Disaster! No Parmiggiano to be had in either of the supermarkets at my end of town. What was the point of laying in stocks of pasta? And huge gaps on the French red wine shelves.
Disaster! No Parmiggiano to be had in either of the supermarkets at my end of town. What was the point of laying in stocks of pasta? And huge gaps on the French red wine shelves.
Hmm.
Our local Tess Coe had plenty of French red wine yesterday, but I suppose it only takes one lorry-load to be held up at the border for gaps to appear in the place to which that lorry-load was bound...
The keyboard finally arrived today after an extended shuffle around assorted warehouses: we got the customs bill night before last, so it got paid and the parts released.
This is where I disagree. It was far more democratic than when we joined
The 1975 referendum was a model of clarity and openness compared to the 2016 thing.
You may wish to protest that you, or others, thought that you were joining a trade bloc, and the EEC gradually morphed into a political project. That's not really true - the bones of the political project are in the original founding documents - the Paris and Rome treaties - but I'll acknowledge that the perception is there, and quite popular.
This is where I disagree. It was far more democratic than when we joined
The 1975 referendum was a model of clarity and openness compared to the 2016 thing.
You may wish to protest that you, or others, thought that you were joining a trade bloc, and the EEC gradually morphed into a political project. That's not really true - the bones of the political project are in the original founding documents - the Paris and Rome treaties - but I'll acknowledge that the perception is there, and quite popular.
We did not join in 1975.
The decision to join was taken by a government and parliament that had been elected with joining as part of their manifesto. The 1975 referendum confirmed that decision, albeit after the fact.
Still miles more democratic that the 2017 vote to leave again.
This is where I disagree. It was far more democratic than when we joined
The 1975 referendum was a model of clarity and openness compared to the 2016 thing.
You may wish to protest that you, or others, thought that you were joining a trade bloc, and the EEC gradually morphed into a political project. That's not really true - the bones of the political project are in the original founding documents - the Paris and Rome treaties - but I'll acknowledge that the perception is there, and quite popular.
We did not join in 1975.
The decision to join was taken by a government and parliament that had been elected with joining as part of their manifesto. The 1975 referendum confirmed that decision, albeit after the fact.
Still miles more democratic that the 2017 vote to leave again.
We did not go into the common market after a referendum. In a general election people cast their votes for a number for reasons. We were never asked and that's why the next Labour government decided to ask us.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
The 1970 election returned a Conservative government, quite surprisingly according to the accounts of the time (where have I heard polls being wrong before ...). The Conservative manifesto for the 1970 election was clear.
We believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.
The people of the UK were consulted in 1970, and voted in a government committed to negotiating entry into the EEC. That's how British democracy works, a referendum isn't needed (though, there are political considerations that make a confirmatory referendum worthwhile).
When did the people of the UK vote in a government committed to leaving the EU? 2017, a few months after the vote to do that had been taken. The time for a referendum was after that government was elected in - sometime late in 2017 or early 2018, to confirm that the people accepted the policy of the government to leave the EU. Except, of course, by then the 2016 vote had already totally screwed British politics; the decision to hold that vote propelled a subject that the vast majority of people in the UK didn't care about into top position of politics, where it will remain for the next few decades. As soon as that public vote was mooted the nations started to divide themselves into two camps over an issue very few even cared about a year before.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
The 1970 election returned a Conservative government, quite surprisingly according to the accounts of the time (where have I heard polls being wrong before ...). The Conservative manifesto for the 1970 election was clear.
We believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.
The people of the UK were consulted in 1970, and voted in a government committed to negotiating entry into the EEC. That's how British democracy works, a referendum isn't needed (though, there are political considerations that make a confirmatory referendum worthwhile).
When did the people of the UK vote in a government committed to leaving the EU? 2017, a few months after the vote to do that had been taken. The time for a referendum was after that government was elected in - sometime late in 2017 or early 2018, to confirm that the people accepted the policy of the government to leave the EU. Except, of course, by then the 2016 vote had already totally screwed British politics; the decision to hold that vote propelled a subject that the vast majority of people in the UK didn't care about into top position of politics, where it will remain for the next few decades. As soon as that public vote was mooted the nations started to divide themselves into two camps over an issue very few even cared about a year before.
