To honestly fear that might want to undercut Corbyn before Brexit is consummated seems bizarre.
But even if it were the case it wouldn't justify calling for people to divulge their "true identities". Either a claim is true, or it isn't; either an argument makes sense or it doesn't.
To anybody who thinks that my person, and my private life and deportment should determine the veracity of my arguments I can only say: It's as bad as you think. I am anti-Semitic, wife-beating, polygamist, homosexual Israeli plant who eats red meat, smokes, drinks, swears, and sells drugs and child pornography for a living.
Still, it was good to read at last a reasoned argument from the 'pseudonymous' side. The earlier comments simply indulged in wild and unsubstantiated attacks on Corbyn. Hence my curiosity to know whence they came. I agree that 'either an argument makes sense or it doesn’t', but these weren't 'arguments'.
The main reasons for openness in this respect is that anonymity can raise doubts - even unworthy ones - about the motive for that anonymity; and about the reliability of the commentator. I'm afraid I'm old-fashioned in this regard: I don't like conversing with someone who won't reveal him- or herself. To me, it smacks of deception.
Concerning Netanyahu's position you might be aware that the EU is scrambling to save the deal with Iran that Netanyahu and Trump are trying to torpedo, you might be aware that it is the EU that chiefly funds the Palestinian Authority ... But in the end I am neither able, nor indeed willing to find the kind of "proof" you are asking for. I do not read Ivrit, I do not want to waste my time trying to disentangle which think tanks or news platforms (Jerusalem Post?) are Israeli, which ones are American, and finally I do not sufficiently care. If you look for "EU-Israel relations" on the Times Of Israel homepage or on that of the Jerusalem Post you can find a number of articles that seem to support my claim, but I do not claim that they prove anything.
For me the fact that over the past twenty years the closeness of Netanyahu's relationships with politicians in EU Member States has constantly been inverse to their fondness of the EU is sufficient proof.
Finally I have nothing to fear of divulging my identity. But I have friends who do and in solidarity with those I shall not do it either.
And finally there is something that I apparently failed to communicate: When I say that the EU is the most important political question since 1945 I do not mean to say that it is the most important political question since 1945 for Britain, I mean to say it is the most important political question since 1945 for the world.
Brexit will not improve the quality of British food or British weather, but it might be decisive when people in countries that are in upheaval look for inspiration.
May, and a host of civil servants, has negotiated an exit agreement - not a trade agreement, which is open for discussion afterwards - while everybody else just fiddled with slogans. She had to get rid of several idiot Brexit secretaries to do it. It is the only plausible way to avoid mayhem, and secure the Good Friday international treaty.
I wish it were different. Perhaps I am too pessimistic. But I agree that Corbyn is as bad as the others. He is not on a path to protect jobs, except perhaps his own (good pay for an old lefty!)
And by the way, it is not the worst government - it surely ties with Heath's appalling collection of incompetent ministers. Remember imprisonment without trial anyone? Perhaps it also ties with Blair's - Iraq - which revealed that most Labour MPs were lobby-fodder morons. Perhaps they still are.
> Remind the house that they can pass motions until they are blue in the face, but we are going to have a no-deal brexit because the parliamentary arithmetic won't pass any Brexit proposal.
> Point out that the only way out is to change the parliamentary arithmetic and that you do that by holding an election.
> Point out that in an election parties have manifestos and each party, including his, will have to decide what type of Brexit it wants and each candidate will either support it or stand for someone else.
> Point out that an election will actually give voters a range of Brexit options including remaning which no binary referendum could offer.
> Declare that the day after May's deal is defeated he will table a motion of no confidence in the government and that he expects all those members who have vehemently declared no-deal a catastrophe to vote for it, putting country before party.
You either pull the plug now or the whole thing is over.
It's not a politician's job to be principled or populist but it is to be popular. Labour don't get in very often - 1945, 1964 and 1997 basically. Last time they got in, their leader seemed like a Radio 1 DJ not someone about to lead us down disused railway tunnels of Britain, however interesting.
It strikes me that most peoples reasons for voting for Brexit were excellent, and there was no other way they could give expression to those reasons.
There's a strong sense of non sequitur here. The UK's membership of the EU is either important or it isn't. Whether the 2016 referendum was a sensible mechanism for attempting to resolve the issue is a separate question. (I think it was a totally foolish idea, partly for the reasons you give: broadly scoped referendums will always risk attracting a sort of generalised protest vote, particularly if such referendums are rare).
