Friday 18th November 2016

[refitman]

Morning all.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Morning

Not much around yet today. I guess it's all about the Autumn Statement for the next few days.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... g-families" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

autumn-statement-hammond-to-give-modest-boost-to-just-managing-families

And a special good morning to all the JAMs out there

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Oh good an article bout Labour bickering over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... bour-truce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brexit-row-keir-starmer-john-mcdonnell-threatens-labour-truce

And the article on the Tory divisions is where exactly?

[Willow904]

Morning.

This is interesting from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It's nice to know there's people out there still plugging away trying to make the world a better place:

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/talking-a ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This research identifies gaps and overlaps between public and expert understandings of UK poverty to suggest better ways of communicating about it and for building support to solve it.

[tinybgoat]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/la ... on-9281076

But Ms Abbott said: “If Labour were to adopt a more hostile stance in relation to immigration, it would alienate more of its current supporters than it would please them.
“Labour cannot outdo UKIP or this Government on immigration. It should not try.
“It should pursue its own principled immigration policies which recognises the large benefits of immigration, along with some costs.”

Speaking on Sky News her frontbench colleague Clive Lewis, the new shadow business secretary, said the main immigration control he personally favoured would be to force new arrivals to be part of a trade union.
He suggested this would forced bosses either to pay foreign workers a proper wage, or instead hire people from the UK.

[SpinningHugo]

Oh good an article bout Labour bickering over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... bour-truce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brexit-row-keir-starmer-john-mcdonnell-threatens-labour-truce

And the article on the Tory divisions is where exactly?

What is the Tory split. There are, what, six or possibly seven Tory MPs who don't back the government line. The Tory split on Europe is decades old, and the Brexiters have triumphed.

By contrast around 90 percent of Labour MPs are remainers, and so they are in conflict with McDonnell's pro Brexit stance. Anyone now seriously arguing that Corbyn and McDonnell were ever pro EU must be joking.

By saying Labour will back the government on any vote on art 50 Laboir has abandoned any attempt to apply pressure. McDonnell's stiff about moral pressure is really funny. Labour doesn't matter now.

So, why has McDonnell, an apparently intelligent man, said such a thing. Everyone knows he was a Brexiter really, but why make this plain even to the faithful?

I think the answer is about a General Election.

If May lost am article 50 vote that provides her with the perfect excuse to have an election, especially if a confidence motion.

McDonnell knows that any election now would result in Labour's annihilation. 100+ seats left, but a huge Tory majority, Even more astonishing as the SNP will win all of Scotland.

McDonnell's plan as de facto leader has always been to transform the Labour party. He knows that he and Corbyn will never be in power. That transformation requires time. It needs the 4.5 percenters like me to fuck off (as I have), thousands of new committed leftists and for the party to be controlled by the kind of left to which he belongs. A few more years and his plan will be irreversible. An election now endangers his project.

As I said, McDonnell is not an idiot.

Starmer's position may not be tenable. How you can oppose while promising to vote for what the government does is a mystery to me.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Oh good an article bout Labour bickering over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... bour-truce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brexit-row-keir-starmer-john-mcdonnell-threatens-labour-truce

And the article on the Tory divisions is where exactly?

What is the Tory split. There are, what, six or possibly seven Tory MPs who don't back the government line. The Tory split on Europe is decades old, and the Brexiters have triumphed.

By contrast around 90 percent of Labour MPs are remainers, and so they are in conflict with McDonnell's pro Brexit stance. Anyone now seriously arguing that Corbyn and McDonnell were ever pro EU must be joking.

By saying Labour will back the government on any vote on art 50 Laboir has abandoned any attempt to apply pressure. McDonnell's stiff about moral pressure is really funny. Labour doesn't matter now.

So, why has McDonnell, an apparently intelligent man, said such a thing. Everyone knows he was a Brexiter really, but why make this plain even to the faithful?

I think the answer is about a General Election.

If May lost am article 50 vote that provides her with the perfect excuse to have an election, especially if a confidence motion.

McDonnell knows that any election now would result in Labour's annihilation. 100+ seats left, but a huge Tory majority, Even more astonishing as the SNP will win all of Scotland.