The people voted Conservative in 1970 for several reasons. Most people don't read manifestos.
People may not read manifestos, but there's no excuse for them not knowing the key points of those documents. For a start, parties campaign on those, the main thrust of a campaign should be "this is what we'll do if you elect us". Second, other parties read the manifestos of their opponents to find the bits that they consider unachievable or otherwise ammunition for the secondary "don't vote for that lot because they will do something terrible" message of campaigns. And, the media tend to dissect manifestos as well, with plenty of graphics comparing parties. Of course, I don't know what exactly was said by parties and media in 1970, and it's a lot easier to find copies of manifestos online than archives of media coverage much less transcripts of hustings across the land.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
36% of the electorate does not constitute the public.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
36% of the electorate does not constitute the public.
The people voted Conservative in 1970 for several reasons. Most people don't read manifestos.
Is there any reason why this logic shouldn't also apply to the 2017 and 2019 general elections? If not, then we seem to be left with a consultative and non-binding referendum in 2016.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
36% of the electorate does not constitute the public.
Several Shipmates have tried many times on this thread to get Telford to understand this, and other salient points, but without success.
Hence my remark earlier about the record repeating itself incessantly, the needle having got stuck in a groove...
Point of order - that's what the needle is meant to do. There is a single spiral groove which it follows. Records get stuck when dirt in the groove causes the needle to jump out and into an earlier part of the groove.
Thanks @KarlLB - I had a feeling that I'd not got the analogy quite right, but I guess you fathomed my meaning...
At least you didn't post WOEAYOA? (What On Earth Are You On About?) as Telford often does. This acronym can be used by anyone - I waive all rights and royalties, and place it in the public domain.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
36% of the electorate does not constitute the public.
But if you abstained in the referendum, that suggests you were OK with leaving, or at least sufficiently OK that you didn't try to prevent it by voting Remain.
Surely, if one were to count abstentions (and, I'm not going to suggest one should) then wouldn't it make more sense in a case between a choice between the status quo and a change in policy that an abstention counts as supporting Rockin' All Over The World.
Surely, if one were to count abstentions (and, I'm not going to suggest one should) then wouldn't it make more sense in a case between a choice between the status quo and a change in policy that an abstention counts as supporting Rockin' All Over The World.
I don't think you can infer anything about an abstention, beyond the fact that the abstainer didn't think it was worth voting for one of the options on offer. People abstain because they're not bothered about the outcome, they abstain because they think the process is rigged and don't want to lend it legitimacy, they abstain because they don't think their vote will affect the outcome, and they abstain because they're in some sort of moral quandry and don't want to vote either way.
In general, I've got no sympathy for non-voters*. The procedure for voting is well-known and quite simple. If you don't think it important enough to go to a really quite modest amount of effort to vote - well, you're free to make that choice, but you also have to live with your choice.
*If voter suppression is a popular game in your locale, and yours is one of the votes being suppressed, then that's a rather different case, but I don't think you can make much of a case for voter suppression in the UK.
Surely, if one were to count abstentions (and, I'm not going to suggest one should) then wouldn't it make more sense in a case between a choice between the status quo and a change in policy that an abstention counts as supporting Rockin' All Over The World.
<snip>
In general, I've got no sympathy for non-voters*. The procedure for voting is well-known and quite simple. If you don't think it important enough to go to a really quite modest amount of effort to vote - well, you're free to make that choice, but you also have to live with your choice.
I agree.
My Old Mum wouldn't vote (on the basis that *They're all as bad as each other* ), but that was her choice, as you say.
My reply was *Well, you'll get the government you didn't vote for*, which isn't quite the case, I suppose, but YSWIM.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
36% of the electorate does not constitute the public.
I agree but all the electorate have a choice of what candidate to vote for. In 1970 the candidate I voted for was against the common market so the manifesto was irrelevant to me. The same person was also against the common market in the 1975 referendum but I ignored him.
