New survey finds over half Labour members DON’T want Corbyn to call for new ref

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

As the SKWAWKBOX has shown over the last couple of weeks, polls demonstrate that most Labour members do not back a new Brexit referendum and support Corbyn’s approach to the Brexit issue – contradicting the claims of ‘centrist’ campaigners for a so-called “people’s vote” (PV).

The same campaign also had to perform a humiliating u-turn last week, when MPs withdrew an amendment calling for a new referendum, admitting that it could not get past MPS for lack of support.

Adding to the chaos infecting the PV campaign, a survey – only made public because it leaked – by a pro-referendum group showed that backing another referendum would damage Labour electorally, in spite of constant claims in the media and by PV-campaigners that it would be Labour’s key to Downing Street.

Jeremy Corbyn’s intelligent approach to the difficult issue of Brexit was vindicated yet again.

Now a new survey from LabourList has underscored those results – by showing that a majority of its largely ‘centrist’ readership do not want Corbyn to support a new referendum.

The LabourList survey of over 7,000 readers had just over half of respondents stating that they do not want Corbyn to swing behind a ‘PV’ – 50.2% vs 49.8%:

While this may be a tight result, across Labour’s mostly-left membership it suggests that the majority would be far higher. LabourList has a reputation as a publication with a predominantly right-leaning readership in Labour terms.

This fact was underscored by the fact that Tom Watson came fourth in a survey question asking respondents which is their favourite Shadow Cabinet member, while the far from left Keir Starmer was in first place.

If more than half of Labour List readers support Corbyn’s Brexit approach and do not want a PV, then the result is strong support for recent polls suggesting members in favour of Corbyn’s strategy outnumber those against by around two to one.

Not only that, but recent ComRes polling showed that among the total electorate Corbyn’s stance has increased Labour voting intention – and clearly Labour members do not disagree.

Unsurprisingly, a majority – albeit not huge – of Labour members would still prefer no Brexit at all to any of the other options suggested. However, it’s clear from the results that most Labour members are politically savvy enough to know that a Labour government is the most urgently-needed change for the country – that Corbyn must work for everyone and cannot ignore the many leave-supporting Labour or floating voters.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

The wheels are coming off the PV campaign as its fallacies, delusions and assumptions are exposed.

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.


  1. Where’s RH, I want to shout it in his cloth like ears…..”The YouGov polls you’ve been quoting as gospel were bollocks!!!” Even Labour’s right aren’t totally illogical, although they think then idiot Sarmer would make a leader. Only fanatics believe what they want to.

    1. I’m here, noting how poll results are selectively picked – as and when it suits. This is just another such- which doesn’t contradict the underlying fact that the Party and its supporters voted overwhelmingly for ,’Remain’, even though Corbyn is still supported in dealing with the Tory policy victory.

      1. Just as a P.S. , lundy – I’m delighted that a poll has, finally, given you so much orgasmic pleasure after all the rest that haven’t …. even if it doesn’t alter any previous findings (not, I add, from the dreaded YouGov), and even if its lack of sampling methodology puts the error margin out of sight.

      2. I’m not “lundy” and this poll was of 7000 people. I doubt YouGov has 7000 members claiming to be Labour members . And don’t try and hang poll reliance on me, it’s you who’s been bombarding this site with YouGov fake Labour polls.

    2. Cavass party members electronically! Who reads Labour List or left Foot Forward anyway?

      1. Danny and Joe Public

        As we know, the counter arguments re nationalisation have tended to be relatively unconvincing. However, I have just skimmed/ploughed through the just published IPPR pamphlet ‘State Aid Rules and Brexit’, January 2019 and I wondered what others might make of it.

        Morris and Kibasey are claiming a lot more is possible via the exemption clauses than has previously been argued, or supposed.

