Thursday, 7 November 2019

Why are the Greens helping the Lib-Dems try to unseat pro-Remain Labour MPs?


If you're the kind of person who sincerely believe that the Brexit issue is far more important than other pressing concerns like the climate crisis, or combating the ruinous austerity fanaticism that caused Brexit in the first place, then the idea of a Remain Alliance between pro-EU parties makes some kind of sense.

However any such Remain Alliance must come with the obvious caveat that the Remain Alliance is only used to defend Remain parliamentary seats already held, and to unseat pro-Brexit MPs.

Unfortunately the newly announced Remain Alliance between the Lib-Dems, Greens, and Plaid Cymru goes a lot further, and actually targets the seats of a load of pro-EU MPs too.

One such target is the Labour MP for Warrington South Faisal Rashid, who holds a tight majority of 2,500 over the Tories (48.4% to 44.3%), with the Lib-Dem candidate coming in a distant 3rd place in 2017, with just 5% of the vote.

Rashid is a vocal anti-Brexit advocate, who wants another EU referendum, and represents a party that is committed to a Final Say referendum, opposes austerity fanaticism, and shares Green party views on de-privatisation of vital public services and infrastructure like the railways, water supply, national grid, NHS, and education system.

Rashid is also very vocal on the climate crisis, and in June 2019 he strongly urged Warrington Council to declare a climate emergency.

He sounds exactly like the kind of figure Green Party supporters should feel comfortable voting for, but according to the terms of the new Remain Alliance, the Greens are supporting the Lib-Dems in Warrington South, which seems like a very odd strategy for an alliance intended to put as many Brexit-sceptic MPs in parliament as possible.

If the Remain Alliance does succeed in their ambition to unseat Rashid, there are only two possible outcomes.

One is that the extraordinarily unlikely scenario where the Lib-Dem candidate comes from nowhere to achieve an unprecedented 40%+ swing, meaning a green, anti-austerity, democratic socialist who supports Remain is replaced pro-austerity, pro-privatisation, anti-worker, welfare-vandalising orthodox neoliberal who supports Remain.

Well, hooray for the Remain Alliance!

The other, vastly more likely outcome is that the Lib-Dems and their fellow Remain Alliance plotters split the anti-Tory vote, and let the pro-Brexit Tory take the seat (a scenario which would only necessitate a 4% swing).

Erm, hooray for the Remain Alliance???

Another ludicrous target for the Remain Alliance is Stephan Morgan in Portsmouth South, who is a vehement advocate of another referendum, who swears he'll lead the Remain campaign in Portsmouth if the referendum happens. He won the seat from the Tories in 2017 by 41% to 38%, the Lib-Dem the Remain Alliance is backing came a distant 3rd on 17%.

Again the most likely scenario is handing the seat back to a pro-Brexit Tory, with the remote outside chance of switching out an anti-austerity, anti-privatisation democratic socialist Remainer, for a pro-austerity, pro-privatisation neoliberal Remainer.

In what world does this make any sense whatever?

The reason the Greens are supporting this absolute lunacy is obvious. It's a quid pro quo.

In return for the Lib-Dems standing aside in a few Green target seats like the Isle of Wight, and Bristol West (which is also held by a vocal Labour Remainer, Thangam Debbonaire by the way) they're going to help the Lib-Dems sabotage other Labour Remainer MPs like Faisal Rashid up and down the country, helping them turn Labour Remain red, to Tory Brexit blue.

From a pragmatic perspective helping the Lib-Dems remove pro-remain, anti-austerity, environmentalist Labour MPs
from parliament looks like dreadful self-sabotage from a wider green perspective, but from a narrow party political perspective it means a shot at increasing their representation from one seat out of 650 to maybe two, so it's a price they're apparently willing to pay!

The most charitable explanation possible is that all the Brexit chaos has given the Green Party a horrible dose of Brexit Brain Worms, rendering them incapable of thinking straight.