McDonnell's plan as de facto leader has always been to transform the Labour party. He knows that he and Corbyn will never be in power. That transformation requires time. It needs the 4.5 percenters like me to fuck off (as I have), thousands of new committed leftists and for the party to be controlled by the kind of left to which he belongs. A few more years and his plan will be irreversible. An election now endangers his project.

As I said, McDonnell is not an idiot.

Starmer's position may not be tenable. How you can oppose while promising to vote for what the government does is a mystery to me.

But not 90% of Labour voters, not in Huddersfield anyway. That is Labour's problem isn't it?

You know my view, which is that while there is division in Labour on this issue there is little to gain from either side of the divide in trying to exploit it.

[SpinningHugo]

Oh good an article bout Labour bickering over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... bour-truce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brexit-row-keir-starmer-john-mcdonnell-threatens-labour-truce

And the article on the Tory divisions is where exactly?

What is the Tory split. There are, what, six or possibly seven Tory MPs who don't back the government line. The Tory split on Europe is decades old, and the Brexiters have triumphed.

By contrast around 90 percent of Labour MPs are remainers, and so they are in conflict with McDonnell's pro Brexit stance. Anyone now seriously arguing that Corbyn and McDonnell were ever pro EU must be joking.

By saying Labour will back the government on any vote on art 50 Laboir has abandoned any attempt to apply pressure. McDonnell's stiff about moral pressure is really funny. Labour doesn't matter now.

So, why has McDonnell, an apparently intelligent man, said such a thing. Everyone knows he was a Brexiter really, but why make this plain even to the faithful?

I think the answer is about a General Election.

If May lost am article 50 vote that provides her with the perfect excuse to have an election, especially if a confidence motion.

McDonnell knows that any election now would result in Labour's annihilation. 100+ seats left, but a huge Tory majority, Even more astonishing as the SNP will win all of Scotland.

McDonnell's plan as de facto leader has always been to transform the Labour party. He knows that he and Corbyn will never be in power. That transformation requires time. It needs the 4.5 percenters like me to fuck off (as I have), thousands of new committed leftists and for the party to be controlled by the kind of left to which he belongs. A few more years and his plan will be irreversible. An election now endangers his project.

As I said, McDonnell is not an idiot.

Starmer's position may not be tenable. How you can oppose while promising to vote for what the government does is a mystery to me.

But not 90% of Labour voters, not in Huddersfield anyway. That is Labour's problem isn't it?

You know my view, which is that while there is division in Labour on this issue there is little to gain from either side of the divide in trying to exploit it.

65 percent of Labour voters voted Remain.

There is also, of course, the small matter that backing the Tories on Art 50 is the wrong thing to do.

This is great on this

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.c ... -it-means/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't support Labour as it is now led, but it is tragic that on the most important issue for a generation the party is on the wrong side.

Arguing that it is better not to rock the boat over this misunderstand it's importance (and what Labour could do if it were properly led).

[StephenDolan]

Oh good an article bout Labour bickering over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... bour-truce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brexit-row-keir-starmer-john-mcdonnell-threatens-labour-truce

And the article on the Tory divisions is where exactly?

What is the Tory split. There are, what, six or possibly seven Tory MPs who don't back the government line. The Tory split on Europe is decades old, and the Brexiters have triumphed.

By contrast around 90 percent of Labour MPs are remainers, and so they are in conflict with McDonnell's pro Brexit stance. Anyone now seriously arguing that Corbyn and McDonnell were ever pro EU must be joking.

By saying Labour will back the government on any vote on art 50 Laboir has abandoned any attempt to apply pressure. McDonnell's stiff about moral pressure is really funny. Labour doesn't matter now.

So, why has McDonnell, an apparently intelligent man, said such a thing. Everyone knows he was a Brexiter really, but why make this plain even to the faithful?

I think the answer is about a General Election.

If May lost am article 50 vote that provides her with the perfect excuse to have an election, especially if a confidence motion.

McDonnell knows that any election now would result in Labour's annihilation. 100+ seats left, but a huge Tory majority, Even more astonishing as the SNP will win all of Scotland.

McDonnell's plan as de facto leader has always been to transform the Labour party. He knows that he and Corbyn will never be in power. That transformation requires time. It needs the 4.5 percenters like me to fuck off (as I have), thousands of new committed leftists and for the party to be controlled by the kind of left to which he belongs. A few more years and his plan will be irreversible. An election now endangers his project.

