As we are all aware, Ms May, desperate to get her abomination WA dragged across the finishing lines, has now condescended to ‘work’ with Mr Corbyn and Labour. No matter that the talks broke down on Friday, the delegations (all Remainers), including presumably Mr Oily Robbins, will still meet over the weekend – no matter that her Ministers and MPs have been warning that this is driving the Tory Party to self-destruction.
But – what about Labour? We never thought that Corbyn & crew were doing this out of human kindness. The pounds of flesh they demanded are well documented: second referendum, ‘people’s vote’ and ultimately revoking Article 50. And we do know that their real aim is to get a GE and thus heave Mr Corbyn into 10 Downing Street, with the prospect of turning our country into the Northern Hemisphere version of Venezuela.
Then, two articles in the Saturday papers caught my attention. One is by former Labourite Tom Harris in the paywalled Telegraph and the other by an anonymous Labour MP who writes regularly for the paywalled Times.
Each article illuminates the other, so I’ll quote at length, starting with ‘Anonymous’ who writes:
“Thus far Labour has largely escaped the internecine conflict raging on the Conservative benches. On our side it’s stayed on a more civilised footing. Colleagues who disagree tend not to raise the toughest issues with each other, or we mention it briefly then back away, but there’s increasingly been no escaping the elephant in the room: do you support or oppose a second referendum?
Feelings run deep and everyone’s already taken their stand. They’ve made their decision, they’re sticking to it and for someone like me there’s no point wasting oxygen trying to discuss it. At least 80 of my colleagues strongly support a confirmatory referendum. If they get one, they hope it will lead to the revocation of Article 50. That’s what it’s all about.
I understand their stance but what’s so damaging about this for me – and it’s almost a process of grieving – is the realisation that so many colleagues seem to fail to understand what matters most to my constituents and those in other Leave-voting Labour seats. Those are the people who need our help and support. If Labour isn’t aware of that, what’s the point of the party? Are we supposed to say to those people: “Sorry, you’ve been very useful to us for 100 years but we don’t need you any more?” Do we need to rethink everything we stand for? Colleagues who back a second referendum appear in tune with the overwhelming majority of the new Labour membership, which is largely younger and more urban, but where does that leave our traditional heartlands? If we go into a General Election positioned in the public mind as a Remain party, while the Tories – with a new, openly Brexiteer leader – have rebranded themselves as the Brexit party, I genuinely don’t know if we’ll hold my seat and many others like mine in the north and the Midlands. The party would potentially lose many constituencies that have always been relied upon. It’ll be another Scotland. As more than one person has said to me: “Lose seats like ours and you’ve lost the Labour Party.” (paywalled link)
I’ve emphasised some key phrases.
Now add to this confession the remarkable observations from Tom Harris:
“It is a familiar accusation, and one used more frequently as any political crisis deepens: “X is putting their party before country!” Given that this has become the slam-dunk of all criticisms, the crime for which there can be no forgiveness, it is remarkable how frequently both our main parties transgress in exactly this direction. […] It is Labour which stands accused of the most egregious pattern of behaviour. Were I still a party member, it would be the wing of the party with which I generally associated that has pursued the most cynical and dishonest course of action.
Those in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) who most strongly oppose Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and principles are the traditional right wing: pro-trade union, pro-nuclear, pro-Israel and generally far more connected with (and more comfortable with) the party’s working class base than the cosmopolitan middle class activists of Momentum. This wing of the party prides itself on below-the-radar manoeuvrings, and its guiding philosophy is less “the end justifies the means” than Herbert Morrison’s old adage that “socialism is whatever a Labour government does”. (link, paywalled)
He continues with his analysis which we ought to keep firmly in mind. I emphasise key segments:
“But the party’s right wing is also avowedly pro-EU. And since every politician in the land now agrees that Brexit is the all-consuming issue of the 21st century so far, the advancement of the Labour Right’s European agenda takes precedence over everything else. All the transgressions by Corbyn and his supporters […] are now to be tolerated so long as the ultimate prize of EU membership can be protected. Herein lies the most appalling example of a party explicitly putting itself before the country. The vast majority of Labour MPs, well beyond what might be considered the traditional right wing, believe absolutely that Jeremy Corbyn would be a disaster for Britain if he ever became prime minister. But in the current cross-party talks aiming to break the Brexit deadlock, they see the prospect of a rerun referendum being held, and the last hope of averting our departure from the EU. (link, paywalled)
The following underlines the observations by ‘Anonymous’, quoted above:
“So they will tolerate a Corbyn leadership and perhaps even a Corbyn premiership – not just for the meantime, not just for the short term, but for however long it takes. The damage Corbyn would do to the country in the meantime is of little consequence. The oft-repeated phrase uttered by members and MPs alike – “I’m staying to fight for my party” – does not mention Britain, because Britain plays no part in that calculation. It is Labour first, last and always.” (link, paywalled)
Tom Harris concludes:
“The thing about progressive politics is that it shouldn’t be conditional on other aims being achieved first. If a party pushes an agenda that is pro-human rights, pro-national security, pro-standing up to mafia regimes across the world and supportive of the only country in the Middle East where woman and gay people enjoy the same freedoms and protections as everyone else, then those principles are non-negotiable. Any party that feels able to shelve them, to sweep them under the carpet until a more convenient time presents itself, cannot call itself progressive.” (link, paywalled)
To conclude: just because our MSM are avoiding reporting on Labour’s internecine warfare – Tory blood-on-the-floor is so much more entertaining! – doesn’t mean Labour is a monolithic block. Moreover, these two articles are a good warning for us not to put our trust in Corbyn and Labour either: they are as committed to wreck Brexit as the Remainers on the opposite benches.