A less charitable explanation is that they're willing to embrace the notoriously untrustworthy Lib-Dem neoliberals and help them shoot down pro-Remain Labour MPs up and down the country, purely because they're prioritising their narrow party political interest above the interests of the nation as a whole.

Whichever way you look at it, it's incredibly disappointing and divisive stuff from a political party that most left-wingers, social progressives, and Labour supporters tend to agree with on most issues.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Because people, why want to remain, have been let down by a fence-sitting Corbyn who was anti-EEC/EU since the UK joined and the days of Party loyalty is history. Corbyn's 1970s nostalgia and waffle of getting a new deal from the EU are as deluded as the Tory drive to return to 19th Century Laissez-faire. Two extremes at work and many are sick of it.

Unknown said...

Those same people are going to be screwed when we leave and BoJo concocts a 2nd round of ruinous cruel policies though arent they? I mean you dont seriously believe the Lib Dems are going to win do you? I thought it was the Brexiteers who believe in unicorns?

Unknown said...

Right, so you bought the spoon fed bullshit "ever so confused and fence sitting" pushed by the billionaire MSM and Tories, ignored the Labour Brexit policy which hasn't changed since the manifesto for 3 bloody years and is still the same, and you are now supporting the Tories who will give us a crap disastrous Brexit or more probably No Deal? Well done.

Unknown said...

Can you please change the name of the blog to Another Angry Lib Dems hater?

Some of this article should be fact checked.

Anonymous said...

I see your point but this 'alliance' is designed to promote the parties who are 'party' to it. Labour has always refused to be party to any deal during election campaigns. You can agree or disagree with this policy but it remains a fact.

So, with that being the case the deal is only to benefit those involved.

I feel a bit condescending explaining this but on the other hand it seems only fair that I should. I trust you are aware of this already and wonder why you would expect any political arrangement where parties stand aside for each other to extend to one who refused the offer to join it. Labour really CAN'T expect to benefit from the arrangement by having both the LibDems and Greens stand aside for them in one seat when they are unwilling to reciprocate.

If Labour WERE really concerned about this then they could still open talks with the other parties and join this agreement. I know they won't, so no one can complain when they don't benefit from it.

We need to ensure that whatever we say in support of the parties we back is logical in the wider sense too. Unfortunately this article has fallen short on this criteria as it doesn't bear closer scrutiny.

I follow this blog avidly and rarely find myself in disagreement but election campaigns are always a danger area for even the best of us in regard to tribalism..

Anonymous said...

The point holds though, that if the object were to bring about a majority for remain, then you would concentrate you alliances in brexiteer held seats. You certainly wouldn't risk unseating remain friendly MPs. It is the entire pretext of the article that the primary aim of this agreement is only to bolster chances of the signatory's to it, and not actually further the remain agenda (and in several cases acting to its detriment), so why call it a 'remain alliance', when it is just 'an alliance'. You haven't uncovered anything here. Just missed the point.

Anonymous said...

Would you be in favour of Labour stepping aside in seats like Perth and North Perthshire if it means keeping the Tories out?

Anonymous said...

It's not a "remain" alliance then is it.

Anonymous said...

For once, this is poor analysis. Any way you look at it, there are fewer left-leaning candidates standing in these constituencies which actually increases Labour's chances of holding onto them. Green voters are more likely (imo) to vote Labour than Lib Dem based on social and economic policies so them standing aside will probably mean a lot of those votes will go to Labour rather than the Lib Dems.

Anonymous said...

Corbyn's promise of getting a completely new deal with the EU is pure bollocks, Boris got the 2017 version of the deal. Corbyn is a leaver and has been a vocal critic of the EU since he entered Parliament.

Mr. Magoo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. Magoo said...

Labour's Brexit plan is simple. It is to negotiate a deal that keeps a soft border in Ireland, and protects: jobs; workers rights; environmental protections; and consumer protections. Then this good deal will be put to a referendum with 'remain' on the ballot.

All the Liberal Democrats have to offer is a referendum between Boris's bad deal and remaining in the EU.

Unknown said...