As I said, McDonnell is not an idiot.

Starmer's position may not be tenable. How you can oppose while promising to vote for what the government does is a mystery to me.

But not 90% of Labour voters, not in Huddersfield anyway. That is Labour's problem isn't it?

You know my view, which is that while there is division in Labour on this issue there is little to gain from either side of the divide in trying to exploit it.

Morning all. Agree with this, the focus has to be on the Tories. Let's get to the result of the A50 appeal.

[SpinningHugo]

What is the Tory split. There are, what, six or possibly seven Tory MPs who don't back the government line. The Tory split on Europe is decades old, and the Brexiters have triumphed.

By contrast around 90 percent of Labour MPs are remainers, and so they are in conflict with McDonnell's pro Brexit stance. Anyone now seriously arguing that Corbyn and McDonnell were ever pro EU must be joking.

By saying Labour will back the government on any vote on art 50 Laboir has abandoned any attempt to apply pressure. McDonnell's stiff about moral pressure is really funny. Labour doesn't matter now.

So, why has McDonnell, an apparently intelligent man, said such a thing. Everyone knows he was a Brexiter really, but why make this plain even to the faithful?

I think the answer is about a General Election.

If May lost am article 50 vote that provides her with the perfect excuse to have an election, especially if a confidence motion.

McDonnell knows that any election now would result in Labour's annihilation. 100+ seats left, but a huge Tory majority, Even more astonishing as the SNP will win all of Scotland.

McDonnell's plan as de facto leader has always been to transform the Labour party. He knows that he and Corbyn will never be in power. That transformation requires time. It needs the 4.5 percenters like me to fuck off (as I have), thousands of new committed leftists and for the party to be controlled by the kind of left to which he belongs. A few more years and his plan will be irreversible. An election now endangers his project.

As I said, McDonnell is not an idiot.

Starmer's position may not be tenable. How you can oppose while promising to vote for what the government does is a mystery to me.

But not 90% of Labour voters, not in Huddersfield anyway. That is Labour's problem isn't it?

You know my view, which is that while there is division in Labour on this issue there is little to gain from either side of the divide in trying to exploit it.

Morning all. Agree with this, the focus has to be on the Tories. Let's get to the result of the A50 appeal.

How can you oppose the Tories while promising to vote with them?

It is also temperamental. Do you care about party politics, or substantive stuff like membership of the single market.

Even then, I don't myself see why Labour needed to write a blank cheque on Brexit. They'll lose people like me who are remainers, and I very much doubt whether Corbyn appeals much to the average Ukipper

[Willow904]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/la ... on-9281076

But Ms Abbott said: “If Labour were to adopt a more hostile stance in relation to immigration, it would alienate more of its current supporters than it would please them.
“Labour cannot outdo UKIP or this Government on immigration. It should not try.
“It should pursue its own principled immigration policies which recognises the large benefits of immigration, along with some costs.”

Speaking on Sky News her frontbench colleague Clive Lewis, the new shadow business secretary, said the main immigration control he personally favoured would be to force new arrivals to be part of a trade union.
He suggested this would forced bosses either to pay foreign workers a proper wage, or instead hire people from the UK.

Labour make zero sense on Brexit. On the one hand you have Corbyn and McDonnell who appear to favour a hard Brexit but are arguing against curbs on immigration. Feasible but representative of only a small segment of voters as it alienates both those who want a hard Brexit to curb immigration and those who want to stay in the single market. Then you have the 'moderates' who favour staying in the single market but are arguing for curbs on immigration. Much more popular with a wide variety of voters, but completely unfeasible.

I can't support either stance. The first would be disastrous both economically and politically - all the economic disadvantages of Brexit without the political advantage of delivering immigration curbs. The other is political folly, promising what can't be delivered and wasting time that could be better used making the arguments in favour of what can be achieved.

[StephenDolan]

But not 90% of Labour voters, not in Huddersfield anyway. That is Labour's problem isn't it?

You know my view, which is that while there is division in Labour on this issue there is little to gain from either side of the divide in trying to exploit it.

Morning all. Agree with this, the focus has to be on the Tories. Let's get to the result of the A50 appeal.

How can you oppose the Tories while promising to vote with them?