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
We were not consulted in 1973 and lied to in 1975. I believed the lies in 1975 and voted to remain. We were not consulted again till 2016 after being dragged further and further towards a political union. The public voted out as soon as they were given the chance
36% of the electorate does not constitute the public.
But if you abstained in the referendum, that suggests you were OK with leaving, or at least sufficiently OK that you didn't try to prevent it by voting Remain.
Or that you didnt object to membership enough to vote out.
Lots of Labour complaints that Starmer is keeping schtum about Brexit. I can see why he is, if he says it's a disaster, he loses votes, if he sucks up to Boris, ditto. But Labour do seem very anaemic right now.
A friend said to me that London is notoriously an intermediary for dodgy money, and Brexit will harm this. No idea if it's true, but it made me laugh, which is progress.
It's early days yet to declare Brexshit a complete disaster...or is it? It does seem to be causing a lot of problems for a lot of businesses, and their staff.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. There's no possible gain for Starmer for going active on Brexit now. There's no gain for the country (there's really no avenue for Starmer's engagement to create something better at the moment), and no gain for the Labour party.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
I think this is one of those apparent truisms that is more often wrong than right. It often only matters if it the mistake has immediate consequences. In this case it would only matter if it is evident to the public at large that Johnson is making a mistake. Thanks to a very benign press this is far from happening, and Tory polling numbers show no sign of softening.
A large part of the oppositions role is to paint alternative pictures of the world and to give them salience, this hasn't been happening since late March of last year.
I'm assuming Starmer's strategy is to kill off Brexit as a political issue as quickly as possible, in order to fight future elections on a traditional "jobs schools and hospitals" platform. Hence the decision to vote for Johnson's terrible TCA deal.
There's some merit to it - Johnson is constantly trying to bait Starmer and draw him into the culture wars - like his bizarre "remainer lawyer" jibe. Starmer refuses to rise to it, because it's not a battle he can possibly win. Johnson is left swiping at an enemy who has melted away into the mist.
Tory strategists are probably alert to this, and will probably start stealing Labour's policies, as they traditionally do when Labour is starting to represent any kind of threat. Expect some high profile spending announcements in the Budget.
There's an election in a few weeks, and Brexit forms a significant backdrop to that. Labour can't afford to be silent on an issue that the other parties are drawing up their campaign positions on. Are they really going to go into elections tacitly accepting the Tory narrative that Brexit has been a success? Are Labour really thinking that being indistinguishable from the Tories on the major constitutional issues is a vote winner? Perhaps Starmer has simply accepted that Labour is increasingly irrelevant and is cutting his losses with the hope of rebuilding in time for the next general election, and not worrying about competing elections before then.
I'm assuming Starmer's strategy is to kill off Brexit as a political issue as quickly as possible, in order to fight future elections on a traditional "jobs schools and hospitals" platform. Hence the decision to vote for Johnson's terrible TCA deal.
FWIW I was think of Covid rather than Brexit. On Brexit itself I think any chance of making significant hay over it is years away.
I think it is time for Starmer to have a vision on *something*.
A while ago I came across a list of ghastly management quotes which included 'People buy into the leader before they buy into the vision' - I.e., you need to establish yourself as credible before anyone thinks your vision is credible. So I can understand Starmer wanting to take time to establish himself as a safe pair of hands - but by now, either he should have established himself or he's not going to.
Starmer's position now is not unlike Attlee's in 1944 - the tide has turned, so it's time to establish the vision for post-war reconstruction. Instead, the success of the vaccine programme seems to have left him nonplussed.
There's an election in a few weeks, and Brexit forms a significant backdrop to that. Labour can't afford to be silent on an issue that the other parties are drawing up their campaign positions on. Are they really going to go into elections tacitly accepting the Tory narrative that Brexit has been a success? Are Labour really thinking that being indistinguishable from the Tories on the major constitutional issues is a vote winner? Perhaps Starmer has simply accepted that Labour is increasingly irrelevant and is cutting his losses with the hope of rebuilding in time for the next general election, and not worrying about competing elections before then.
