Interesting post - Labour wont learn and with the power of the NEC in the hands of hard left Momentum gang it is very likely they will elect a leader in the guise of Corbyn/McDonald - they are already lining up lemon-face. Labour leadership are in complete denial - Corbyn is delusional he thought Labour won the argument and it was on Brexit that did for them!!

I think Boris has breathing space as long negotiations are progressing and he is transparent with that progress. He is in a strong position he can leave without a deal and there is very little that can be done about it and the EU know that - a bit like the EU you can't drive a wedge through the resolve of the UK as you could before.

What will be interesting is to see if Labour support Boris' deal - have they learned any lessons? Will the leading leadership contenders vote with the deal?

If Labour are having to win back the kind of people who are saying this on national TV, I'm afraid there is no hope...

"Look around you, shops are shutting, businesses are closing, the full place is falling down, so I voted for change, that's why I voted Conservative"

Why can't these people put 2 and 2 together???

It's definitely not because they're stupid

The powerbase in Labour is more in flux than you might think. One surprising development from Corbyn's election as leader was the reduction in influence of the trade unions over the leadership. In the past, Labour leaders have needed to horsetrade with unions to secure their support. Corbyn's support (in the two leadership elections of 2015 and 2016, and his powerbase ground campaigning machine in the 2017 general) came from the youth movement / Momentum.

When Corbyn first won, the unions demanded that McDonnell (who the union leadership has bad history with as he'd been involved in cases supporting union members against union leadership) not be appointed Shadow Chancellor....Corbyn, secure in a powerbase outside the unions, could ignore them. Of all the attacks that were targeted against Corbyn, we never heard 'in the pocket of the unions.' Instead, Corbyn could keep his preferred union man McCluskey close, giving Unite a disproportionate voice and antagonising the rest of the union movement. The other unions generally kept quiet though because they approved of Corbyn's policy agenda.

This reorientation in the powerbase of the left from unions to the youth movement had a number of implications. In the 1980s, the Bennite left was much more focused around the unions and the chosen battleground to take on Thatcher was the strikes. This was more northern-based and more working-class based. But also partly explains why when Thatcher won landslides in 1983 and 1987, Labour MPs piled up huge majorities in the northern heartlands.

The Corbynite left based around the Momentum style youth movement was more spread around the country, more based on young people, more middle-class but also was drawn from a mixture of movements: the ones that had been on Stop the War campaigns, protests against tuition fees, and now the eco-movement, Extinction Rebellion etc. These don't have easily identifiable leaderships to work with like unions do.

At first the reorientation from unions to these movements was an asset to Corbyn. They were young and energetic, skilled at spreading messages on social media, didn't have the old negative baggage that the unions had. Over time though, these caused problems...

First, the antisemitism stuff tends to come from the Stop the War / Free Palestine part of this coalition. It's less dominated by young people and has a lot of aggressive angry activists who like being provocative to raise the profile of the issue. They also live in a social media bubble where commentary that breaches the IHRA guidance on antisemitism is normalised.

Second, the youth part of this coalition was almost exclusively Remain, and lobbied hard for a second referendum and pulled Corbyn reluctantly to that position against his instincts.

Third, their policy focus is more eco-left than traditional class-struggle left, its why why Labour got pushed to the Green New Deal. This isn't necessarily a vote loser for them but they are closer to Greens than traditional Labour.

The challenge for the new leadership is going to come from harnessing and controlling these movements. Although I opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I think a lot of the stop the war / free Palestine groups are problematic - they contain a lot of people who normalise antisemitism. You can take reasonable policies on these issues without embracing these groups. Corbyn had long history as a figurehead for these groups. The youth vote is also instinctively going to coalesce around the most 'remainer' candidate, as they will want to reorient the party towards a future Rejoin campaign. Keir Starmer will be their natural preference.