It is also temperamental. Do you care about party politics, or substantive stuff like membership of the single market.

Even then, I don't myself see why Labour needed to write a blank cheque on Brexit. They'll lose people like me who are remainers, and I very much doubt whether Corbyn appeals much to the average Ukipper

Come now, SH. It appears as though you are arguing for purity of policy irrespective of the political consequences.

[SpinningHugo]

Morning all. Agree with this, the focus has to be on the Tories. Let's get to the result of the A50 appeal.

How can you oppose the Tories while promising to vote with them?

It is also temperamental. Do you care about party politics, or substantive stuff like membership of the single market.

Even then, I don't myself see why Labour needed to write a blank cheque on Brexit. They'll lose people like me who are remainers, and I very much doubt whether Corbyn appeals much to the average Ukipper

Come now, SH. It appears as though you are arguing for purity of policy irrespective of the political consequences.

True, but I don't think Labour's stance makes sense in relation to either.

It only makes sense if the goal is postponing a General Election, so as to give the transformation project time.

(I hope I've also made it clear that my problem with JC is not that he will lose.)

[PorFavor]

Morning

Not much around yet today. I guess it's all about the Autumn Statement for the next few days.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... g-families" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

autumn-statement-hammond-to-give-modest-boost-to-just-managing-families

And a special good morning to all the JAMs out there

Andrea Leadsom will be delighted. Or has jam gone off the boil, now?

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

By the way - where is Andrea Leadsom?

[StephenDolan]

How can you oppose the Tories while promising to vote with them?

It is also temperamental. Do you care about party politics, or substantive stuff like membership of the single market.

Even then, I don't myself see why Labour needed to write a blank cheque on Brexit. They'll lose people like me who are remainers, and I very much doubt whether Corbyn appeals much to the average Ukipper

Come now, SH. It appears as though you are arguing for purity of policy irrespective of the political consequences.

True, but I don't think Labour's stance makes sense in relation to either.

It only makes sense if the goal is postponing a General Election, so as to give the transformation project time.

(I hope I've also made it clear that my problem with JC is not that he will lose.)

I'd argue that it makes sense if Labour can see that May and the three Brexit monkeys don't have a snowballs in hell chance of getting anything acceptable to her party semi agreed with other countries prior to the invocation of A50.
Anticipate the changing of public opinion against the terms of Brexit but don't flag it up now.
In this day and age, being right and pointing this out before Joe Public realises they're wrong earns you no brownie points.

[citizenJA]

Good-morning, everyone.

[SpinningHugo]

Come now, SH. It appears as though you are arguing for purity of policy irrespective of the political consequences.

True, but I don't think Labour's stance makes sense in relation to either.

It only makes sense if the goal is postponing a General Election, so as to give the transformation project time.

(I hope I've also made it clear that my problem with JC is not that he will lose.)

I'd argue that it makes sense if Labour can see that May and the three Brexit monkeys don't have a snowballs in hell chance of getting anything acceptable to her party semi agreed with other countries prior to the invocation of A50.
Anticipate the changing of public opinion against the terms of Brexit but don't flag it up now.
In this day and age, being right and pointing this out before Joe Public realises they're wrong earns you no brownie points.

Sadly, that makes no sense at all. Art 50 will be invoked in March with no Labour opposition, and nothing whatsoever agreed.

All of this may help solve my dilemma as to who to vote for. The only English party whose position makes sense is the Greens.

[tinybgoat]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/la ... on-9281076

But Ms Abbott said: “If Labour were to adopt a more hostile stance in relation to immigration, it would alienate more of its current supporters than it would please them.
“Labour cannot outdo UKIP or this Government on immigration. It should not try.
“It should pursue its own principled immigration policies which recognises the large benefits of immigration, along with some costs.”

Speaking on Sky News her frontbench colleague Clive Lewis, the new shadow business secretary, said the main immigration control he personally favoured would be to force new arrivals to be part of a trade union.
He suggested this would forced bosses either to pay foreign workers a proper wage, or instead hire people from the UK.

Labour make zero sense on Brexit. On the one hand you have Corbyn and McDonnell who appear to favour a hard Brexit but are arguing against curbs on immigration. Feasible but representative of only a small segment of voters as it alienates both those who want a hard Brexit to curb immigration and those who want to stay in the single market. Then you have the 'moderates' who favour staying in the single market but are arguing for curbs on immigration. Much more popular with a wide variety of voters, but completely unfeasible.