Any election mainly about Brexit will result in Labour getting thumped. The leavers all vote for the Tories, while the Remain vote is hopelessly split. That's a bald fact of current British politics which can't easily be changed, so Labour must try to move politics on from sterile arguments about fish and lorries.
Election campaigns aren't about competing answers to the same questions. A successful campaign defines the questions themselves. I think many, perhaps most, people are sick to death of Brexit (and COVID) and would welcome politicians talking about something else.
A future Labour government could address some of the egregious injustices and bizarre consequences of the Brexit train wreck, but only by getting elected.
I'm assuming Starmer's strategy is to kill off Brexit as a political issue as quickly as possible, in order to fight future elections on a traditional "jobs schools and hospitals" platform. Hence the decision to vote for Johnson's terrible TCA deal.
FWIW I was think of Covid rather than Brexit. On Brexit itself I think any chance of making significant hay over it is years away.
The calculus for Labour is very similar on both issues, really. Criticise the government Covid performance too robustly, and they're undermining Britain at a time of national emergency. Suggestions of alternative approaches will be ignored or used as political ammunition. Starmer is trying to avoid these without being seen as a government stooge. As to whether he's succeeding, YMMV.
I'm assuming Starmer's strategy is to kill off Brexit as a political issue as quickly as possible, in order to fight future elections on a traditional "jobs schools and hospitals" platform. Hence the decision to vote for Johnson's terrible TCA deal.
FWIW I was think of Covid rather than Brexit. On Brexit itself I think any chance of making significant hay over it is years away.
The calculus for Labour is very similar on both issues, really. Criticise the government Covid performance too robustly, and they're undermining Britain at a time of national emergency. Suggestions of alternative approaches will be ignored or used as political ammunition. Starmer is trying to avoid these without being seen as a government stooge. As to whether he's succeeding, YMMV.
Also, the government's decision to lock down very late was made under Corbyn's watch, not Starmer's, and once that decision had been made, the only possible strategy is containment. Starmer can criticise poor tactical decisions thereafter - and has done so - but in order to pursue a NZ-style Zero Covid strategy (and get NZ-style results) the UK would have needed to lock down and close borders long before Starmer became leader - probably mid-February at the latest.
(And if Corbyn had been calling for lockdown then, he would be a genius, but idiots like me would be complaining that it was a total overreaction and not supported by the scientific advisors. )
Re local elections- it's not as though local councils have any power over Brexit, and using local elections as proxies for national issues is one of the things that makes local politics dysfunctional.
"Mainly about Brexit" is a bit of an exaggeration. But, it's quite high on the list of what will be put before people in a few weeks. Covid is, of course, the big issue but on the immediate actions the parties are all in agreement and we're not faced with any significant "the government failed" messaging (what there is relates to the UK government, and could be a problem for the Tories to distance themselves from the UK government on that). The recovery is well and truly on the table though, with differences in do we go back to what we had before or do we use this as a chance to rebuild in a more sustainable way.
There are significant parts of the economy collapsing because of Brexit. Fishing is well publicised, haulage in general suffers from added delays (many local businesses exist simply as a place for various goods to be gathered onto a truck for an overnight drive to Dover for the morning ferry, as the distance that can be legally driven without a break - a model that collapses if there's an extra hour or two to get the truck on the boat). These businesses are going to be pushing all the parties about how they'd address these issues caused by Brexit.
Of course, the big big issue is independence. Which the SNP and Greens are pushing as "an independent Scotland in the EU". Which also plays on Brexit, and the majority of people in Scotland who voted Remain. The Tories are in a decent position, they can argue for the Union and claim that Brexit is working well (how much people agree with that is a different matter), Labour and LibDems are in a more difficult position - do they echo the Tory position, or do they support the Union while saying Brexit isn't working? And, a "Brexit isn't working" needs to be supported by either re-join or a record of fighting for a different form of Brexit that they can claim would have worked ... I'm not seeing anything from Labour or LibDems to lend credibility to either of those.