In any case, the fundamental strategic importance of the EU is to do with securing peace and prosperity by integrating economic and political structures among nation states that had previously been repeatedly at war with each other, under dictatorship or imperial (Soviet) domination. Clearly this has been a project with many difficulties but at the same time has had very great successes.
To my mind, the Brexit issue is extremely important because the EU is extremely important. The mis-characterisation of Brexit as something to do with UK prosperity or inequality has been, and still is, a mistake. But it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the European issue is less 'deep' than the issues you identify.
A general election is unlikely. The DUP would hardly be so stupid as to vote for one, given their hard-line stance against Remain and contempt for the Good Friday agreement - little to gain and a lot to lose. Corbyn is so hated by Tories (and even some of his own party, who might just happen to be unavailable to vote!) that they would not risk losing a vote of no-confidence, whatever the situation.
Groucho says the arithmetic does not add up for May's deal (the EU's deal, remember - they never said it would be a good one) - well only if Labour votes against. I can't see it happening, but gambling on a slight chance of getting into power through causing political upheaval (and possibly violence on the streets) that would do a lot of damage to Labour's constituency, and solve nothing, is madness, whatever your reasoning, or Corbyn's, or Groucho et al. After losing, if May were able to bring the vote back with some words from the EU, Labour would surely have to vote for it - in the name of the nation! Who knows?
The EU has at least defended some workers rights, to the disgust of Thatcher and those that who followed her, including Blair. I don't know which country you have been living in FoolCount. Do you really think voting Democrat in the USA is in the economic interests of those you rudely call 'working stiffs'? Perhaps marginally. That's all! Those 'stiffs' would be better off in the EU in terms of social security and health care. So would British 'stiffs'.
The EU achieved more for employee rights in the UK in the period it has existed for than Labour did. It has enacted sundry regulations that are a PITA for the US, up to and including the GDPR which even applies to companies residing solely in the US if they conduct business with people in the EU.
As for your talk about an "anti-socialist and globalist put-on", there has never been a more globalist movement than socialism.
Your arguments are hardly convincing, given that all you serve is tropes, talking about "capitalist" this and "globalist" that, in apparent ignorance of the fact that socialism was one of the first truly globalist movements. Your "alternative" is nothing but what we have seen in Eastern Europe before the EU - a hate-filled, blinkered ideology that poses as socialism but in the end only serves to perpetuate misery so that a handful chosen ones can eternally style themselves as the defenders of the downtrodden - who, of course, need to remain downtrodden, or they would not need defenders anymore, and hence said "defenders" would lose their privileges.
What "FoolCount" writes is common sense for me, although I would not be so categorical about whether the EU is a US-inspired project from the start. It seems to me that the various European governments are perfectly capable of creating a neo-liberal nightmare all on their own, and that is precisely what they've done, with a great deal of inspiration coming from the UK.
I see what's going on now in France (where I live) as a late-stage attempt to introduce Thatcherism; history repeating itself as farce. The only reason why France still functions, more or less, is that the people in charge haven't yet had time to completely hollow out all our once-powerful public services, but believe me, they're hard at it. Unfortunately, this is little reported in the English-language press.
I have been both surprised and disappointed that the LRB, which along with the New Left Review and Le Monde Diplomatique most regularly expresses opinions that I agree with, has devoted so little space to the Left-wing arguments against Brexit.
Those arguments are well expressed in the website "The Full Brexit" ( https://www.thefullbrexit.com/ ). Both Chris Bickerton and Costas Lapavitsas have written eloquently on these subjects. For those who read French, there's also an excellent book by Coralie Delaume and David Cayla, entitled "La fin de l'Union Européenne" http://www.michalon.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=livre&no=500596 . A key quote from that book (my translation) states that "The EU is already dead; it just hasn't realised it yet."
One of the biggest concerns for all those who are desperate to see the UK return to the fold should be that by the time they get it organised, there won't be an EU to go back to.
As for the message from the person who signs him/herself as "woll", you should beware of getting too excited by opinion polls, particularly in circumstances such as the present ones. How many polls predicted the result in June 2016?
And concerning the idea that "FoolCount" "must get a bit lonely", since when have radicals been worried about that?
And left-wing arguments against the EU regularly can easily be shown to be vapourware based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Quite often, they are probably born out of embarassment that the EU has, in fact, done more to improve the situation of the neglected in a country than whatever "left" movement has put them forward.
There is no EU country with greater income inequality than the UK.
When people from Cádiz to Rovaniemi complain about "neo-liberalism" they are thinking about the UK. From Skagen to Heraklion there is broad agreement across the political spectrum in that "this place mustn't become like the UK".