I can't support either stance. The first would be disastrous both economically and politically - all the economic disadvantages of Brexit without the political advantage of delivering immigration curbs. The other is political folly, promising what can't be delivered and wasting time that could be better used making the arguments in favour of what can be achieved.

All they need to do is combine possible approaches to accessing the single market with compatible approaches to freedom of movement, and come up with a coherent brexit strategy.
It's not like it's the Krypton Factor.
Having said that, I don't know what Clive Lewis or Diane Abbots views on single market are. I'd have thought Clive Lewis was against 'hard brexit'.

[tinybgoat]

Not sure if this has been linked too, but answers some of my question re: Clive lewis

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nt-corburl

Corbyn frustrated some of his colleagues at the Labour conference in September by suggesting that he saw no need for controls on immigration. Lewis said he believed underpinning workers’ rights would help respond to voters’ concerns. He said: “What we’re going to say to business is, you want to have access to the single market? We’re prepared to champion that for you – but you have to accept that on the other side of the coin, the way business has been done, the way that the economy has been run, has led us to this place; has led people to feel insecure, to feel, ‘Stop the world, I want to get off’. There’s a quid pro quo: you have to give workers more job security; better terms and conditions; recognise trade unions.

[AngryAsWell]

Row over McDonnell's Brexit comments threatens Labour truce
Shadow Brexit secretary said to be ‘furious’ at speech urging Britain to ‘embrace the enormous opportunities’ of leaving EU

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No end to it is there.

[Willow904]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/la ... on-9281076

Labour make zero sense on Brexit. On the one hand you have Corbyn and McDonnell who appear to favour a hard Brexit but are arguing against curbs on immigration. Feasible but representative of only a small segment of voters as it alienates both those who want a hard Brexit to curb immigration and those who want to stay in the single market. Then you have the 'moderates' who favour staying in the single market but are arguing for curbs on immigration. Much more popular with a wide variety of voters, but completely unfeasible.

I can't support either stance. The first would be disastrous both economically and politically - all the economic disadvantages of Brexit without the political advantage of delivering immigration curbs. The other is political folly, promising what can't be delivered and wasting time that could be better used making the arguments in favour of what can be achieved.

All they need to do is combine possible approaches to accessing the single market with compatible approaches to freedom of movement, and come up with a coherent brexit strategy.
It's not like it's the Krypton Factor.
Having said that, I don't know what Clive Lewis or Diane Abbots views on single market are. I'd have thought Clive Lewis was against 'hard brexit'.

Labour is giving the impression of a party that has no party position on Brexit. I suspect this is because they don't. I can't support a party if I don't know its position on the political issue of the day. It's exactly this kind of trying to be all things to all people that has reduced trust in politicians in the first place. It is a politicians role to form an informed opinion based on their principles, knowledge and understanding and then attempt to win support for that opinion. Chasing ill-informed tabloid-influenced public opinion is what got us in this mess in the first place. I'm not convinced the same strategy will get us out. Whether it's McDonnell being told to hide his glee at the prospect of Brexit or Yvette Cooper pretending we can enjoy the benefits of the single market whilst simultaneously curbing immigration, it's all dishonest and cowardly.

[NeilBB]

Can anyone help me here, please? A friend posted http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40733&dmp=6721 and went off in a little rant.

"fucking asshole

because it's not like British people's privacy is as important as schmoozing with Cuba or anything

the guy's obsessed with socialist to the exclusion of everything else

except the EU sort of socialism, apparently personal freedoms aren't socialist enough

fucking quisling twat"

I'm thinking it isn't as black and white as this?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Does the government have a coherent position on Brexit yet?

Of course not.

Given that, why are people expecting Labour to have a fully formed one?

[PorFavor]

Does the government have a coherent position on Brexit yet?

Of course not.

Given that, why are people expecting Labour to have a fully formed one?

Could it be that I expect Labour to demonstrate that they are better? Anyway, I don't expect a "fully formed" position, but a clue as to the intended direction of travel would be heartening.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Sure, but its not as simple as some like to make out. And unrealistic demands from some remainers like "stop Brexit" don't help.

