The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[grober]

MEANWHILE BACK IN THE REAL WORLD.
Queen's Speech: Brexit bills dominate government agenda - BBC News

Brexit bills and more Austerity-U-like.


and a little bit on Austerity from this book by Mark Blythe.
https://www.amazon.com/Austerity-History-Dangerous-Mark-Blyth/dp/019982830X&tag=

Governments today in both Europe and the United States have succeeded in casting government spending as reckless wastefulness that has made the economy worse. In contrast, they have advanced a policy of draconian budget cuts--austerity--to solve the financial crisis. We are told that we have all lived beyond our means and now need to tighten our belts. This view conveniently forgets where all that debt came from. Not from an orgy of government spending, but as the direct result of bailing out, recapitalizing, and adding liquidity to the broken banking system. Through these actions private debt was rechristened as government debt while those responsible for generating it walked away scot free, placing the blame on the state, and the burden on the taxpayer.

That burden now takes the form of a global turn to austerity, the policy of reducing domestic wages and prices to restore competitiveness and balance the budget. The problem, according to political economist Mark Blyth, is that austerity is a very dangerous idea. First of all, it doesn't work. As the past four years and countless historical examples from the last 100 years show, while it makes sense for any one state to try and cut its way to growth, it simply cannot work when all states try it simultaneously: all we do is shrink the economy. In the worst case, austerity policies worsened the Great Depression and created the conditions for seizures of power by the forces responsible for the Second World War: the Nazis and the Japanese military establishment. As Blyth amply demonstrates, the arguments for austerity are tenuous and the evidence thin. Rather than expanding growth and opportunity, the repeated revival of this dead economic idea has almost always led to low growth along with increases in wealth and income inequality. Austerity demolishes the conventional wisdom, marshaling an army of facts to demand that we recognize austerity for what it is, and what it costs us.

 

[st13phil]

and a little bit on Austerity from this book by Mark Blythe.

I find a great deal to agree with in Blythe's arguments against Austerity: as he points out, history has shown repeatedly that it's a failed strategy with a very high risk of delivering not just a bad economic outcome.

Nick asked a few posts back (paraphrasing) "why is it only the left that are identified as nutters?". That's not my view of the world. The rabid "free market-eers" and "small gummint" right-wingers are similar nut-jobs in my book, as is everyone else who creates obvious damage in their rush to get to their ideological promised land.

Markjay has repeatedly made the point that the majority in a mature democracy don't want extremism - whether that be driven by traditional left-wing or right-wing ideologies. The means (of extremism) are never justified by the ends.

 

[Scott_F]

I listened to the R4 Today interview this morning and McDonnell conceded (under pressure) that Labour had lost the election but he also argued strongly that the Conservatives had lost it too(!).

You are quoting from the same interview as the link that I posted in #3056.

I can see his point that the Tories didn't win as although they won the most seats they lost their majority and as I write this they are still trying to cobble together an agreement with the DUP to prop them up.

However, once again, I have not heard of any occasion where he has claimed that Labour did not lose the election.

He spent a great deal of time arguing that the current Conservative Government wasn't legitimate, which Nick Robinson pointed out was the sort of statement that would inflame hot-heads who McDonnell has been encouraging to protest. Robinson made the further point that McDonnell on R4 sounds reasonable and measured, while McDonnell on Twitter and in Socialist Worker encourages "direct action" to "overthrow the government".

I don't follow Twitter but in the R4 interview he seems quite clear:

"Today people may call it a Day of Rage or whatever, they have got the right if they want to be angry, but they haven't got the right to be violent.

All protest has got to be peaceful and if you want to see what effective protest is all about I tell you to follow the lead of Ghandi, not others".

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Scott_F]

Telling people on twitter to take to the streets, coming from such a senior figure in the party isnt organising it then?

It categorically is not organising it.

He has encouraged people to take to the streets if they wish to and to protest peacefully. When people feel that politicians are not listening to them then direct action is perfectly legitimate. As long as it is done lawfully (as McDonnell has urged) then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The march has actually been organised by The Movement For Justice By Any Means Necessary.

