As the SKWAWKBOX showed at the beginning of January, the Guardian claimed that Jeremy Corbyn was ‘under pressure’ from Labour members to come out in favour of a so-called “people’s vote”.
This was apparently part of the ongoing centrist propaganda attempt to create a perception that Labour under Corbyn is losing support – a perception that is entirely fake news, as has been repeatedly demonstrated over the course of this month.
And the Guardian article was also fake news, since the polling it published showed clearly that fewer than one in three Labour members disagree with Corbyn’s Brexit stance – and only eight percent of those who prefer remain and might want a new referendum felt strongly about it:
Rather than correct its misleading article, the Guardian moved the news to its front page.
Shortly afterward, three well-informed Labour officials wrote to the paper to challenge its skewed reporting:
Dear editor,
We are concerned that your article of 8 January, ‘Labour grassroots step up anti-Brexit pressure’ is misleading about grassroots pressure in Labour for changing the party policy.
Only at the end of the piece is it mentioned that far more Labour members support the party’s current policy than oppose it. So the truth is that the majority of the grassroots are not stepping up pressure on Jeremy Corbyn at all, just a minority.
Jeremy Corbyn is providing serious leadership on the issue, ensuring that Labour is relentlessly and very effectively opposing both May’s Brexit deal and a no deal. To date this is not being seriously reported by the Guardian.
Yours sincerely
Tony Beddow; Mike Bird; Maggie Simpson
Labour National Policy Forum members, Wales
The Guardian did not publish the letter.
SKWAWKBOX comment:
At the time of the article in question, the SKWAWKBOX described the Guardian as a ‘brazen example of mainstream fake news’ about Labour’s Brexit position, but only one of many. It seems it is cowardly as well as brazen.
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.
The Guardian is poison. It would rather have another Tory government than a socialist Labour government under Corbyn.
Yet another statistic? What are the criteria for polling people? And what we’re the exact questions?
More importantly, should YouGov be allowed to do political polling in the first place, given that anyone can join and claim to be a Labour supporter/member?
Just came across the following article – re Questiontime – on the Morning Stars website:
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/we-cant-let-bbc-hook-over-question-time
The Guardian is an Establishment Propaganda fake newspaper. Look at the way the treat Assange.
They have a deep hatred of Jeremy Corbyn and will do almost anything to stop a Corbyn led Labour Party. So don’t be surprised or upset.
The Guardian is not a left leaning Labour supporting paper. It is part of the Evil Empire’s Propaganda Machine.
I applaud the general gist of the effort to counter the notion that Party members are universally in favour of a second referendum.
But I cannot concur with the approval of Jeremy’s position on the EU.
First, “No Deal” is the only option which restores UK sovereignty over public ownership and State Aids. It is therefore the only socialist option.
Secondly, the rejection of “No Deal” means the negation of all bargaining power on the part of a British government, including a Corbyn Labour government. Why should the EU give Labour anything it wants in negotiations – for instance on those governmental freedoms over public ownership and State Aids or control of migration policy – if it takes No Deal off the table? It means accepting whatever the utterly neoliberal EU wants.
Thirdly, there seems to be a woeful lack of knowledge about the Customs Union. It does NOT just mean free movement of goods with the EU Member States plus a common customs tariff with the rest of the world. It is difficult to imagine that a Customs Union would be acceptable to the EU without the level playing field of EU control of public ownership and state aids.
But in any event the Customs Union ALSO means adhesion to the Common Commercial Policy with the rest of the world including all the agreements which the EU makes with non EU countries. This means the CETA. It would have meant the TTIP had that agreement not come to grief, so it would mean any future successful version of the TTIP. These are agreements which tip the governance of all countries in favour of corporations and away from governments.
Jeremy having no doubt marched and demonstrated and spoken against CETA and the others it would be ironic if he made such agreements part of the permanent law of the UK by virtue of the customs union.
Do comrades realise this?? (Does Jeremy?!)
Clearly, Danny, you know what ‘No Deal’ means.
But the latest ICM poll shows that a significant proportion of those polled confuse ‘No Deal’ with ‘Remain’ – i.e. – things stay the same.
A frightening level of political misunderstanding of even a basic idea.
Correction, it was a Sky Twitter poll following up on the ICM poll.
Danny, TTIP collapsed the moment the Brexit result came through.
Have you still not got that it was the UK Government that was pushing this within the EU?
Yes – it was opposition across Europe that scuppered TTIP.
I’m afraid the ‘No Deal’ scenario as a realistic pain-free option is a mirage. You can’t just abandon the past 40 years of collective agreements without massive disruption.
Jacob Rees Mogg will be fine, but the ordinary punter will suffer the consequences of this. That’s not project fear – it’s just rational analysis of what is entailed – and with experience of the massive incompetence of this government to back up the point.
The country will not regain any effective sovereignty (remember public sell-offs have been home-grown – not especially propelled by EU legislation, and can be changed even within the framework with creativity and imagination). In fact, the imposition of TTIP-type agreements will be much more likely, given the weak negotiating position of a fake sovereignty.
Err, it was halted by Donald Trump.
….and Europe is still in negotiations, albeit secret ones, with America for a similar neoliberal deal. A lot of people in Europe aren’t happy but European governments love it.
The EU is eager and ready to hop into bed with TTIP. There are calls for it to be reinvigorated which is not surprising considering the EU is predominantly a trade body.
https://waronwant.org/what-ttip
My instinct is still remain & reform – but if the only way to get a Corbyn-led Labour government is with Brexit – even a no deal crash out – OK.
I think we’ll regret leaving, but OK.
I expect many of those polled might feel the same way.
Not expecting pollsters to risk asking that question though.
May’s deal, no deal or remain are all disastrous if they keep her in power.
Anyone noticed anything about the figures in the first column?
For those sick of the Guardian. Off Guardian blog has some interesting news articles. https://off-guardian.org/
I have reservations about Off Guardian. Its politics is confused and all over the place. I’ve just read one of its articles which seemed to make a meal of conflating the word ‘socialist’ with the Nazis. I don’t trust Off Guardian.
NO POLLING COMPANY HAS CONTACTED THE LABOUR PARTY WITH REGARD TO POLLING IT’S MEMBERS. Labour couldn’t give them that information, it would breach the data protection act.
YouGov is totally reliant on people joining and self-publicising their political affiliation.