PV claims collapse further: fewer than 1/3 Labour members oppose party’s Brexit strategy

The extravagant claims of the so-called “people’s vote” (PV) campaign were seriously holed below the waterline earlier this week as new data showed the pro-PV and overtly anti-Brexit LibDems polling at their joint-lowest level in almost a year – and Labour membership was shown to be steady, contrary to PV claims of an exodus.

The centrist-led campaign’s justification has collapsed further with the release of new polling data showing that Labour members support the leadership’s Brexit strategy by a huge margin, with fewer than one in three against it:

Significantly, that number is no greater – just 29% – among those who voted remain in 2016. Even more significantly, more who voted for centrist Owen Smith in the 2016 leadership contest support Corbyn’s strategy than the number who voted for Corbyn that oppose it.

In addition, one in five are neutral and five percent have no opinion on the matter.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

The centrist claim that the bulk of Labour’s membership wants Corbyn to change tack is pure fantasy – or worse, intended to mislead.

This narrative has, of course, been picked up and propagated eagerly by the mainstream media.

But with the news today that Returning Officers across the country have been told to get ready for a new general election – a further vindication in the most practical terms of Corbyn’s approach in pushing for a general election and ignoring centrist demands to prematurely call a no-confidence vote or for a new referendum – the latest PV propaganda is being exposed as the well-funded hot air it is.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

42 responses to “PV claims collapse further: fewer than 1/3 Labour members oppose party’s Brexit strategy

  1. Well funded indeed, by the likes of George Soros, wtf has it got to do with him? And the likes of the CEO of the Virgin group. You couldn’t get a bunch of more unsavory people if you tried.

    • You couldn’t get a bunch of more unsavory people if you tried.

      How about the ERG, Aaron Banks, Tommy Robinson etc, etc, etc.

      Don’t they also qualify for your rogues gallery?

  2. Today’s Fraudian contained this headline: “Corbyn defies calls from within Labour to back second referendum on Brexit.” You can go and read it. I did and this was my response: “GET CORBYN! A new film starring Alec Guinness as the beleaguered JC, holed up in his London bunker; with the enemy closing in he remains “defiant” to the end. CUT! This is bollocks; careful juxtaposition of some meagre facts and some cleverly placed prepositions (the “but” that commences paragraph 9 implying that a member of the front bench is a rebel is a prime example) ensure that we are led to believe that a general insurrection is underway – it’s utterly Goebbelesque. Towards the end we learn from the useful idiot Jessica Elgot that the “calls from within” referred to in headline come from Phil Wilson and Luciana Berger, two of the foremost enemies of socialism in the Labour Party – and acolytes of the war criminal Blair. As for defiant, the leader of the party is carrying out policy decided at conference by the membership – rather than policy decided by Alistair Campbell, Vince Cable, Michael Heseltine and George Soros. When all this is over, the fishwrap known as the Guardian is going to have some explaining to do.”

    • The Guardian and the Independent have been using that particular headline for the past two and a half years, it wasn’t true then and isn’t now.

    • Labre

      Goebbelesque indeed – exactly the name that most frequently pops into my head when reading the sorry travesty of a once-great newspaper.

      If there’s a journalists’ hell, Kath Viner and Luke Harding will be the guests of honour!

  3. Skwarky, your desperation is becoming embarrassing. Of course members support Labour’s position because we were told that another vote would be on the cards!. So where is the question about supporting it?

  4. The stats in your report of YouGov’s poll are of course correct – but I had a glance at the utter spin put on them by every mainstream media outlet for a completely different narrative ! The Independent claims they mean that if Jeremy doesn’t fully embrace the PV Campaign and Labour campaigning to Remain – that “90,000 LP members will leave” ! And that now no more than a pro PV and Remainer comic ,The Guardian, is very similar in its distortion of the latest , and all recent, polling . It also has to be said that the latest YouGov polling gives wildly contradictory results depending on the question asked of the (very) small sample of Labour Members. Who is paying for this spate of “weaponised” polling of Labour Members on Brexit anyway ? Lord Mandelson and his rich chums ?

  5. It comes as no surprise that Labour’s membership and supporters support Labour’s policy on Brexit because part of that policy is to campaign for a second referendum if we can’t secure a GE.

    This is an extract from the composite motion agreed at this years conference.
    “If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.”

