Beatsong wrote:
The problem is that that's only one part of the truth. The other part is that championing a second referendum will ALSO cause Labour to lose some votes. So there's no point taking Corbett's warning on face value and comparing it with a theoretical position that would involve losing no votes at all. Such a position doesn't exist, and can't exist.

Beatsong wrote:The real questions, then, are how many votes are likely to be lost by either strategy, which voters in which constituencies will they be from and who are they likely to vote for instead.

The UCL analysis shows that in every region of the UK, the majority of voters who put a cross next to Labour in the general election of 2017 but say they won’t vote Labour next time, are switching to a party they see as more pro-European. In London, where Labour dominated in 2017, a third of Labour voters who know how they intend to vote now say they will vote for another party, but voters switching to a party seen as more pro-remain outnumber those switching to a more pro-leave party by five to one. In the north of England, the number switching is fewer, at just 20% – but again the number switching to a more pro-remain party outnumber those switching to the Tories or Ukip by four to one.

Beatsong wrote:On the face of it, this is a pretty strong argument for Labour backing a referendum:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tion-party

However, it does contain some problems. Most particularly this:

The UCL analysis shows that in every region of the UK, the majority of voters who put a cross next to Labour in the general election of 2017 but say they won’t vote Labour next time, are switching to a party they see as more pro-European. In London, where Labour dominated in 2017, a third of Labour voters who know how they intend to vote now say they will vote for another party, but voters switching to a party seen as more pro-remain outnumber those switching to a more pro-leave party by five to one. In the north of England, the number switching is fewer, at just 20% – but again the number switching to a more pro-remain party outnumber those switching to the Tories or Ukip by four to one.

This is one reason why the two sides squeezing Labour are not, electorally speaking, the same. If a disgruntled Remainer rejects Labour and votes Green or Lib Dem as a protest despite knowing they have no chance of winning, Labour is one vote worse off. If a disgruntled Leaver rejects Labour and votes Tory, Labour are two votes worse off: the one that they lose and the one that their Tory opponent gets, since it is the difference between those two candidates that (in most constituencies) decides the election. This is why elections get decided by Tory-Labour marginals.

Smith, as an elected Labour politician, surely knows this.

Fair to say Anas Sarwar isn't best pleased about yesterday's ruling on this Islamophobia complaint; new statement says he's "deeply hurt and demoralised", "devastated", and says party's disciplinary process is "deeply flawed and not fit for purpose"

A Labour Party investigation has found "no case to answer" after a councillor was accused of using racist language about Anas Sarwar.

Mr Sarwar complained about comments said to have been made by Labour councillor Davie McLachlan.

He was alleged to have told Mr Sarwar he could not support him as Scottish Labour leader because "Scotland wouldn't vote for a brown Muslim Paki".

Mr McLachlan said he was delighted the "false allegations" were dismissed.

Mr Sarwar, a Labour MSP, said he was disappointed by the outcome of the investigation.

He had reported that the remarks were made during the contest to succeed Kezia Dugdale as Scottish Labour leader in 2017.

This is Anas Sarwar's account of Labour's process in dealing with the case - after 15 months of waiting, he was apparently given four days notice of the hearing...and then told he couldn't appear as a witness because he hadn't given two weeks notice, so the case was chucked out

Beatsong wrote:Well a party's goal is to enact its policies. In order to do that, it has to get voters.

In one sense Corbett is right: not championing a second referendum will surely cause Labour to lose some votes. Some will vote Green or Lib Dem instead, or just not bother turning up.

The problem is that that's only one part of the truth. The other part is that championing a second referendum will ALSO cause Labour to lose some votes. So there's no point taking Corbett's warning on face value and comparing it with a theoretical position that would involve losing no votes at all. Such a position doesn't exist, and can't exist.

The real questions, then, are how many votes are likely to be lost by either strategy, which voters in which constituencies will they be from and who are they likely to vote for instead.

Beatsong wrote:Corbyn is following Labour policy decided democratically by the members at conference.

CarlPierce wrote:

Beatsong wrote:Corbyn is following Labour policy decided democratically by the members at conference.

Like hell he is. Hypocritical tory brexit enabler.

Brandon Lewis says “Labour has a responsibility to deliver on its manifesto” on Brexit. No it doesn’t. Labour lost the last election. #r4today

minininja wrote:And Labour's work fighting for a different version of Brexit is the only reason we haven't already had a Tory Brexit or possibly a 'no deal' Brexit.

Truly remarkable. The constant Gardiner to the Tories: "We are in there trying to bail you guys out."

ronmcd wrote:

minininja wrote:And Labour's work fighting for a different version of Brexit is the only reason we haven't already had a Tory Brexit or possibly a 'no deal' Brexit.

Can you expand on this a little? I think my brain just tried to violently extricate itself from my skull.

ronmcd wrote:Is Labour's version of brexit still the same unicorn based on tests that can't be met?

minininja wrote:
But there is nothing "unicorn" about Labour's plans. They are entirely workable, unlike May's three contradictory red lines.