And, of course, Scottish Labour is, literally, leaderless. Which even more than normal means the UK leader is seen by many as the defacto leader. But, it's been a while since we've had a recognisable Scottish Labour leader - Kezia Dugdale is far more likely to be named as the Scottish Labour leader than Richard Leonard (and, as for whoever the candidates to take over from him ...). To be fair, the other parties aren't doing much better except for the SNP; who knows the LibDem or Conservative leader?
I'm assuming Starmer's strategy is to kill off Brexit as a political issue as quickly as possible, in order to fight future elections on a traditional "jobs schools and hospitals" platform. Hence the decision to vote for Johnson's terrible TCA deal.
FWIW I was think of Covid rather than Brexit. On Brexit itself I think any chance of making significant hay over it is years away.
The calculus for Labour is very similar on both issues, really. Criticise the government Covid performance too robustly, and they're undermining Britain at a time of national emergency. Suggestions of alternative approaches will be ignored or used as political ammunition. Starmer is trying to avoid these without being seen as a government stooge. As to whether he's succeeding, YMMV.
The calculus is very different for a number of reasons; Starmer is far more associated with the second referendum position, and it's clear from polling that the UK public generally views the Brexit vote as a sunk cost. (polling shows that there's a majority who think it was a mistake, but when asked how they'd vote break along the same percentages as before). Additionally, the hit from Brexit is much harder to quantify and its direct impact confined to the relatively small number of people trying to export or import from the EU.
Also, the government's decision to lock down very late was made under Corbyn's watch, not Starmer's, and once that decision had been made, the only possible strategy is containment.
Even if we accept that (and a functional Track and Trace system in conjunction with the initial lockdown could've changed things quite significantly), there have now been three lockdowns and Labour has generally been wrong footed each time -- culminating in Kate Green continuing to brief that schools should remain open on the morning of the government's u-turn.
It feels as if Labour are having a timeout, probably involuntary, although it can look like drift. Also, a shift to the right, probably inevitable post-Corbyn. All in all, for me, decidedly unattractive, oh no, not Rachel Reeves again.
It feels as if Labour are having a timeout, probably involuntary, although it can look like drift. Also, a shift to the right, probably inevitable post-Corbyn. All in all, for me, decidedly unattractive, oh no, not Rachel Reeves again.
Possibly, and with some considerable time to go before the next General Election, it may be that Starmer is quietly marshalling forces and arguments, Bozzie for the bashing of in due course...
Does that mean he's ignoring the elections between now and the next general election? No thought of the Scottish Parliamentary election in May, the Scottish Council Elections next year, whenever the council elections are held in England?
Comments
Hmm.
Our local Tess Coe had plenty of French red wine yesterday, but I suppose it only takes one lorry-load to be held up at the border for gaps to appear in the place to which that lorry-load was bound...
The decision to join was taken by a government and parliament that had been elected with joining as part of their manifesto. The 1975 referendum confirmed that decision, albeit after the fact.
Still miles more democratic that the 2017 vote to leave again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum
The point made by @Leorning Cniht still stands, or did you wish to dispute it?
We did not go into the common market after a referendum. In a general election people cast their votes for a number for reasons. We were never asked and that's why the next Labour government decided to ask us.
Did the poster vote in this referendum ? Did they listen to all the debates or are they relying on Wiki ?
Your point is...?
1. Name names - it avoids confusion.
2. How the f**k do you know what I listened to?
Ok I believe that you were present in every village hall for every debate. Happy now ?
In addition, I am not prepared to bandy words any further with a Potplant, but I may say that I listened to - and took part in - debates held locally.
(What I have written, I have written)
Dear god, I wish someone would change the Potplant's record...it's stuck in a groove a groove a groove a groove...
What on earth are you on about? If you have nothing relevant to say, just don't post
When did the people of the UK vote in a government committed to leaving the EU? 2017, a few months after the vote to do that had been taken. The time for a referendum was after that government was elected in - sometime late in 2017 or early 2018, to confirm that the people accepted the policy of the government to leave the EU. Except, of course, by then the 2016 vote had already totally screwed British politics; the decision to hold that vote propelled a subject that the vast majority of people in the UK didn't care about into top position of politics, where it will remain for the next few decades. As soon as that public vote was mooted the nations started to divide themselves into two camps over an issue very few even cared about a year before.