    If you wish to see the context of the above quote you can read the Composite Motion in full here where it was posted as part of another comment. https://skwawkbox.org/2019/01/01/pv-proposition-exposed-as-libdems-poll-lowest-in-11-months/#comment-91035

    • What a distortion, your “interpretation!”!

      It’s the “remaining-on-the-table” of the PV which the composite supports, not the PV itself. In other words it merely remains an option – one of several – in the absence of a general election.

      • Danny 02/01/2019 at 8:42 pm
        So you thought it would be a cool idea to embarrass yourself by selectively quoting from an already partial quote in some lame attempt to ‘prove’ your point. I suggest you actually read the motion passed by conference before digging any further.

    • So SteveH now concedes here that he simply lied when he claimed in another comment that a second referendum “was Labour Policy”. It isn’t – it is merely an option amongst other options – IF we fail to secure a General Election. Yep, the Brexit motion was a necessary compromise fudge – as it had to be to avoid splitting the Party. The solidly middle class privilege-saturated politically grossly naïve or deliberately sabotaging People’s Vote lobby, funded by Mandelson and Blair specifically to split the Left , would, with their proposed daft motions, have cut Labour permanently off from a huge cohort of the working class still pro Brexit voters we absolutely need to both retain and win more of if we are to win a new General election.

      • For starters the commitment to specifically campaign for a second vote doesn’t really fit in with your ridiculous outburst. I suggest you read the composite motion in full and note the others references to a second vote and the lack of any reference to ‘respecting’ the 2016 vote whilst you are at it.

        You can claim it is /was a fudge but the inescapable fact is that it is the policy that was agreed at conference so whether you like it or not it is Labour Party policy.

        I am more than happy that I’m not the one lying here. I have been quite open and transparent by reproducing the Composite Motion, that was passed at conference, in full rather than relying on selective quotes.

      • Sad, sad, man ! SteveH, you can’t apparently actually understand the perfectly plain meaning of the section of the composite motion you triumphantly quote ! The motion indeed said , as you correctly quote it :

        “If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. ”

        This quite clearly means to any sentient being capable of understanding plain English no more than that the option of Labour campaigning for a second referendum remains ON THE TABLE (ie, one of many options for the Party to consider ) IF , and only IF, we fail to achieve our agreed objective of securing a General Election. It does NOT mean that we have agreed to a policy now to campaign for a second referendum at all. It’s just a possible option. Your obsessive desire for a second referendum above all else has apparently robbed you of the ability to understand plain English ! Grasp what our current policy is and stop blatantly misrepresenting it – along with the Guardian, Independent, and lying PV Campaign.

      • jpenney 03/01/2019 at 10:56 am

        I will address your lies and misrepresentations later in the day when I have more time but in the meantime I have a very simple question for you, as a delegate at this years conference did you vote for or against the Brexit Composite Motion?

      • jpenney 03/01/2019 at 10:56 am

        John, why have you gone all quiet and shy.

        It is not a difficult question to answer – Did you vote for or against the Brexit Composite Motion that was passed at the 2018 conference?

        I simply can’t understand your reticence, have you also kept your vote a secret from your CLP?

      • Sorry not to be 24/7 available to answer questions on Skwawkbox – I have a life, unlike apparently you trolls . OF COURSE I voted for the Composite motion. Why wouldn’t I ? It’s huge fudge avoided us losing our entire pro Brexit working class voter base overnight, by sidelining the politically suicidal pro remain junk motions from the young Left liberal pro EU faction in our Party. It correctly prioritised the policy of working for a General Election – with ALL OTHER OPTIONS ON THE TABLE (for adoption or not, as tactics require) should this policy prove impossible. And my CLP fully approved my vote in the two branch report-backs and six page Conference Report I gave them.

        The young Left liberal obsessive People’s Vote fanatics so evident at Conference with the T Shirts, and expensive, Big Business funded, glossy propaganda, were notable in Delegate contributions to the Brexit debate to have no socialist analysis whatsoever of the EU as an institution , or indeed even any minor quibbles with this neoliberal monstrosity that has impoverished the whole of Southern Europe and demanded unending Austerity for all but the rich. But then “our man from the UK Deep State”, ex Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer’s, dreadful Lib Dem-style uncritical pro EU speech revealed no criticism of the neoliberal EU either .