Any meaningful crackdown on tax havens is blocked by the UK.
Sensible regulation of the banking sector is blocked by the UK.
Any expansion on human and citizens' rights is blocked by the UK.
Democratic (that is proportional) representation exists in most places, but notably not in the UK.
There is a socialist case for Brexit, namely that Brexit removes one of the biggest obstacle standing in the way of making the continent a better place.
If there is any scale on which the UK is more "progressive" than the average EU Member State, then I would be interested to hear about it.
Going back to the theme of Bernard's post: I would like to see the British Labour party working with other European socialists and true social democrats (not Blairite impostors) to raise basic living standards across Britain, the rest of the continent and, in time, other parts of the world, and to abandon the dangerous and expensive military posturing and neo-imperialist adventurism which has caused death and destruction in so many countries.
Just look at the place now, with countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania, Cypress and Malta in it.
I fear the EU is finished anyway. So leave or don't leave. I think the damage is done. It's always been in the UK's strategic interest to have a disunited Europe.
Corbyn will become the executor of the Tories other than he believes - by continuing what he does now: supporting and enacting their political ideas for sheer lack of alternatives. He will be the grave digger of the NHS and he will have no money for anything but austerity.
And his idea of the EU as a corporatist cabal only underscores how blind he is to the real world. A corpiratist cabal would never have enacted REACH, nor the working time directive nor sundry other regulations the EU often pushed through against UK objections.
I find this an odd take on monetary affairs. As if tax-payers themselves issued the British pound.
I would have thought the government had a bit more say in money supply than that.
I therefore fail to see where your premise about money's value comes from. Care to explain?
I can see the UK going to the IMF cap in hand whether we have a broken Tory government or a broken Labour one after Brexit. As to the value of money, it is of course relative among the big currencies. I remember (under the gold standard) when there were 4 dollars to the pound. After the GS, I remember when there were 5 DMarks and 15 FFrancs (now around 7). Against the Euro from about 1.55 to 1.11. Even at the height of the Euro crisis it was still worth more against the dollar and the pound that when it was launched. Such devaluation has been essential for the UK to compete, and will continue whatever the government because productivity and investment are so poor. It is true that at first a weaker pound is good for exports, but only until the higher cost of imports to make exports removes the advantage (as is currently happening). Hence the need for a continuous (as opposed to declared) devaluation which was not possible under the GS, and is not possible in the Euro-zone - one of the reasons Brown kept the UK out. The underlying economy is very week. The effect as most of us agree will be to pinch wages, worsen conditions, and reduce security.
Not sure what you believe the gold standard has to do with anything. The valuation of the money can be seen on the foreign exchange market. If you simply start the printing press, then the value of the Pound, already under pressure, will collapse completely. Imported products will become more expensive and the UK, with even less manufacturing after Brexit than it has now, will have serious problems satisfying its needs through import - further endangering jobs as even more manufacturing will become unviable as parts are unaffordable.
I think you have to look at the National Resources you have and decide how best to Use them. Anyway, even if worse comes to worst, a cheap Pound boosts exports and creates jobs. And all those newly printed currency-units Go somewhere to Do something. They end up in people's pockets and are hopefully spent on the local economy.
Seems to me that imbibing too much IMFism has proved itself to be a big mistake.
And no, a cheap pound neither boosts exports (of what?) nor does it create jobs. That is the case in an export-dominated economy with access to resources, but not one that has to import parts or raw materials in order to produce something to export. Such an economy finds it harder to acquire the materials it needs to create something and consequently can't cope with demand.
And all those newly printed currency units will still have to, first and foremost, pay for food. Now check how much of UK food is imported and you see the problem.
"Quantitative easing" (correct me if I'm wrong) means purchasing debt from banks (buying treasury bills, bonds, whatever) As A Means Of Increasing the QUANTITY of money [because they've lowered interest rates so much they can hardly make it any cheaper].
Now, if that isn't tantamount to cranking up the ol' printing press, I'll eat my hat. Just a fancy euphemism is all.
Secondly, I said "boosts exports" only because that's always the other side of the coin with a cheap currency, even if those "exports" are things like tourism (a foreign-exchange earner and job-creator). The Royals are big business after all.
Mostly I was responding to the Flat Statement (as if it were an obvious truism) that increasing the money supply would lead robotically to a lower value of the currency. To me that sounds like the pat assurances from the Republicans that the same thing was going to cause inflation. Pardon my skepticism.