Maybe the expectation comes from the Lib Dems calling themselves "the party of remain" rather than "the party if do whatever we can to scramble a few more seats"? We are all quite used to this tendency for the Lib Dems to claim "red lines" and throw the country under the bus for a whiff of power. The fact that there are people gullible enough to buy into it unfortunately affects us all, so you cant blame people who want REAL change for getting frustrated with these charlatans and their born yesterday supporters.

Unknown said...

You are forgetting that the Lib Dems expressly stated that they wouldnt support Corbyn as Prime Minister. So, no. There is literally nothing to gain in doing that. It wont make remain happen. The ONLY route to that is a Labour govt. The ONLY realistic alternative to Tory misery is a Labour govt. Everything else is just a contrived exercise in influence peddling by the Lib Dem Trojan Horse party.

Mr. Magoo said...

Jeremy Corbyn will not be prime minister. If Labour wins a majority - all the right-wing MPs will leave the party to prevent it happening. In the words of Neil Clark: "If elections could change anything, they wouldn't happen." My advice is to vote Labour anyway, because it's worth a shot.

And to all you Lib-Dem voters out there - let me remind you of the results of the 1983 general election:

Conservatives: vote share - 42.5% seat share - 61%
Labour: vote share - 27.5% seat share - 32%
Liberal & SDP alliance: vote share - 25.5% seat share - 4.5%
Others: 4.5% seat share - 2.5%

Rob Smith said...

We live under a deficient electoral system. The Greens are neither the architects nor the beneficiaries of said system. Labour could have got involved in a Remain Alliance but they chose not to. This all highlights that we do not live in a true democracy . I've got a really radical idea - Political parties should be banned as they are just there to game the system. Y'see we're not talking about what an utter shambles the government is we're talking about how poorly the system serves us. The example seat you used is a fine one but , sadly we're going down a rabbit hole of detail rather than seeing the big picture and that is why are people falling for Boris Johnsons lies ?

Jason said...

"I feel a bit condescending explaining this..."

Then demonstrates having misunderstood the article's argument.

Here, what AAV is pointing out is:

1/ Remain Alliance to increase chance of Remain MP represrentation because Remain cause transcends party lines
2/ This cause is then abandoned in cases where pro-Remain MPs are in place because oh, they're Labour.

It's a clear contradiction. Try, try to comprehend it.

Anonymous said...

@MrMagoo
The E.U have stated they no longer wish to negotiate on the deal. If Labour wins the E.U will not negotiate with them (unless the E.U are lying). No deal is by far the safest option financially for the Uk at this point.

Mr. Magoo said...

That's what they said about Theresa May's deal, but then they negotiated with Boris Johnson. Don't you think that if they were willing to re-negotiate with a new head of government they would re-negotiate with a new government?

1. By no-deal, do you mean no withdrawal deal or no free trade deal?
2. Nobody likes a troll.

Anonymous said...

in the ballot last month I voted against an alliance. I'm also disappointed but it's hard to predict the result. Bristol West is held by a Labour MP who unfortunately supporting Women's Place, an organisation i disagree with, who are nasty

Anonymous said...

@MrMagoo
I don't know, I've met a few trolls who've been quiet charming in my time, it's important not to take it personally.

Ok, so I take it you agree the E.U will by lying about not wishing to negotiate again. I'm cool with that, they're basically heartless neo-liberals.

I mean no free trade agreement, the UK utilise WTO rules and then agreements on specific parts of industry can be negotiated after the UK withdrawals as only a few years to organise an entire trade deal is simply not going to happen with the complexities of both economies.

The E.U is pro austerity a la their policies with Italy, Greece and Portugal. They have proven that anyone deferring from their policies are punished, cruelly. The UK is massively ill favoured by the E.U at the moment. Considering the top four representatives in the E.U are currently made up of an individual who underfunded and mismanaged the German military to such an extent they've been using broom handles instead of guns in their training for the last few years. One of them has been done for insider trading and illegal bailouts, one is a defeated German minister...

