In summary, when you are confident of your ground, and believe in what you're saying, then a hostile interviewer, as Michael Hayden demonstrated, can't touch you
2) the real story of #marr was the follow on interview with Michael Hayden (ex CIA). Barnett hit him over and over with "hasn't Trump achieved a lot", "you prejudged him", all of which he easily deflected.
He knew his ground, believed in his position, and was thus unshakeable
3) in contrast, @BarryGardiner and @uklabour position on #brexit is weak & inconsistent. Gardiner has made comments on brexit which are doubtless true but not party policy, thus he's left defending the indefensible, hence the car crash
4) you could say the government position is equally indefensible & you'd be absolutely right, but here's the crucial difference. Unfortunayely, chances are that inconsistencies in Labour position will (unfairly) be torn apart by the media, more so than equivalent Tory positions
5) sad fact is Labour needs more consistent clear messaging on everything, more so than Tories. And Labour MPs need to believe in what they are saying, or they will get torn apart in their inconsistencies.
6) when Starmer says he supports the #Brexit vote but can't name a benefit, he just appears weak.
When Gardiner names the 6 tests, this translates as "that's a back door way of saying you'll stop Brexit" and appears underhand & sneaky
7) Labour would all feel a lot better, and would come across as more authentic if they just said "we were all misled, it's clear Tory Brexiters haven't got a clue, jobs & prosperity are under threat, hidden money is exposed, we have to stand by our principles and oppose #Brexit"
8) it may be grossly unfair that Labour suffers more from inconsistency and smoke & mirrors than the Tories, but they do, and always will.
Labour succeed when they are clear, honest, unambiguous, authentic.
1) It's still Hard #Brexit - thread
Couple of things to point out as we head to "Canada ++++"
A) it suits the EU as a fallback but
B) as far as the UK is concerned, its still damaging, draining, hardest of hard Brexits & nothing to be celebrated
Here's what we've forgotten
2) firstly, yes the EU27 would prefer we remain & if not they'd prefer a close arrangement - but at this point they'd settle for the island of Ireland being protected & an orderly exit
They're not going to save us from ourselves
They can minimise the damage of UK leaving SM
3) so let's not kid ourselves that the EU27 will make sure we get a good deal or one that has minimal damage to the UK, they will look after each other, they have to.
All the ++ means is cooperation in certain areas, not untold riches or a "special deal"
1) Thread - Labour, dodgy right Brexit activities & missed opportunities
Today I was a bystander in a discussion between @OwenJones84 & @JolyonMaugham around tweeting on Vote Leave's illegal spending, which I think is part of a bigger missed opportunity on #Brexit for Labour
2) Lets just be honest - the Tory party & #Brexit has always been dodgy. Charlatans who misled people given high government office and all that. But the last few months have had some significant revelations of dubious practices, only one of which was Vote Leave illegal spending
3) I wont't even get a complete list here but some highlights are:
- Cambridge Analytica "harvested accounts" scandal
- Links with AIQ & the Trump campaigns
- Vote Leave overspending
- Lack of clarity on Leave.EU funding
@RichardElwes@sjwrenlewis 2) (sorry, 2 "either"s there....)
As with Richard, this is not about my beliefs but public perception
Soft Brexit = Betrayal/Vassal state portrayal from Leavers, instant political cost
Hard Brexit = economic cost, which obviously leads to political cost in short order
@RichardElwes@sjwrenlewis 3) the public are fickle, and even if for example lucrative Free Trade Deals were out there the leaver vote is as likely to be more protectionist in nature.
Many leavers may see Free trade as "everyone else buying our stuff, with no downside on our industry in return"
1) Corbyn, control & democracy
The attempt to crush the #PeoplesVote initiative from Corbyn's team should ring alarm bells for anyone who values democracy
& transparency, inside Labour or outside. He is and will always be an authoritarian
2) you can argue back and forth on whether a #PeoplesVote is strategically good, bad or horrendous for Labour, or that Corbyn's offer to work with the Tories on #Brexit is "political theatre". The fact is the new Labour position is the exact opposite of what the members wanted
3) the reality is, 150 local parties submitted motions and the overwhelming majority supported a people's vote with an option to remain.
That has somehow completely transformed into a Labour offer to compromise the 6 tests for a Tory led Brexit
2) let's just look at the chronology
I) Starmer (but no one else in Leadership) talks occasionally over last 2 years about "exact same benefits" 6 tests
ii) privately, @BarryGardiner describes them as nonsense
@BarryGardiner 3) iii) in run up to conference, probably because they know there is a huge influx of CLP motions asking for an early vote, Corbyn & others start talking about the 6 tests really for the first time.
1) Great article on why #Brexit is insoluble
We can rail about respecting the vote, the EU being stubborn,May being incompetent etc all day long. The fact is it cannot be negotiated successfully, and anyone who believes otherwise is mistaken #Lab18