      • jpenney 03/01/2019 at 5:00 pm
        Well thanks for replying, it took a while but we got there in the end. I will consider your reply and get back to you later on.

    • Thank you, Steve, for a cool-headed statement of the position. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the ESRC Party Members Study – where more complete data can be found shows both current loyalty to Corbyn *and* a strong preference for ‘Remain’ *and* a desire for another referendum amongst members.

      This makes sense from subjective observations.

      Both the Grauniad and Sqwawkbox are selective in their emphases. Pot ‘n Kettle.

  6. Hmm. If 1000 “centrist” Labour party members joined YouGov and filled in their political loyalties, they could “push” public/Labour members opinion in the direction of a second referendum. No wonder remain is willing to fund a YouGov survey about every two weeks and “a vast majority of Labour members” want a second referendum in the face of political reality that it would cause social mayhem.

  7. This survey was conducted as part of a long term academic research project into political party membership (all political parties) so it is doubtful that your concerns about funding or anything else for that matter are very relevant.

  8. Perhaps the most ominous aspect of this campaign, for an Irish style re-vote is the way in which the Blairites go along with the unconstitutional refusal to put the matter to Parliament and to insist an a general election when the government loses.
    It is hard to doubt that plan b of the PV forces is to join up with the Tories and prevent the country from having the right to decide itself, not just on the broad undefined question of Brexit but on the real issue of who will represent each constituency when Parliament meets to take the important decisions.
    In Constitutional terms the case for an election is unanswerable in democratic terms.

    • Unless Labour can garner enough support from MPs across The House then they won’t be in a position to insist on bugger all. The policy agreed at this years conference of having a fall back position of a second referendum is entirely logical and is supported by the majority of the membership, that’s the same membership that supports JC.

    • Spot on, bevin. The hard core of the PLP Right are guaranteed to continue to try and prevent a General Election which Labour will win, and failing that , stab a new Labour government in the back by crossing the floor and joining some cooked-up “National Government” – rather than tolerating a Left government which will unravel the 30 year mare’s nest of tax dodging and corruption by their Big Business paymasters . Our failure to weed out the 20 or so hard core Blairite PLP 5th columnists after Jeremy’s second Leadership victory will come back to haunt us big time !

  9. The interesting thing about the (objectively) Blairite/PV trolls that have started appearing on here is that they utterly refuse to address political arguments made against them or to advance their own, instead relying on statistics, selective quotes and parroting the Guardian. They also seem unable to recognise that the class struggle takes place in all areas of life, including within the Labour Party.

  10. Hi Skwarks

    You should make it clear the data used in the article are sourced from the ERSC funded Party members project.

    https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/2019/01/02/love-corbyn-hate-brexit/#more-1588

    I’m quite intrigued as to the rational behind the survey and how they decided the weighting and sample size. It seems to me that if they ask predominantly Remainers the results will always be skewed towards peoples vote.

    Also considering the Party Members Project is supposed to be looking at all political parties they do seem very intrested in Labour and more specifically Corbyn. Less so in other parties.

    • Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it infamy!

      I think I prefer the ESRC data to fictions made up on the hoof. It is consistent with reality as observed.

  11. There seems no way this current Parliament will have a majority for Mrs May’s riduclous Deal or have No Confidence in the Government let alone vote for a 2nd Referundum. There is little point in making the same mistake as in 2016 and set ‘the People’ against Parliament. You either have a Parliamentary system of Government or a Populist one based on Referunda, like Peron in the 50’s. The Referundum system is dangerous; just imagine one asking for a return of capital punishment or deporting legal immigrants? Big majorities no doubt! Johnson would do it. ‘Liberals’ must know the risks they run in advocating another vote. Indeed it must be obvious it can’t work because Parliament won’t vote for it so all their huff and puff is only designed to try and split the Labour Party. The deadlock will remain until we have a GE and a good shakeout of the Chukka’s and the like.

    • Whilst I agree that a GE would be the best outcome we could hope for. If we can’t get a GE then I would liken a second referendum to a vote on the negotiations completed on our behalf.

      When trade unions have a mandate to negotiate a deal for their members, the final deal is accepted or rejected by the membership

      Why should Brexit be any different.