        Obviously, whether they are right or wrong in their analysis, That still leaves the 4 freedoms as an issue and I note that Grace Blakely no longer writes for them…

      1. It would be interesting to know how they did this because as I understand things are thus
        The EU’s guiding principles are clearly espoused in the prefix to the chapter on economic policy, where it says that the EU and its member states must conduct economic policy ‘in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition’ and to comply with the guiding principles of ‘stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments’. Other relevant articles of the TFEU include: Article 81, which prohibits any government intervention in the economy ‘which may affect trade between Member States’; Article 121, which gives the European Council and European Commission – both unelected bodies – the right to ‘formulate … the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union’; Article 126, which regulates the disciplinary measures to be adopted in case of excessive deficit; Article 151, which states that the EU’s labour and social policy shall take account of the need to ‘maintain the competitiveness of the Union economy’; and Article 107, which prohibits state aid to strategic national industries.”


        I would also be pretty sure that JC and John McD would well understand the nuances of limitations that the EU would place upon our Nationalisation aspirations ,hence the adherence to leaving the EU.
        Now if the EU were to become a true socialist entity then I’d very happily campaign to be part of it , alas it is not .

      2. …. and the German municipal authorities own and run their own water and sewage systems

      3. That maybe so SteveH , because
        The institutional organisation of public water supply and sanitation does not fall under the purview of the EU, but remains a prerogative of each member state. Which is why as a matter of pre EU history they are still to all intents a nationalised utility , i.e they have never been privatised the first place , it is a fact that yes existing nationalised utilities are in existence in the EU BUT and this is the killer crunch , privatised ones cannot be re-nationalised , as per existing EU rules on competition.
        For example and a fact as I have used the German DB rail recently, that once unified state run utility is slowly but surely being privatised with private CO’s now running trains on the network.This is in line IMO with what the EU Neo-liberal system wants to achieve.
        Re the Eau de Paris then from what I can see it looks like a semi-quasi private Co linked the city of Paris , perhaps this is how they were able to get it past the EU rules , I don’t know .
        It will be interesting to find out , which I will in due course .

      4. The trouble is Rob, as I’m sure you know, some people think that Starmer’s Brexit model, with its customs alliance and close relationship to the single market would not free the UK up at all, with regards to nationalisation and state aid/intervention. This is why I’m interested in the latest from the IPPR which claims that more is possible within the EU, or a customs alliance, than is currently being argued by some of us on the left. Sorry if this comment arrives in an odd position in the thread!

      5. Not at all Paulo , it makes perfect sense in the thread order , and I appreciate what you are saying re the IPPR report . However I’d like to see some cast iron examples of privatised utilities being wholly renationalised as per Corbyns intentions . From what I understand the ECJ has a bearing on what may or may not be allowed under the EU anti-state intervention/competition laws and it’s that courts possible inconsistent interpretation on the law that I feel is the biggest concern for nationalisation.

      6. More food for thought Rob, thanks for the response. I did note that the IPPR start their argument on what’s possible with reference to the clauses that refer to “exceptional “or “emergency” circumstances (!)

      1. Jack T, for me the jury are still deliberating, but you are right to draw attention to the IPPR pamphlet ,as did Allan Howard a few threads ago (see my own comment somewhere on this current thread). It would be good to see some cool headed engagement with this latest review.

      2. You quote the ‘Morning Star On-Line’ but not the opposing CP article? Contradictions about the origins of austerity designed to muddy the water. Austerity only happens in GB initiated by Osbourne? I would love to stand in solidarity with other socialist governments in the EU, but have problems finding them in the rich man’s neo-liberal club. We have enough problems spreading the gospel here in England; let alone in Scotland or Wales or even NI We cannot hold our own MPs to account & now we need more distant gov’t in Brussels, or is it Strasbourg today? It is not the people of Europe that we have the problem with, it is the governing Troika , especially the European Banksters & the IMF. Low wages & cheap Labour are the main characteristics of the EU as income for the poorest classes in GB have remained low since 1973.

  2. Again some polls or others, why not survey all the lBour party membership. In this digital age that should not be a problem. At least then you would have reliable data.