The people voted Conservative in 1970 for several reasons. Most people don't read manifestos.
36% of the electorate does not constitute the public.
@Alan29
Quite so, but...
Several Shipmates have tried many times on this thread to get Telford to understand this, and other salient points, but without success.
Hence my remark earlier about the record repeating itself incessantly, the needle having got stuck in a groove...
Is there any reason why this logic shouldn't also apply to the 2017 and 2019 general elections? If not, then we seem to be left with a consultative and non-binding referendum in 2016.
Point of order - that's what the needle is meant to do. There is a single spiral groove which it follows. Records get stuck when dirt in the groove causes the needle to jump out and into an earlier part of the groove.
At least you didn't post WOEAYOA? (What On Earth Are You On About?) as Telford often does. This acronym can be used by anyone - I waive all rights and royalties, and place it in the public domain.
But if you abstained in the referendum, that suggests you were OK with leaving, or at least sufficiently OK that you didn't try to prevent it by voting Remain.
I don't think you can infer anything about an abstention, beyond the fact that the abstainer didn't think it was worth voting for one of the options on offer. People abstain because they're not bothered about the outcome, they abstain because they think the process is rigged and don't want to lend it legitimacy, they abstain because they don't think their vote will affect the outcome, and they abstain because they're in some sort of moral quandry and don't want to vote either way.
In general, I've got no sympathy for non-voters*. The procedure for voting is well-known and quite simple. If you don't think it important enough to go to a really quite modest amount of effort to vote - well, you're free to make that choice, but you also have to live with your choice.
*If voter suppression is a popular game in your locale, and yours is one of the votes being suppressed, then that's a rather different case, but I don't think you can make much of a case for voter suppression in the UK.
I agree.
My Old Mum wouldn't vote (on the basis that *They're all as bad as each other*
My reply was *Well, you'll get the government you didn't vote for*, which isn't quite the case, I suppose, but YSWIM.
I agree but all the electorate have a choice of what candidate to vote for. In 1970 the candidate I voted for was against the common market so the manifesto was irrelevant to me. The same person was also against the common market in the 1975 referendum but I ignored him.
Or that you didnt object to membership enough to vote out.
The outcome might then have been rather more accurately representational than it is sometimes claimed to be.
A friend said to me that London is notoriously an intermediary for dodgy money, and Brexit will harm this. No idea if it's true, but it made me laugh, which is progress.
It's early days yet to declare Brexshit a complete disaster...or is it? It does seem to be causing a lot of problems for a lot of businesses, and their staff.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. There's no possible gain for Starmer for going active on Brexit now. There's no gain for the country (there's really no avenue for Starmer's engagement to create something better at the moment), and no gain for the Labour party.
At which point does biding his time turn into absent from the field?
I think this is one of those apparent truisms that is more often wrong than right. It often only matters if it the mistake has immediate consequences. In this case it would only matter if it is evident to the public at large that Johnson is making a mistake. Thanks to a very benign press this is far from happening, and Tory polling numbers show no sign of softening.
A large part of the oppositions role is to paint alternative pictures of the world and to give them salience, this hasn't been happening since late March of last year.
There's some merit to it - Johnson is constantly trying to bait Starmer and draw him into the culture wars - like his bizarre "remainer lawyer" jibe. Starmer refuses to rise to it, because it's not a battle he can possibly win. Johnson is left swiping at an enemy who has melted away into the mist.
Tory strategists are probably alert to this, and will probably start stealing Labour's policies, as they traditionally do when Labour is starting to represent any kind of threat. Expect some high profile spending announcements in the Budget.
FWIW I was think of Covid rather than Brexit. On Brexit itself I think any chance of making significant hay over it is years away.
A while ago I came across a list of ghastly management quotes which included 'People buy into the leader before they buy into the vision' - I.e., you need to establish yourself as credible before anyone thinks your vision is credible. So I can understand Starmer wanting to take time to establish himself as a safe pair of hands - but by now, either he should have established himself or he's not going to.