  12. A 2nd Referundum would be a disaster because the result is likely to be very similar to that in 2016. How will that progress matters come this time next year when we are in exactly the same situation as now, just a year older and no doubt poorer? The PV advocates must know that the resentment by many that there is a 2nd vote at all, in breach of all the promises made, even those in 2017, coupled with the Leave money that will flood in means it’s very unlikely ‘Remain’ would win which it seems as if they rely on. If it did win then the problems would really begin; of course there would have to be a 3rd Referundum or there would be serious unrest.

    • If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.

    • “A 2nd Referundum would be a disaster”

      I don’t think that it would be a walk in the park. Neither do I reckon it would immediately solve existing problems.

      But the ‘disaster’ has already happened, in allowing an extreme right-wing clique, backed by a foreign-based propaganda machine, to manoeuvre the country into a badly formulated and corrupt plebiscite that has produced no sustainable result.

      Clearly, subsequent events have simply illustrated what a stupid idea Brexit is – no argument has held up to scrutiny, and it’s icon is the lying face of Bois Johnson. Of course, lying chancers and hedge fund scammers will yell blue murder (what’s new?), and the few Leftories in the Labour Party will stamp their feet and claim to represent the interests of their notion of an imagined working class. But who said it would be trouble free? Better than landing future generations with an even greater burden based on fairy stories.

      So – the only question worth considering is how to get out of the dead end deal – not ‘whether to’.

    • Indeed, Paul. Even DURING a second referendum campaign , the narrative of “betrayal by the political elite” would undoubtedly create a new monster of a Far Right /Neo Fascist movement promising to “defend the 2016 Leave Decision” which would see massive violence on our streets. If a second referendum led to a Remain victory we would see the rapid development of a mass Far Right movement , feeding on the narrative of “betrayal” the like of which hasn’t been seen since the 1930’s . Witness the amazing growth of the AFD in Germany on a xenophobic “betrayal narrative” of a different kind – now bigger than the SPD ! But the middle class “Guardianista” Left Liberals , who unfortunately infest our Party just as much as The Greens and Lib Dems, don’t care about that in their demand for a new Referendum, and , they hope, a Remain outcome. They just want their middle class privileges , and easy access to the ski resorts, European health care access after a bad fall on the piste , and crony opportunities in the EU bureaucracy, to continue unabated.

      • …. but as a delegate at conference did you vote for or against the Brexit Composite Motion that was agreed at the 2018 conference and do you support the Labour Party’s policy on Brexit that was agreed at conference this autumn.

        ps: Running away from a democratic vote because you are frightened of Tommy Robinson and his ilk really isn’t a good look. I doubt that capitulation to the Far Right will ever be Labour policy.

      • Do you *actually * – *really* – believe this anti-Labour, pseudo shit? (Which actually plays to the “Far Right /Neo Fascist movement” agenda). Or is it just a wind-up from Planet Zog ? … or are you Nigel Farage in drag? (Same thing, I guess).

        Whatever – let’s all hold hands and try to contact the living.

    • The anonymous “RH” and their (probably paid – and probably not even LP members) co posters are just pro EU trolls. At no stage do they ever try and justify their uncritical love of the EU – because to try and actually justify the EU would invite fact-based socialist counter analysis from those of us who correctly identify the EU as a destructive undemocratic neoliberalism enforcement organisation, not the benevolent democratic body of social progress claimed by its middle class enthusiast supporters. The supposedly neutral ESRC Party Members study is quite obviously a vehicle of the PV/Remain camp, masquerading as a state-funded research project – if its obsession with Labour , Corbyn, and Brexit is any guide. How were the sample participants selected ? Where is the constant feed to the mass media on member opinion in the Tory Party or Lib Dems ?

  13. “The anonymous “RH” and their (probably paid – and probably not even LP members) co posters are just pro EU trolls. At no stage do they ever try and justify their uncritical love of the EU”

    Well – three factual errors (or is it just raging paranoia?) in those few lines. And it’s only a start.

    That’s worthy of a of a booby prize! But let’s just take it as a gauge of general soundness of judgment.

    Point proved, I think.

    (P.S. ” Where is the constant feed to the mass media on member opinion in the Tory Party or Lib Dems ?” Answer – in the same ESRC study. It only recently showed that the Tory members and Lexiteers have much the same view on EU membership. Now – if I was paranoid, I could suggest that the latter are Tory trolls!).

  14. Pingback: YouGov admits ‘priming’ as experts criticise Brexit poll and results | The SKWAWKBOX·

Leave a Reply