Needless to say, John McDonnell is not a member.

 

[st13phil]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

As Nick Robinson pointed out, he says different, totally reasonable, things on R4 to those he says elsewhere which are - even by favourable interpretation - inflammatory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scott_F]

As Nick Robinson pointed out, he says different, totally reasonable, things on R4 to those he says elsewhere which are - even by favourable interpretation - inflammatory.

As stated, I don't do Twitter but a quick Google brought up this from 22 hours ago (long before this morning's R4 interview):

"To everyone planning on demonstrating against Theresa May's government over the next few weeks, it is vital that these protests are peaceful."

I don't know what else he has said on Twitter but the above is entirely consistent with the views he expressed during the interview.

 

[st13phil]

Robinson made mention of an interview in Socialist Worker.

Like you, I've only heard the "reasonable" McDonnell on R4, but if what Robinson says is true then McDonnell is doing exactly the same as any other stirrer (e.g. BNP, EDL) which is to wind up the hot-heads in semi-private, then issue public calls for a non-violent protest while knowing that the likely outcome is anything but. Based on the public proclamations they then say "Not me guv, I told them not to be violent".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scott_F]

Robinson made mention of an interview in Socialist Worker.

Like you, I've only heard the "reasonable" McDonnell on R4, but if what Robinson says is true then McDonnell is doing exactly the same as any other stirrer (e.g. BNP, EDL) which is to wind up the hot-heads in semi-private, then issue public calls for a non-violent protest while knowing that the likely outcome is anything but. Based on the public proclamations they then say "Not me guv, I told them not to be violent".

I don't know what he may have said in other interviews but his message with regard to the Day of Rage in both the R4 interview and on Twitter seem at this stage to be both consistent and entirely reasonable.

And regardless of the above, he has certainly not organised the demonstration as has been suggested elsewhere !!

 

[markjay]

...When people feel that politicians are not listening to them then direct action is perfectly legitimate. As long as it is done lawfully (as McDonnell has urged) then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it...

With respect, I disagree.

A march against the outcome of Democratic elections is not only unreasonable but also dangerous - it equates to cutting off the branch we are sitting on.

It is no different to football fans smashing-up the seats in the stadium just because their team lost or because they disagree with the referee's decision.

And referees do get it wrong; and matches are sometimes lost to penalty kicks which isn't fair; but even so unless we all agree to accept the rules of the game come what may, there is no game.

In the same way the very essence of our Democratic society is that we all accept the rules. If we are unhappy about them, we can move to have them changed by Democratic process.

For the record, I voted against Brexit, I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still think it is a bad idea now. At the same time I think that once me and my fellow Remainers have lost the vote, we should all put our differences behind us and proceed with Brexit full steam ahead. This is because otherwise the irreparable damage caused to our Democracy will far outweigh any advantage or benefit we may gain by not leaving the EU. For this reason I would not now support and anti-Brexit demonstration.

Now I am not surprised that fringe organisation and anarchists are organising marches, because these organisations are not anti-Tory or pro-Labour, instead they seek to undermine the very rules that our society relies on.

But for an established political party such as the Labour to support or even encourage this, demonstrates not only that Labour's current leadership has never evolved and matured into a viable political alternative, but more importantly they are playing with fire which may well consume them - do not believe for one minute that those organising these anti-Democracy protests will accept the rule of law by any party, including Labour, even if Corbyn and McDonnell try chumming-up to them.

In that context, Corbyn and McDonnell's plan appears to be feeding the dragon so that when they day comes they can ride it into the castle, and then once they got in, getting rid of it - but dragons are notoriously difficult to slay.

 

[wemorgan]

Marching/protesting against a democratic election/policy is not only legal but is a part of the democratic process as is seen daily on Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. It's inherent in the freedom of speech. Almost every decision is reversible and open for legal change, so the freedom to debate these is natural.