[adam]

They should be clearly saying that Johnson's proposal, which still seems to be the Government's preferred policy of having our cake and eating it (or perhaps eating our cake and still having it) is completely unrealistic nonsense.

[SpinningHugo]

Does the government have a coherent position on Brexit yet?

Of course not.

Given that, why are people expecting Labour to have a fully formed one?

Labour's position is crystal clear.

They'll vote for Brexit come what may, while denouncing "Tory Brexit chaos".

It isn't the case that Labour is still to work out its red lines. (eg single market membership? Nope). We know there are none. Labour will back what the Tories do in an actual vote come what may.


It wouldn't impress a small child.

[Willow904]

Can anyone help me here, please? A friend posted http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40733&dmp=6721 and went off in a little rant.

"fucking asshole

because it's not like British people's privacy is as important as schmoozing with Cuba or anything

the guy's obsessed with socialist to the exclusion of everything else

except the EU sort of socialism, apparently personal freedoms aren't socialist enough

fucking quisling twat"

I'm thinking it isn't as black and white as this?

I presume it's Corbyn's absence for several of these votes that has provoked the strong response. I guess if data retention is a high priority topic for someone they would be unhappy with Corbyn's perceived lack of interest. Of course, the strong majority result in these votes indicate his presence would have made no difference, although it would be interesting to see a similar list for Corbyn's votes on say Trident or other foreign policy. The poster may have a point that data privacy may be a subject that Corbyn has historically had little interest in compared to his pet topics, but I don't know beyond the fact he has always been more focused on foreign rather than domestic affairs I believe.

[AngryAsWell]

Mike Smithson
‏@MSmithsonPB
The LD demand for a 2nd EURef could have similar potency as being totally opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a general election with Libdems promising a new referendum, they would come 2nd to the tory's with Labour 3rd on 19%

[SpinningHugo]

Mike Smithson
‏@MSmithsonPB
The LD demand for a 2nd EURef could have similar potency as being totally opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a general election with Libdems promising a new referendum, they would come 2nd to the tory's with Labour 3rd on 19%

Labour is very lucky the Lib Dem brand is so trashed by 2010-15. If there were an alternative in England we wouldn't be seeing the slowly deflating loss of support, but its quick and permanent loss, as in Scotland.

[citizenJA]

Sure, but its not as simple as some like to make out. And unrealistic demands from some remainers like "stop Brexit" don't help.

No, the demands calling for a halt of current Tory government's 'Brexit' actions aren't unrealistic.
Neither is it unreasonable to expect Labour coherently communicate what the hell is going on.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Mike Smithson
‏@MSmithsonPB
The LD demand for a 2nd EURef could have similar potency as being totally opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a general election with Libdems promising a new referendum, they would come 2nd to the tory's with Labour 3rd on 19%

I am deeply suspicious of meaningless "hypothetical" polls such as these.

But if a "second referendum" (on what, exactly?) really proves that popular, it would be nicked by Labour (and maybe even the Tories) in due course.

That is how politics works.

[Willow904]

Sure, but its not as simple as some like to make out. And unrealistic demands from some remainers like "stop Brexit" don't help.

If by "stop Brexit" you mean "support for remaining in the single market", I and many others are not going to shut up.

If you mean "support for overturning the outcome of the referendum" - please show me where anyone is saying this beyond a tiny minority?

Libdems and Greens have easily been able to indicate that they would have preferred to have stayed in the EU but now we have voted out their preferred Brexit option would involve remaining in the single market. It's a very simple position, very easily taken and very easily explained and understood. Labour aren't adopting a similar position because either a) they don't want to stay in the single market or b) they are worried about losing votes from leave voters. I believe Corbyn and McDonnell fall into the first camp and I disagree with them and can't support them . I believe some of the 'moderates' fall into the second camp and I think they are being dishonest and cowardly and I can't support them. Remaining a part of the European community, even if only as part of the single market like Norway which seems the best outcome now, is important to me. If Corbyn and McDonnell aren't committed to doing everything they can to achieve this outcome I need to know so I can switch my support to a party that is. I don't care about Labour's electability or internal politics. This is about my views and which party best represents them.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Having said all that, Starmer is absolutely right to be annoyed by what McDonnell said the other day.

