Forum Topic

Well I hesitate to open discussion about Britain's membership of the  EU, which I believe was the subject of fierce controversy on this Forum long before I joined it, but I am afraid I don't agree with the view that Boris Johnson negotiated a disastrous Brexit agreement.  In my view Johnson saved the country from political paralysis in 2019 when a largely Remainer Parliament attempted to frustrate the expressed view of the electorate in the Referendum. The subsequent withdrawal and trade agreements were a compromise but it is going too far to describe them as disastrous. The question of the Irish border was somewhat fudged, I agree, which allowed the EU to insist on a heavy handed interpretation of the protocol on trade between London and Belfast, an interpretation which, sadly, many Remainers applaud as due penance for the sin of having left the EU. But I am not sure any of this is relevant to a discussion about Keir Starmer. Politicians are allowed to change their mind when the facts change. That is why I agree with the decision to delay  implementation of net zero in the UK, given that net zero is likely to impoverish the citizens of this country without materially affecting global climate change. But in the case of Keir Starmer it is the sheer number of policy reversals which leads one to question whether he has ever thought things through.As regards Hilary Benn, I didn't agree with his role in attempting to overturn the Referendum, but I think his refusal to serve under Jeremy Corbyn was principled. I also support the UK's maintenance of a nuclear deterrent. Unilateral disarmament by the UK would destabilise NATO and bring comfort to malign actors such as Russia, China and North Korea, so I wouldn't criticise Benn on that score. The intervention in Libya, which was proposed by David Cameron to avoid a possible massacre in Benghazi and approved by the House, has in hindsight proved to be a costly mistake, I agree.

Steven Rose ● 598d

A valiant defence of Keir Starmer on the part of Michael Ixer, but I am not convinced.1) Jeremy Corbyn has been deselected because of his refusal to accept that under his leadership, when Keir Starmer was in the shadow cabinet, Labour was guilty of antisemitism. Didn't Keir Starmer notice the treatment of Jewish MPs by the man whom he described as 'a colleague and a friend'? More principled figures in the party, such as Hilary Benn, refused to serve under Jeremy Corbyn.2) If renationalisation of the utilities is not viable, why propose it? I agree with with the view that there should be stricter sanctions against those companies which transgress.3) If the abolition of tuition fees is not affordable, why propose it? I doubt whether it would be introduced in a second term, if there is a second term. The abolition of tuition fees in Scotland has resulted in the underfunding of Scottish universities, a shortfall controversially addressed by offering more places to fee-paying English students to the detriment of Scottish students.4) Again, why propose a tax rise for the top 5% if you haven't thought it through?5) Keir Starmer has clearly stated that Labour will not seek to join the single market, so his pledge to renegotiate the UK-EU trade agreement is an empty promise. The EU has not given the slightest indication that it is willing to discuss  anything other than the implementation of the present agreement. He is simply making a vain attempt to please the Red Wall and the metropolitan left at the same time.My view is that Keir Starmer is out of his depth as a politician. Having grown up in relatively humble circumstances, he perhaps inherited his socialist beliefs from his parents, both Labour supporters. But as a lawyer he was never obliged to put these beliefs to the test or even think them through. He then became an MP when the soft left under Miliband and subsequently the hard left under Corbyn controlled the party. His political ambition led him to adopt extreme positions which he believed would curry favour with party voters whose number had been greatly enlarged under Miliband, including many people on the hard left. But now that Labour has a good chance of winning the election, he has been forced to reassess his views in the light of economic realities, hence the number of policy reversals. The result is that Labour's policies on nearly every issue are indistinguishable from those of Rishi Sunak who I consider to be a more substantial politician. 

Steven Rose ● 598d

I guess all politicians change their minds? Sunak seems set to be set to renege on climate change policies - far more serious than any of Starmer's changes in priorities. Aside from the fact that Sunak is causing consternation in the UK motor industry, green energy will most likely be cheaper in the future than hydrocarbons and he's prepared to jeopardise the future of the planet for sort term electoral gain. I heard on the news Suella Braverman describe this as Sunak being pragmatic. (Being pragmatic in the hope of keeping his job as PM and her cabinet position after the 2024 election?)So let's apply Braverman's pragmatism test to Sir Kier and the points Mr Rose lists.1) Jeremy Corbyn was elected by the Labour party membership as their leader. Sir Kier, as a party member, would be expected to supporting Corbyn in elections even if he wasn't convinced Corbyn would win. Corbyn's subsequent deselection looks like a pragmatic decision for public relations purposes? (I'm really not sure of the facts in this episode …)
2) Many of us may be in favour of renationalisation of utilities but there may be legal and economic practicalities meaning this is not viable. Far better to introduce stricter regulations with far greater penalties for transgressions, such as heavy fines and imprisonment of water company directors for dumping sewage.
3) Similarly, abolishing tuition fees may not be practicable because of the state of the economy inherited from the Tories following the next election. The way university funding and finance has evovoled may also complicate this. It could still happen in a second term.
4) Yes, probably just pragmatic politics, but I guess tax rates are always up for review in the light of prevailing economics - just look at all the Conservative promise to cut taxes that haven't happened yet for various reasons … or perhaps they will just before the next election.
5) Well, I guess as 52% at one time wanted to leave the EU then he's got to say that but it doesn't stop him, like many of us, from believing we'd be better off back in the EU. I doubt it's delusional (Sunak has negotiated the Windsor Agreement and rejoined Horizon - it's obvious other changes are needed to ease border controls and trade across the channel); I'm sure he knows it's not straightforward. Of course, it's likely during discussions it will become obvious that it's better to rejoin the single market, possibly the customs union, and even the EU - and, who knows, in a decade or two, possibly the Euro and Schengen (!) ... perhaps even another referendum will happen in the next decade :-)

Michael Ixer ● 599d