British Politics


Then how can you make an informed voting choice with UK wide parties when you have JC saying he wants a soft Brexit but a Brexit all the same and you have Dugdale saying she wants Scotland to retain membership to the EU and free market?

Edit: I mixed up “all the same” with “none the less” lol


Because Brexit is “decided” now so if you’re a Scottish voter you must only want Remain, and if you’re English you must only want to leave. Will of the people etc etc, which renders country wide choice irrelevant.


There is no way for this to be reconciled.


I’m torn over it all to be honest. I wish Corbyn had been an actual proper opposition post-referendum over Brexit. But also I’m not sure he’d have had the recent success if he’d been strongly remain (I’m not sure he wouldn’t have, either - there’s an argument that votes he’d lose among staunch brexiters could have been picked up by remainers, but I’ve seen polling that suggests the majority of remainers now think Brexit basically has to happen, regardless of whether we want it or not, so who knows)

I just wish that he’d stop whipping it. I think he should set out a party position but allow a free vote.


As far as I can tell he’s never really been pro-EU which is totally his perogative but I just wish he would be much more flexible when it comes to Scotlands needs and position in the same way he is to N.Ireland.


I wish I had the total faith some people have that ending freedom of movement won’t result in decades of poverty for the UK working classes.

If there’s anything I’ve learnt in recent times, it’s that immigration controls only hurt the non-rich.


If Labour truly wants a distribution of power whilst also still being a Unionist party then they need to fight for a federalised Scotland with membership of EFTA\EEA. That would actually end “talk of independence for a generation” unlike the shower of broken promises they gave us in the Vow and it would benefit both Scotland, which will be hit the hardest by Brexit, and the rUK. Personally, I would still be in favour of independence but I would take it in the mean time.


I have a fairly big house move that I’m hoping to make this year but increasingly I’m wondering whether a withdrawal from the UK by me to a civilised country might not be a better idea for the long run. Learning to speak a different language and live in a new culture would be tough, but would it suck as much as life in the UK is likely to over the next couple of decades?


Hey, there is always Ireland.


Can anyone explain to me what the intent of this amendment was?

Why did the MP who has been vocal about wanting strict border controls even if it means not having the Single Market (something the EU is absolutely clear you can’t separate - so this is a statement opposing SM membership) bring this, something that only had support of 1/6th of the house? The MP who talks about migrant “parallel lives”, a position far to the Right of the current Labour party (and more reminiscent of the racist Labour mug of old).

Why attempt to split the opposition rather than fight against the Tories? What was the point? What could anyone possibly see actually being the concrete result of this political move? No one seems to be able to answer this.

Of course you can’t be a minister if you don’t follow the whip. That’s the point of them, to provide voting direction. “Oh but Corbyn famously voted against the party” - yes, and sat on the back benches because of it.

Edit (vent): There have been two moments to stop Brexit - during the Ref vote and then at the recent General Election. So many of the people who make it sound like they’re single issue voters on Remain have in fact only cared about the first of those. If someone has been actively attacking Labour for the last year (especially from a position of power) then they’ve been working to support the continuation of this Tory government. Someone who absolutely refuses to do anything concrete to actually take down the Government who called the ref and are botching every step is not someone who actually cares about much of anything. The commentariat, by and large, have no principles.

I’ve just about worn through my tolerance for “centrist” single-issue talk on this from the press who spent two years attempting to prevent Labour gains by any means. Those “good migrant” narratives that the EU is perfect and that how could we possibly be treated like we’ve been treating every single non-EU migrant in forever (or want a more meaningful reform that demands migrant rights are human rights). Super not a good look: “I deserve my privileged status and how dare politics mean I might lose that. It was all perfect before, when only other people had to deal with this.” We need to talk about Fortress Europe in the same way that everything wasn’t fine a couple of years ago and austerity and privatisation has been a long term destruction of the state that needs to be undone. The politics of “Make [us] Great Again” are not good - if things were good for you then that’s your privilege showing. We need serous political movement because things have been and continue to be quite bad for most people on the planet and they’re going to get worse.


I have no doubt Chuka Umunna is nothing but a shitwank opportunist, even if I worry any Lexit is an insular delusion.


Chuka’s an opportunist and a coward. Everything you need to know about him was spelled out by his incredibly short run for leadership - the second the media started looking at him, he bolted. Since then, he’s made it his mission to demonstrate division in the party.


I find reading this really infuriating, especially given that Adonis was instrumental in help making the “Ponzi scheme” of tuition fees politically acceptable.

“In my view, fees have now become so politically diseased, they should be abolished entirely,” Adonis writes in the Guardian.

Admitting that he was “largely responsible” for the structure of fees and loans, with repayments pegged to graduate incomes, Adonis complains that greedy university leaders have failed to improve teaching quality but still rewarded themselves handsomely.

“[Vice-chancellors] increased their own pay and perks as fast as they increased tuition fees, and are now ‘earning’ salaries of £275,000 on average and in some cases over £400,000.

“Debt levels for new graduates are now so high that the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that three-quarters of graduates will never pay it all back. The Treasury will soon realise it is sitting on a Ponzi scheme,” Adonis writes.



This is an excellent video on a Scottish view of Jeremy Corbyn that lines of with my thoughts exactly and why I will continue to vote Greens rather than Scottish Labour. It’s only 9 min long so pls give it a watch if you are interested.


I guess this thread is going to become the “Jonny_Anonymous and Wracketeer moan about Labour” thread but I’m genuinely furious about this video:

I mean first of all the premise is completely wrong (The ability to purchase the rail contract was a reserved Westminster matter until 2016, and the Scottish government can’t buy it until the current Abellio contract expires), but what really upsets me is that this video is supposed to appeal to me. This is supposed to convince Scottish people that the SNP aren’t a true left-wing party and that they don’t really want to nationalise the railways, but its method of doing that is tired stereotypes and dogwhistle xenophobia. As a whinging Scottish Nationalist who hates foreigners and wants Scotland to own everything, I’m supposed to be outraged that a Dutch company has the Scotrail contract.

I could ignore all that if I still lived in Scotland, but I moved to England two months ago. For the first time in my life I feel politically disenfranchised. Labour are probably the party that my political opinions align with most, but how the fuck can I vote for them if I’m just a stereotype to them?


Remember this video?


As the SNP seems to have decided that wiping out sex workers is the way forward, they can all do one TBH. The carceral politics of hard borders being incompatible with actual Leftist struggle is hard to see in starker terms.


Yeah, not a fan of some of the SNP’s choices, especially that one. Can you explain your second sentence?


The “Nordic model” is one of incarceration and deportation. It can only be arrived at via the acceptance of a Rightist view of modern globalisation that opens borders to the movement of goods and services, the escape of capital, but the barring of free movement of labour and more widely people with their right to freely join any community (a concept that conflicts with traditional nationalism). These are the hard borders that such a worldview accepts, ones that capital can flow through but not people (even if we are told this is a “new” nationalism that wants to open borders rather than closing them). One that creates the demand for traffickers who can get people who cannot buy their way through restrictions to different labour markets and opens up underground economies of potential exploitation (which is far from a singular issue, as it also occurs for agricultural labourers and especially in other service industries like domestic labour).

When we look at this sort of legislation and some of the loudest proponents for it, it’s impossible to not think of how it considers borders. It is also hard to ignore where the hysteria sold as concern came from. eg the “White Slave Traffic Act” makes the racist underpinnings stark. This is absolutely the sort of thing we must have zero tolerance for under the banner of Leftism.