So were most other people, strong supporters of the present party leadership included. I have seen genuinely very few people defending his comments.

Not sure if briefing the media about it is so clever, though.....

[tinybgoat]

Labour make zero sense on Brexit. On the one hand you have Corbyn and McDonnell who appear to favour a hard Brexit but are arguing against curbs on immigration. Feasible but representative of only a small segment of voters as it alienates both those who want a hard Brexit to curb immigration and those who want to stay in the single market. Then you have the 'moderates' who favour staying in the single market but are arguing for curbs on immigration. Much more popular with a wide variety of voters, but completely unfeasible.

I can't support either stance. The first would be disastrous both economically and politically - all the economic disadvantages of Brexit without the political advantage of delivering immigration curbs. The other is political folly, promising what can't be delivered and wasting time that could be better used making the arguments in favour of what can be achieved.

All they need to do is combine possible approaches to accessing the single market with compatible approaches to freedom of movement, and come up with a coherent brexit strategy.
It's not like it's the Krypton Factor.
Having said that, I don't know what Clive Lewis or Diane Abbots views on single market are. I'd have thought Clive Lewis was against 'hard brexit'.

Labour is giving the impression of a party that has no party position on Brexit. I suspect this is because they don't. I can't support a party if I don't know its position on the political issue of the day. It's exactly this kind of trying to be all things to all people that has reduced trust in politicians in the first place. It is a politicians role to form an informed opinion based on their principles, knowledge and understanding and then attempt to win support for that opinion. Chasing ill-informed tabloid-influenced public opinion is what got us in this mess in the first place. I'm not convinced the same strategy will get us out. Whether it's McDonnell being told to hide his glee at the prospect of Brexit or Yvette Cooper pretending we can enjoy the benefits of the single market whilst simultaneously curbing immigration, it's all dishonest and cowardly.

There's a lot of wriggle room, so I wouldn't necessarily discount "pretending we can enjoy the benefits of the single market whilst simultaneously curbing immigration" as being unachievable, it could be through something like Clive Lewis's suggestion, though I presume it would need EU acceptance, unless the same rules applied to all workers(compulsory union membership, which could be interesting .)

[SpinningHugo]

Having said all that, Starmer is absolutely right to be annoyed by what McDonnell said the other day.

So were most other people, strong supporters of the present party leadership included. I have seen genuinely very few people defending his comments.

Not sure if briefing the media about it is so clever, though.....

Poor old Starmer's. He looks like a hostage. He has to try I suppose but it must feel humiliating.

[AnatolyKasparov]

As I said, most Labour people (voters *and* members) agree with him and not McDonnell. That has to count for something?

[SpinningHugo]

As I said, most Labour people (voters *and* members) agree with him and Not McDonnell. That has to count for something?

Why?

McDonnell is in charge, not him.

[RogerOThornhill]

Having said all that, Starmer is absolutely right to be annoyed by what McDonnell said the other day.

So were most other people, strong supporters of the present party leadership included. I have seen genuinely very few people defending his comments.

Not sure if briefing the media about it is so clever, though.....

Poor old Starmer's. He looks like a hostage. He has to try I suppose but it must feel humiliating.

A bit like No 10 regular slap-downs of the Three Brexiteers - but I don't recall you ever posting about them.

Funny that...

[SpinningHugo]

Having said all that, Starmer is absolutely right to be annoyed by what McDonnell said the other day.

So were most other people, strong supporters of the present party leadership included. I have seen genuinely very few people defending his comments.

Not sure if briefing the media about it is so clever, though.....

Poor old Starmer's. He looks like a hostage. He has to try I suppose but it must feel humiliating.

A bit like No 10 regular slap-downs of the Three Brexiteers - but I don't recall you ever posting about them.

Funny that...

Is it? Why is it similar? Do you think theyre hostages too?

I don't expect any better from the Tories. They are dominated by Brexiters.

I once did expect more of Labour. Not now of course.

As a connoisseur of my oeuvre you'll notice I do post lots of critical stuff on twitter about the government (see also my blog).

"Aren't the Tories awful, is not really a hot topic on this page of course.