Starmer's position now is not unlike Attlee's in 1944 - the tide has turned, so it's time to establish the vision for post-war reconstruction. Instead, the success of the vaccine programme seems to have left him nonplussed.
Any election mainly about Brexit will result in Labour getting thumped. The leavers all vote for the Tories, while the Remain vote is hopelessly split. That's a bald fact of current British politics which can't easily be changed, so Labour must try to move politics on from sterile arguments about fish and lorries.
Election campaigns aren't about competing answers to the same questions. A successful campaign defines the questions themselves. I think many, perhaps most, people are sick to death of Brexit (and COVID) and would welcome politicians talking about something else.
A future Labour government could address some of the egregious injustices and bizarre consequences of the Brexit train wreck, but only by getting elected.
The calculus for Labour is very similar on both issues, really. Criticise the government Covid performance too robustly, and they're undermining Britain at a time of national emergency. Suggestions of alternative approaches will be ignored or used as political ammunition. Starmer is trying to avoid these without being seen as a government stooge. As to whether he's succeeding, YMMV.
Also, the government's decision to lock down very late was made under Corbyn's watch, not Starmer's, and once that decision had been made, the only possible strategy is containment. Starmer can criticise poor tactical decisions thereafter - and has done so - but in order to pursue a NZ-style Zero Covid strategy (and get NZ-style results) the UK would have needed to lock down and close borders long before Starmer became leader - probably mid-February at the latest.
(And if Corbyn had been calling for lockdown then, he would be a genius, but idiots like me would be complaining that it was a total overreaction and not supported by the scientific advisors. )
There are significant parts of the economy collapsing because of Brexit. Fishing is well publicised, haulage in general suffers from added delays (many local businesses exist simply as a place for various goods to be gathered onto a truck for an overnight drive to Dover for the morning ferry, as the distance that can be legally driven without a break - a model that collapses if there's an extra hour or two to get the truck on the boat). These businesses are going to be pushing all the parties about how they'd address these issues caused by Brexit.
Of course, the big big issue is independence. Which the SNP and Greens are pushing as "an independent Scotland in the EU". Which also plays on Brexit, and the majority of people in Scotland who voted Remain. The Tories are in a decent position, they can argue for the Union and claim that Brexit is working well (how much people agree with that is a different matter), Labour and LibDems are in a more difficult position - do they echo the Tory position, or do they support the Union while saying Brexit isn't working? And, a "Brexit isn't working" needs to be supported by either re-join or a record of fighting for a different form of Brexit that they can claim would have worked ... I'm not seeing anything from Labour or LibDems to lend credibility to either of those.
And, of course, Scottish Labour is, literally, leaderless. Which even more than normal means the UK leader is seen by many as the defacto leader. But, it's been a while since we've had a recognisable Scottish Labour leader - Kezia Dugdale is far more likely to be named as the Scottish Labour leader than Richard Leonard (and, as for whoever the candidates to take over from him ...). To be fair, the other parties aren't doing much better except for the SNP; who knows the LibDem or Conservative leader?
His lack of experience in this latter field may make him a little more cautious than he might otherwise be (or need to be).
The calculus is very different for a number of reasons; Starmer is far more associated with the second referendum position, and it's clear from polling that the UK public generally views the Brexit vote as a sunk cost. (polling shows that there's a majority who think it was a mistake, but when asked how they'd vote break along the same percentages as before). Additionally, the hit from Brexit is much harder to quantify and its direct impact confined to the relatively small number of people trying to export or import from the EU.
Even if we accept that (and a functional Track and Trace system in conjunction with the initial lockdown could've changed things quite significantly), there have now been three lockdowns and Labour has generally been wrong footed each time -- culminating in Kate Green continuing to brief that schools should remain open on the morning of the government's u-turn.
There is a contrast between calling for measures which would help people to self isolate and actively pushing the government into unlocking as soon as possible. The policy on schools has largely concentrated on re-opening them, but then that narrow focus is to be expected when your "Shadow C-19 Committee" doesn't include the Shadow Education Secretary.
Possibly, and with some considerable time to go before the next General Election, it may be that Starmer is quietly marshalling forces and arguments, Bozzie for the bashing of in due course...