The UK, though, can ISSUE currency. The degree to which issuing Quantity X and using it to pay for government programmes is a good idea depends on a number of factors, but it's an option Greece totally lacks.
So "the problems a leftist government of Corbyn’s will have in borrowing money on the international markets" makes the pound sound like some rare foreign good that has to be coaxed or bribed from Somebody Else, as if THEY were the source.
This seems to me to be turning reality on its head.
Polls over the last few days (naturally to be viewed with suspicion but still an indication of how things stand) show:
- support for Theresa May's proposal, which is currently thought to have anyway little chance in parliament, running at about 23% for Tory members, even less in the country as a whole.
- the principal candidates for leadership favoured by Tory membership all extreme Brexiteers, but who have limited support within the Tory party or the country.
- a Labour party led by a Brexit supporting Corbyn would gain a mere 26% of the vote, lower even than in Michael Foot's time.
- We apear to have a slow switch of public opinion towards a second referendum, and to this leading to Remain.
- In addition we have a lacklustre Libdem party led by a discredited member of the coalition government, a Green party with only one MP (Greens stand at around 20% in Germany) plus a popular nationalist party in Scotland and the various NI parties.
I know this is all bits and pieces of information and not a coherent assessment. But the impression is of a disturbing mismatch between the leadership of the various political parties and the (also very varied) opinions of the mass of voters.
Is there any chance of a more representative and/or more balanced politics emerging? Can anyone see any way forward in 2019?
Comparing the Greens in Germany with the Greens in the UK is nonsensical. The UK has an FPTP system, which naturally disadvantages small parties, whereas Germany has a mixed member proportional representation system where, barring a cutoff like the 5% in Germany, the proportion of votes matches the proportion of seats.
But why would the comparison be nonsensical?
Firstly, part of the current political impasse is created by decision-making being dominated by two large parties. Both are at present poorly led, and in both the leadership is unable even to command the votes of their own MP's. At least in a system with potential for parties to grow and shrink, and to take part in all levels of governement, there is flexibilty and a genuine choise for the voters.
Secondly the Greens in Germany and elsewhere are able to have a considerable impact on environmental legislation - an issue which one might consider more important than years of pointless squabbles over backstops. In the UK neither of the two large parties shows more than token interest in the environment, this is likely to get worse if Brexit does go through, since the EU has a good record on environmental matters.
Far from being nonsensical, these issues are vital to any progress in producing a better society.
The very fact that Germany has an MMPR system has led to coalitions being something with a long history in modern German politics, and with it the influence of smaller parties on legislation. Whereas the fact that the FPTP system in the UK has now repeatedly led to one of the big two needing a coalition partner demonstrates the dysfunctionality of the UK political landscape.
So rather than focussing on the Greens, the proper attention should be given to the fundamental political system in the UK, which tends to produce government majorities disconnected from the actual will of the people.
There's a very good video explaining mathematically why the election result three years ago giving the Tories the majority with which they started this mess was the worst result in recent UK history:
https://youtu.be/r9rGX91rq5I
Work on that system and you will see more legislative influence of the Greens, too...
But while hard left (such as in Germany die Linke) and hard right (such AfD) in the case UK are simply absorbed by the two main parties, the Greens appear as yet to remain independent, and also electorally weak.
My original questions remain. Is there any chance of a more representative and/or more balanced politics emerging? Can anyone see any way forward in 2019?
Yes, Germany has a bit of a hybrid system: you have two votes, once for your local MP and once for the slate of the preferred party on the PR side of things. So the two sides balance each other out, and as was mentioned above, the dog-wagging risk presented by pure proportionality is dampened somewhat by the 5% hurdle.
The problem with change in the UK, I suppose (as in the US and everywhere else) is that the only people who could change the system are the very people in power owing to the present system.
I'm a great admirer of the German system -- it encourages coalitions and consensus. But I think one should go the whole hog and introduce ranked voting. Let us dream on.
Some may be born great, some acheive greatness, but none of the pack currently in Westminster will ever have greatness thrust upon them. Corbyn may yet be responsible for a sad end to the Labour Party, but the awful question is, who could or would replace him? Why is Starmer remaining silent, why isn't he forcibly promoting a considered response to the disaster that the far right are planning and Corbyn seems unable or unwilling to oppose?
I'm not sure whether this is Shakespearean drama, or a pantomime based on Buchner. The details of whether the EU meets the aspirations of a certain sort of socialist are trivial compared with the Carry on Brexit routines of shipless ferry companies, Kent divided by an immobile motorway, Gatwick flightless and not due to drones. They are the comedy bits. On the tragedy side we face medicine shortages, a catastrophic fall in health personell numbers at all levels, and food shortages. And then we move on tjo the disasters awaiting music, theatre and perfomance of every sort, have we heard a squeak from Corbyn or any non Tory about culture?