All of these individuals have a cv of large scale, unpunished corruption and they have been placed in positions of the E.U without any form of democratic election...

TTip... Even by the standards of E.U economists it would have universally lowered the standard of living of those living in the U.S and Europe. Trump getting elected shelved it. If this doesn't worry any of you I'd be very concerned.

Similarly: There is absolutely nothing any of us can do on any level as none of the elected MEP's create policy: They can only vote it down.

Repeated bank bailouts and corporation bailouts that come at the cost of the tax payers in Europe. These are not decided by anyone democratically elected, they are decided by bureaucrats with ties to multinational corporations.

In summary: The E.U provides welfare to corporations at the cost of European taxpayers, creates trade deals that lower the standard of living for those living in the E.U, create economic situations tyrannically and undemocratically that lower the standard of living for those in Europe (I've mentioned three), turn private debt into nationalised debt at the cost of the tax payer and allow for continued bailouts, insider trading and the creation of debt bubbles... They also want an army. They also STILL want the Euro: That went very well for Greece didn't it? When the E.U stated that if they tried to leave, democratic or otherwise: They'd stop the atm's working and deny the people of Greece the ability to actually draw out physical money... There's the untold economic damage the Euro has done to Greece and Portugal because that's what you get when you combine multiple economies with the same currency (that's why Ireland did so well and Greece and Portugal didn't).

Please identify what facts I've stated that you see as trolling?
Please identify how you think Labour's policy will magically create another deal that will be beneficial comparative to May's or Johnson's and avoid any of the aforementioned issues being a member of the E.U creates?

As your brand of socialism is clearly not going to happen in the next ten years i.e. the entire world centralises the entirety of their economies and democratically elects people once a year for the individual industries we democratically decide upon, can you please explain why being part of the E.U is a good thing under the current economic paradigm and not your fantasy one?

Or you can dismiss all of this as trolling.

Cheers.

Mr. Magoo said...

"Can you please explain why being part of the E.U is a good thing under the current economic paradigm and not your fantasy one?"

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9jnSj2knc-w/XQOuzwf720I/AAAAAAAAIB8/R_ogRjZv6pE7L6w4hRD1vD7PZbUzsMA6wCLcBGAs/s1600/Brexit%2BImpact%2BAssessment%2BRegional%2BAAV.png

TTIP was rejected by some of the EU member states (when Obama was still in the White House). The UK (thankfully) has an opt-out from the Eurozone.

Anonymous said...

@Mr Magoo
You have provided absolutely no information on where that prediction came from and the validity of the predictions, not to mention the source's history of economic predictions. That is not a coherent response. That is a graph anyone can make up. Considering you have propaganda like yellowhammer circulating as "Evidence" of leaving the E.U on a no deal (they didn't check with a single representative or individual associated with, let alone in charge of the Dover Port and literally made up: There will be mile long ques and month long delays), I'm going to need something more detailed. I'm happy to provide citation or evidence for my own claims of course. Similarly a large drop in GDP can easily be explained to the sudden shortening of migration with the end of freedom of movement and this is, of course, a fantastic result for the U.K economy.

TTIP: It was rejected by some, they were ignored. It was specifically shelved the day after Trump assumed office. You have however stated that the U.K can (thankfully) opt out of the Eurozone: So you agree that TTIP would have been bad for the majority of Europe and the U.S citizen a la their standard of living but still think remaining in the E.U is a good idea?

You have still not answered:
-The E.U's pro austerity stance.
-The push to create an E.U army.
-The push to make countries STILL use the euro.
-Corporation bailouts with european tax payers money.
-The non democratically elected heads of the E.U and their epic level corruption scandals in favour of corporation bailouts.
-The E.U's deliberate destruction of living standards and economies of three different countries: Portugal, Greece, Italy.

You can add into that:
-Mass migration lowering wages and living standards (and providing a small bump to GDP in the process which reflects corporations having more people to pay and not, as is most important when talking about economics lets be fair: The standard of living of the real people who actually live in these countries have). Migration is a hot topic so, again: I'll happily provide citation on this one.