I thought it would take longer than one day before the truth comes out. The nurse numbers are now over 10 years and his promise to retain current employment legislation and environmental protections will be removed because what he said in October to get his deal through no longer stands.

Some very interesting points there.

The race to succeed Corbyn will be influenced by a lot of pretty varied factors. Any winner will in some ways represent a surprise.

Labour need to make a better choice then either Corbyn or Ed Milliband.
They should have chosen David Milliband instead of Ed and they need to realise that if they go down the route of "ideological" left wing policies (as they've had under Corbyn's stewardship), they will be in perpetual opposition.
To have been annihilated by a dysfunctional Tory party, that itself was split down the middle and had to try and come from behind in the polls, tells yo everything you need to know about their chances of government.
On the plus side, the issue of Brexit should be gone by the time the next GE comes around but, to make it back into no 10, they will have to go back to the Blair type policies (obviously without an Iraq war to screw them over).
They must realise that there just aren't enough of the electorate who share their views and that they have to change.
Even with change, there will very likely be 2 terms of Boris - unless of course he has one of his own moments of madness - we can but hope.

He can get through Parliament OK now if he removes commitments on employment legislation and environmental protections but it makes the EU much less likely to offer him an attractive deal, so we'll either be in for extended transitions and much longer period of wrangling or the whole no deal stuff rearing its head again next year.

No deal will be less attractive to Boris now he is secure in power as he will know he has to mop up the consequences. Although he does have a decent majority, it's similar to the one which Gordon Brown inherited in 2007, and that melted away after the financial crisis, so he's not secure from electoral consequences if there's a major economic shock.

Does he want a trade deal with the EU because he does not want to include any possibility of an extension beyond the 31/12/2020. I guess he is pinning his hopes on Trump.

Quote: Scarlet Pimpernell "I thought it would take longer than one day before the truth comes out. The nurse numbers are now over 10 years and his promise to retain current employment legislation and environmental protections will be removed because what he said in October to get his deal through no longer stands.'" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1576502501

Quote: Scarlet Pimpernell "I thought it would take longer than one day before the truth comes out. The nurse numbers are now over 10 years and his promise to retain current employment legislation and environmental protections will be removed because what he said in October to get his deal through no longer stands.'" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1576502501

He may be, but without a trade deal with the EU, the UK economy will be far worse off than it was before, and any benefits from a deal with the US will be negligible compared to what is lost from access to EU markets. The US are just not in the business of opening up their markets to foreign competitors - their trade deals are very aggressively negotiated in their favour - even before Trump - so a deal with the US will be America First and not to the benefit of the UK.

Boris will know that walking away from the EU for no deal will have only short term political benefit, and he doesn't even need that next year anyway as the next election will be 4 years away. But it will lead to an economic decline that will hit the northern/midlands regions where there is still a manufacturing base that exports to the EU very hard. By 2024 if there has been a decline and higher unemployment, people won't say 'well done Boris for walking away with no deal in 2020', they will be angry at their economic situation.

Also he will need to watch the employment figures. Under Cameron and May we've been at or approaching full employment for a while now, which has mitigated the effects of austerity. If an economic downturn /recession hits following Brexit and a lot of people who previously earned wages are forced in to dealing with the state safety net they will realise just how much it has been reduced and how brutal it has become. It's easy to be supportive of measures to 'tackle scroungers' when you don't think you'll lose your job yourself but in those northern / midlands regions there aren't many jobs around when a major industry starts getting in to closures. If unemployment rises then the reality of dealing with DWP, benefit sanctioning and food banks will reach a lot of people who currently don't think it's an issue for them.

Putting a fixed date to agree a trade deal with the EU into law means either he must agree to what the EU offer of he walks away. If he reduces employment protections to make us more competitive at the expense of the work force than the EU will not offer us a deal anyway.

Indeed - who will blink first and does anyone believe that we will leave with a deal ??
He (Boris) is certainly going to please the "I just want us out" voters, the ones that Email Thornbury mentioned (allegedly)