Talking of internecine conflict, what about the May EU elections and the splitting of the vote between The Brexit Party (TBP) and UKIP?
Listen to Gerard’s interview with Matt Frei on LBC yesterday, it was the best performance I have heard from Gerard and he even received plaudits from Andrew Castle – a moderate Remainer- on LBC this morning. Gerard sensibly batted away the TR issue with a categorical statement that TR can and will never be a UKIP member or candidate, so shooting Frei’s fox.
A line is drawn. Good.
Frei directly accused Gerard of being a Nazi (he used the words ‘so you are a National Socialist’ ) after Gerard stated that he believed in nationalising some utilities- that’s all he said- and if Frei – a German himself- associates privatising railways with Nazism when it’s a policy of the Greens and Labour too then he’s deluded.
But back to the EU elections. The EU election is a diversion because it take the focus of UKIP / TBP away from Brexit and into a clamour by many a neer-do-well to join the EU gravy train.
Gerard candidly stated that he does not look forward to standing again- and I believe him- however I have strong concerns about TBP, who now have Nuttall / Gill and other defectors in their ranks high on its 70 strong list and who have yet to publish ANY evidence that TBP is anything other than a Nigel Farage vehicle, with no known-as-yet democratic structure. A dictatorship, if you like.
We cannot countenance, surely, voting for a dictatorship when the ethos of Brexit itself is to escape one?
I stand to be corrected and debated and hope Viv will invite both Nigel and Gerard to comment too.
However , this aside, there is something more important to talk about. ‘Hard’ Brexiteers probably now exceed the critical 20-25% of the electorate needed to gain seats in Westminster when and if a general election is called. Having two parties fighting the same ground will confuse the public who will either abstain or split that vote resulting in a probable LABOUR win.
I have asked before for an awkward peace between UKIP / TBP to avoid the Corbyn/Momentum apocalypse. It’s UKIP that has the structure and the troops on the ground. Nigel has Nigel. Nigel and Gerard both have qualities that are valuable. They need to have a chat
Absolutely.
The Cons are doing a wonderful job of alienating their voters and destroying the party. Now we have to find a way to destroy the Labour Party before it destroys our country. Cooperation of the opposing forces is necessary but will it happen?
What strikes me is that Mrs May, having her deal trounced three times in the Commons doesn’t think: “My deal is no good.” Oh no, she thinks the voters are wrong, find new voters. What is wrong with this woman? Did her parents sing her praises so much she believes she is invincible? I didn’t think anything would come of her meeting with Corbyn – she has form on not listening and ignoring others’ views – but how was it ever considered a good idea? Every day she comes up with a new way to outrage us – someone please, please rid us of her now before she does more damage..
Meanwhile, Treason May is getting on with other deals to integrate British Military into the developing EU military structure. It is said in this video that “once the Military has gone under the control of the EU — it does not matter what happens with the so-called Brexit because we will no longer have a Nation State”. ” PM May is doing this under the cover of a trade deal …..”
This has been warned about for some years now but “Brexit” has pushed it out of public view even though the cessation of such integration is an essential component of that “Brexit”. One can only hope that the ordinary lads in the military will choose to support their families and friends over their commanders.
Do we need any more confirmation that we have a truly evil Prime Minister?
The thing about the military is that the young junior officers are tolerated because they are generally educated beyond the norm, are nice enough kids, and they have to go over the top first, thus showing their trust in their leaders. The other reason being that they tell the squaddies what they need to do. They are a conduit for orders from the leaders… There are no other reasons
GB is very clever, very sincere, but he doesn’t yet appear to have got the hang of this.. Lack of experience of bullying, bribing and other persuasive expediencies perhaps Ther’s a lot more to leadership that is not universally understood. It isnot actually important to know every thing about everything. Unfortunately, although very interesting, we’re short of time.
Also they fight harder if they are defending their own constituency., friends and relatives.
UKIP fails
Another inane phrase has entered Parliamentary and Media discussion recently — “confirmatory vote” (or referendum). This presupposes the purpose or outcome of a vote, implies a bias in the approach, the pre-discussion and ultimately the wording on the paper.
A proposed subject of a referendum must have two options clearly defined, at least, and the consequences of voting spelled out for each option.
If a proposal is to be voted on or put to a referendum the voting mechanisms and preparations must be scrupulously impartial and objective.
To speak in these terms at this early stage about putting something to a public vote then the result is already tainted by this early talk of it being “Confirmatory”.
As long as the ‘confirmatory vote’ is worded EXACTLY the same as the original 2016 referendum, I would have no problem with it. But will it be? I suggest the question will be Remain or BRINO.
Indeed Viv; Cameron thought he had the 2016 referendum in the bag so May and the other traitors in Parliament and the Civil Service will not make the same mistake whatever level of fraud is necessary.