 

[Alfie]

With respect, I disagree.

A march against the outcome of Democratic elections is not only unreasonable but also dangerous - it equates to cutting off the branch we are sitting on.

It is no different to football fans smashing-up the seats in the stadium just because their team lost or because they disagree with the referee's decision.

And referees do get it wrong; and matches are sometimes lost to penalty kicks which isn't fair; but even so unless we all agree to accept the rules of the game come what may, there is no game.

In the same way the very essence of our Democratic society is that we all accept the rules. If we are unhappy about them, we can move to have them changed by Democratic process.

For the record, I voted against Brexit, I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still think it is a bad idea now. At the same time I think that once me and my fellow Remainers have lost the vote, we should all put our differences behind us and proceed with Brexit full steam ahead. This is because otherwise the irreparable damage caused to our Democracy will far outweigh any advantage or benefit we may gain by not leaving the EU. For this reason I would not now support and anti-Brexit demonstration.

Now I am not surprised that fringe organisation and anarchists are organising marches, because these organisations are not anti-Tory or pro-Labour, instead they seek to undermine the very rules that our society relies on.

But for an established political party such as the Labour to support or even encourage this, demonstrates not only that Labour's current leadership has never evolved and matured into a viable political alternative, but more importantly they are playing with fire which may well consume them - do not believe for one minute that those organising these anti-Democracy protests will accept the rule of law by any party, including Labour, even if Corbyn and McDonnell try chumming-up to them.

In that context, Corbyn and McDonnell's plan appears to be feeding the dragon so that when they day comes they can ride it into the castle, and then once they got in, getting rid of it - but dragons are notoriously difficult to slay.

Well said.

Its worth noting also that these tantrums in the streets are also causing a lot of hard working Londoners inconvenience and also tieing up police resources at a time when those services have had an awful lot to deal with lately. Its inconsiderate and badly thought out.

 

[Scott_F]

With respect, I disagree.

A march against the outcome of Democratic elections is not only unreasonable but also dangerous - it equates to cutting off the branch we are sitting on.

It is no different to football fans smashing-up the seats in the stadium just because their team lost or because they disagree with the referee's decision.

And referees do get it wrong; and matches are sometimes lost to penalty kicks which isn't fair; but even so unless we all agree to accept the rules of the game come what may, there is no game.

In the same way the very essence of our Democratic society is that we all accept the rules. If we are unhappy about them, we can move to have them changed by Democratic process......

And with respect, I disagree.

For one thing, the protest is also about other things apart from opposing the formation of a Tory / DUP coalition. These include the government's response to the fire at Grenfell Tower (and the fact that it could happen in the first place), austerity cuts and racism.

Additionally, the right to protest and make your voice lawfully heard (even if you are in a minority and your wishes will not be acted upon) are one of the basic tenets of our democracy ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" etc.).

Long may it continue.

 

[Giantvanman]

BREXIT......

As soon as the dust settled, I formed the opinion that this would not go ahead. There would be some manufactured reason found.......

Today, the following popped up on my newsfeed. I won't quote the source because I am not sure of the voracity of the information BUT it is being reported in several places.
I would not surprise me to find some sort of engineered 'solution' that allows us to remain and maybe this is the first whiff of it:-

" The European Union's official response to Prime Minister Theresa May triggering Brexit states that Article 50 can be reversed, meaning Britain could, in theory, change its mind at some point in the two-year negotiation process."

Anyone for a gentleman's bet?
What will the reason be: can't make a deal; it's going to cost us too much; having closely examined our position we find that we are indeed snakes of the highest order of deviousness and we will do anything to get our way?

 

[wemorgan]

My prediction is on another referendum on the final Brexit deal.

We'll be offered a £100bn divorce fee, worse trading deal, worse economic outlook. The Government will vow to spend £xbn on the regions and demographic that voted for the original Brexit, who will then vote against the final Brext deal. We'll all hug and make up.

I may be wearing my rose tinted spectacles during this mini heatwave we're having.