[citizenJA]

I know one thing clear as a bell. You let Tory government monkey around with UK citizens' EU citizenship freedom of anything is gone and it won't come back with a new government. The rich won't have problems getting around. Most everyone else in the country will be effectively corralled, tethered. Bloody-mindedness, refusal to coordinate an effective counter to Tory 'Brexit', failing to see the big picture, what's at stake isn't small, no political ideology will bail anyone out

[Willow904]

As I said, most Labour people (voters *and* members) agree with him and not McDonnell. That has to count for something?

Enough members to get Corbyn voted out as leader? I somehow doubt it.

You've intrigued me though, enough to hang onto my membership for now. There are still some in Labour I can agree with - Carwyn Jones, Sadiq Khan, Marvin Rees and when he actually commits to something, Keir Starmer. If their views can hold sway, Labour may end up going the right way on this, but Corbyn has control of the party machine and has been a Eurosceptic for a long time. I really can't see him being persuaded to a single market view and thus harmony within Labour seems unachievable to me.

[Willow904]

Having said all that, Starmer is absolutely right to be annoyed by what McDonnell said the other day.

So were most other people, strong supporters of the present party leadership included. I have seen genuinely very few people defending his comments.

Not sure if briefing the media about it is so clever, though.....

Briefing the media is clever if you want to keep remain voters on side. Less so if you don't want to upset leave voters. Some members may well have resigned over what McDonnell said. Some could well have decided to hold on because of Starmer's apparent reaction. FWIW, Starmer's unequivocal stance on staying in the customs union is one of only a very few things to come out of Labour recently that hasn't depressed and disappointed me. Even Ed Miliband has disappointed me of late it's that bad

Edited to add....I mean disappointed me over Brexit. I remain supportive of what Labour has to say on a variety of other topics. I can only apologise that my strength of feeling over Europe means the other stuff isn't enough right now.

[AngryAsWell]

Other countries in single market limit migration — so can we

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/other ... 5f5dc3f2f9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We could have brought in similar rules, but didn't, our choice not the EU's

[citizenJA]

The UK is in trouble. People and country will suffer needlessly taking the wrong step regarding the EU.
I'm not leaving or failing to support the Labour party. I don't consider my views incompatible to Labour's.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

What I just can't understand is why people think that politicians who have always been clear they were lukewarm about EU membership should suddenly change their minds because the biggest political plonker of our times called a referendum and lost it.

Not least because many voters are right with them.

Bear in mind I am ardently pro-EU. I also wish Corbyn would disappear*. But I want Labour to stay united and permit a spectrum of soft Leave and soft Remain views. Looking for common ground among these two groups could lead to a vision for EU policy that is worth fighting for.

* well not completely disappear - I don't wish him harm

[citizenJA]

I won't support action taken by any in Labour leadership handing country and people's
UK/EU citizenship, protections, rights over to Tory government to bin as they see fit.
Any disagreement I have with Labour leadership does not mean I do not support Labour.

[frightful_oik]

Sure, but its not as simple as some like to make out. And unrealistic demands from some remainers like "stop Brexit" don't help.

No, the demands calling for a halt of current Tory government's 'Brexit' actions aren't unrealistic.
Neither is it unreasonable to expect Labour coherently communicate what the hell is going on.

You make it sound as though Labour has some influence over what's going on. They don't. All they can do for the time being is make the tories own this clusterf*ck and await developments such as the Supreme Court decisions. I thought JC did that rather well at pmqs last week. I haven't sensed a change in the public mood yet so Lab can only play politics.

[yahyah]

Mike Smithson
‏@MSmithsonPB
The LD demand for a 2nd EURef could have similar potency as being totally opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a general election with Libdems promising a new referendum, they would come 2nd to the tory's with Labour 3rd on 19%

Are we to ignore that polling ? If other surveys show the same it'll be one large elephant in the room to ignore.

Will someone pipe up and give those of us who are concerned about it a patronising order to ignore polling? It doesn't surprise me to see it, have been hearing confirmation of that from people we know locally, that they feel they are being pushed over a cliff.

We aren't supposed to talk about it because we aren't supposed to alienate left wing or Ukip vulnerable Leave voters. So what are people going to do ? Where are they going to go to put their vote.
It's been fairly predictable and to see Labour walking into it is depressing.

Yes, it's a hypothetical scenario but if similar results are shown in other polls why ignore a klaxon that's blaring ?