No doubt the deal will be renegotiated by future governments; that's when rejoining might become a possibility. But it's years away.
No objections from me to Labour voting for the deal - despite my now being very much a Starmer sceptic. There are multiple reasons why Labour should vote for it.
1. We left the EU at the end of January. Leave v Remain has been done since then. Finished.
No doubt the deal will be renegotiated by future governments; that's when rejoining might become a possibility. But it's years away.
But right now, it's just about moving on.
It's wearisome I know. But most of us on here are far more political than most people.
- Appearing patriotic
- Backing the police and the armed forces
- Governing in the 'national interest'
On all three, Labour's position wasn't just bad under Corbyn. It's been worsening for a long, long, long time.
What I'd have done if I were Starmer is turn Labour into a post-Remain party, and seek a progressive, anti-Tory alliance. I despair of his lack of vision.
Does this run the risk of social liberals fleeing? You bet it does. But we can't win without social conservatives. Not under FPTP.
"How's he gonna win the Red Wall back? He's a Remainer!" He's already winning it back by pursuing this approach. And you can't win it back while remaining as socially liberal as Labour has been for decades.
Without those foundation stones in place, Labour won't get a hearing.
So many on here can't handle what that involves.
And THAT's why we've lost so much working class support. Because our values are not their values. Our values are those of the new working class: the young.
We couldn't win when we were too liberal; we'll have big problems winning by being much more Blue Labour.
What do we need? A progressive alliance. That's what we should all be campaigning for in my book.
You can't argue "we lost because of Brexit", then attack him for, er, supporting it.
Leaders with vision would recognise that. Starmer's just doing what he can within a bankrupt system.
I remember how I felt when reading the 2019 manifesto. How awesome I thought it was - because it made me feel so comfortable.
I remember @graceblakeley actually saying that she'd cried tears of joy when reading it too.
More from Politics
All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.
But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.
Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.
I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
The strange thing about the fight to displace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is that no one seems willing to run against her. https://t.co/VhBqf4KJom
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) November 21, 2018
I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.
But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.
Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.
I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".