Is it too late for a Webster-like fate to befall the Duchess of Mayfli, or to hope that a Kit Marlow style end will come to Johnson, Davies, Rees Mogg et al as it came to Edward II.
If we are to have a People's Vote on three options with a transferable vote, perhaps it could be on whether to hang, draw or quarter those three self-seeking devils.
Steve Kay is right to draw attention to culture -- a massive asset, socially and economically, in both Britain and the EU.
In music alone, I am constantly surprised to see, in France where I live, so many performers from the UK, whether as orchestral players, singers,jazz and pop band members etc.
Brexit would make all that problematic.
I may have 'bent the stick' too far in the other direction - a couple of people have commented that I'm overstating the unity of purpose of Labour's leadership team, which may well be correct - but I think it was worth stating the case in fairly unambiguous terms.
Link
So he should go straight for the Ref option.
You say: "until the practical flaws in the Brexit enterprise have been clearly revealed to everyone, as well as the cheating on the Brexit side." Both those have been aired enough, possibly making little difference to hardline angries.
The Tories have nailed their standard to the mast labelled Brexit, although they cannot agree among themselves what form it should take. The Lib Dems and the Greens are both certain there should be no Brexit, despite the result of the 2016 Referendum. What they all have in common is that they offer nothing for the 48 or 52% that did not support their side of the debate.
I doubt if it is possible to find a deal that would satisfy Labour’s tests but, ideally, I would like to see Labour attempt to negotiate a deal (not May's red lines). There may not be enough time for this to happen. Then, after (or instead) there should be a statement along these lines.
”In 2016 the British public, by a small but clear majority, asked Parliament to negotiate a withdrawal from the European Union. This has not been as straightforward as those advocating Leave implied at the time of the referendum and it is now clear that there is no version of Leave that does not cause serious and long-lasting constitutional and economic consequences to the United Kingdom, our dependencies and also to our many friends and trading partners abroad.
”Now that we have a much clearer idea of what the consequences mean we have decided to recommend that Parliament requests a pause in the timetable that was started in March 2017 that is long enough to put a new choice before the British people.
”The choice will be between continuing to seek to leave the EU, with all the consequences this would mean to the UK, our dependencies and friends, or remaining in the EU. This would not be a return to the status quo but include a new deal for Britain involving a radical package of decentralisation, regional investment and political reform as well as a commitment to reform the institutions of the EU.”
There are two forms of Brexit currently on the table: ‘May’s deal’ and ‘no deal’. Labour is committed to doing everything in its power to oppose both but does not currently have the numbers to prevent either on its own. Only a general election can change that.
If either ‘May’s deal’ or ‘no deal’ comes to pass it will not be because Labour has failed to oppose it but rather because a majority of MPs have chosen to support it. If such a majority exists then there is nothing that the Labour Party or anyone else can do to bring about a second referendum.
If, and only if, Labour along with others succeed in preventing both ‘May’s deal’ and ‘no deal,’ then only at that point might a degree of disagreement arise.
Clearly, any Brexit deal that passes Labours six tests (including ‘the exact same benefits’ of single market and customs union access as at present) would be a very soft Brexit indeed and would satisfy many Remain supporters. Labour itself is committed to opposing any deal that doesn’t meet those tests, but no doubt some Remainers would still be disappointed. If, however, no such deal is possible, then Labour is open to a second public vote.
Labour, under Corbyn, is offering either an extremely soft Brexit or the possibility of a second vote. This suggests that much of the Remainer rage directed towards Corbyn is either ill-intentioned or ill-informed.
no more please of this Euro lingo
In school we surely had enough
In court one cannot bide the stuff
On LRB things will get tough
If Corbynistas read the stuff
It is to be hoped that Labour never gets into a position to negotiate a deal, because it will come away from Brussels with egg on its face, and look very, very stupid. I think Corbyn knows this, and that Labour will never be able to negotiate a significantly better Brexit deal, only annul Article 50, which Corbyn himself is not up for apparently. Anyway, Labour could only get into government in coalition with the SNP, who have no truck with anything but Remain (and might be prepared to bring down or not even join a coalition without Remain in the deal, or a new independence referendum, or both.)
I'm afraid I have little faith in another referendum solving the problem. Pie in the sky. One can hardly say that referendums are a stupid way to make policy and at the same time demand another... in some vain hope...