 

[cinek]

Marching/protesting against a democratic election/policy is not only legal but is a part of the democratic process as is seen daily on Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. It's inherent in the freedom of speech. Almost every decision is reversible and open for legal change, so the freedom to debate these is natural.

That is the bit I simply cannot get my head round.

Even if 99% of voters say 'yey' and only 1% say 'ney', in true democracy that 1% still deserves and has a right to a voice.

Apparently, when 52% spoke this was as the democracy has spoken itself.
And everybody who was undecided, or voted the other way has lost their voice until the end of times...

 

[markjay]

...These include the government's response to the fire at Grenfell Tower (and the fact that it could happen in the first place)....

I think that the timing of this march is not a coincidence, and that those organising it are blatantly hijacking the legitimate anger of the Grenfell Tower fire survivors for their own political aims.

I agree with what you mentioned above, yes the initial government (both local and central) response was inadequate - but piggybacking a whole load of other political cr@p on this legitimate issue is to my mind deplorable, and the fact that Labour support it makes it even worse.

But - I expect honesty from politicians... I guess I should lower my aim.

 

[markjay]

Marching/protesting against a democratic election/policy is not only legal but is a part of the democratic process as is seen daily on Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. It's inherent in the freedom of speech. Almost every decision is reversible and open for legal change, so the freedom to debate these is natural.

Be it as it may, I do not support protesting against the results of general elections, or a referendum. No Democratic system has the capacity to sustain that. And we risk becoming like some places around the world where when the incumbent leader loses the elections, civil war breaks out as his supporters just won't have it.

You can protest against any particular policy or decision, but NOT against elections results themselves (unless you have reason to suspect fraud, and even then this should be investigated by the police, not the mob in the street).

Looking at the protesters I feel robbed of my vote. I feel dis-empowered. I did my civic duty, quietly and peacefully went to the polling station and cast my vote, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE (or so I thought). But now it seems that some people think they have more clout than me in these elections, simply because they can run up and down the street and shout the loudest.

This is unfair. This is not Democracy. This is mob rule. And - again - the fact the Labour are smug about people effectively rioting against Democracy is horrifying.

 

[st13phil]

Even if 99% of voters say 'yey' and only 1% say 'ney', in true democracy that 1% still deserves and has a right to a voice.

In a democracy, the minority should always have a right to be heard, and the majority should have the right to listen to them, take on board what they say, or ignore them as the case may be.

There's an old adage that sometimes you're the driver, and sometimes you're the passenger. I liken it to us being on a bus. As a passenger you can either:

• Quietly sit and watch the scenery go by
• Grumble at the back
• Get off the bus (difficult while it's moving)
• Try to get the majority on the bus to believe that they're all going in the wrong direction and persuade the driver to go somewhere else

What you can't do is leap up and wrest the wheel from the driver, causing the bus to crash. It's also unwise to force the bus to drive around in circles until it runs out of fuel.

 

[Scott_F]

Looking at the protesters I feel robbed of my vote. I feel dis-empowered. I did my civic duty, quietly and peacefully went to the polling station and cast my vote, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE (or so I thought). But now it seems that some people think they have more clout than me in these elections, simply because they can run up and down the street and shout the loudest.

This is unfair. This is not Democracy. This is mob rule. And - again - the fact the Labour are smug about people effectively rioting against Democracy is horrifying.

Aren't you being a bit of a drama queen ?? No one has robbed you of anything !

If demonstrators overturn an elected government then that's mob rule. If demonstrators behave lawfully and proclaim that they are unhappy about various issues then that's democracy.

And Labour politicians supporting the decision of people to protest whilst stressing that it should be non-violent does not mean that they are "smug about people effectively rioting against democracy". It's not even close !

 

[markjay]

Breaking News:

Grenfell Tower fire survivors to be rehomed in flats on luxury development

I can see McDonnell pulling his hair out and screaming at his aids in frustration "No! No! The fools! They've ruined everything!"