    In response to lovery Lundiel -you seem to sum yourself up perfectly in your last sentence. I think it is a wee bit childish to want to come across as really bolshy.

    And in response to Joe Public – of course you can nationalise. Excessive privatisation is merely a Tory way of doing things.

    1. Really Sabine? I should think surveying the “centrists” and coming up With this result should be enough. If Starmer supporters see the way the wind’s blowing, it’s time to accept reality….like “Joe public”.

    2. Iv’e noticed that you’ve previously showed your ignorance of EU politics Sabine. Please read the Fourth Railway Package Market Pillar https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/the-fourth-railway-package-explained.html as an example of EU support for nationalisation let alone re-nationalisation and consider that any attempt to re/nationalise an industry is open to legal challenge. This has happened before in the telecoms industry where they didn’t like “government interference in pricing” and tied them up in the courts until the government gave in. Private enterprise has very deep pockets and government has to justify spending every “tax-payers” penny. Mr Branson’s lawyers are very aware of this and love EU legislation.

  3. What this poll shows, if it shows anything, is that when Jeremy comes out in favour of asking the people if now they know how disastrous Brexit will be they want to remain, he will be overwhelmingly supported.

    1. It also clearly illustrates how little support there is for either a ‘No Deal’ Brexit or a Norway+ type deal.

      “2. Which of these options do you believe is the best outcome?
      No Brexit – 55.6% (4,020)
      Corbyn’s plan – 32.8% (2,367)
      No deal – 5.3% (386)
      EEA/Norway (+) model – 5.0% (360)

      May’s plan – 1.3% (91)”

      1. Tusk favours a Canada +++ deal. I’ve always said that’s what we’ll end up with. No one is currently talking about the importance of foreign policy and having integrated security cooperation. When it comes down to the wire, that will be Europe’s No1 consideration.

      2. Canada +++ has often come across as more likely than other options to offer a constructive way forward. It just didn’t have a very good advocate at the time.

    2. What this poll shows, if it shows anything, is that when Jeremy comes out in favour of asking the people if now they know how disastrous Brexit will be they want to remain, he will be overwhelmingly supported by centrist remainers.

      1. poetrymuseum 29/01/2019 at 11:55 am

        I see these surveys – and wonder why no one ever asks me.

        If you register on the Labour List website they will automatically invite you to take part in their weekly surveys. If you look at the comments that some post on LabourList their allegiance to the Labour Party (of any flavour) is questionable.

        As for the rest of your post – Thanks for pointing out the reality of our position

  4. This fact was underscored by the fact that Tom Watson came fourth in a survey question asking respondents which is their favourite Shadow Cabinet member, while the far from left Keir Starmer was in first place.

    Just HOW the absolute F did starmer get first place – nevermind watson get fourth?

    Are you sure those canvassed understood the question? Did they mistake shadow cabinet for actual cabinet?

    I find it rather worrying that they’re the calibre of labour politician held in such regard…

      1. The 31% you quote is misleading because there was no “Don’t Know” option on the Labour List survey and the 7% difference on the figures that actually matter can be accounted for quite easily for by the difference between the 2 questions. The Labour List question asks a very specific question ” Should Jeremy Corbyn come out in favour of another EU referendum now?

    1. One of the problems with the polls is that they tend to conflate two different issues in tthe collective mind of the Party majority – that of the desirability of Remain – which is now incontravertible, given the unfolding train crash of the last couple of years, and that of “Given the Leaver shit-show, and the impossibility of getting agreement, what do we do now?”

      It is the latter issue that causes most variation of opinion.

  5. I used to get their stuff and would have voted for no PV too!
    STOP PRESS – Tories to support Backstop!
    Tories are the Backstop Boys (and Girls)!
    Supporting Half In and Half Out EC!
    Not delivering what people voted for!!!!!!!
    Labour can get a Better Brexit:
    * Democratic Control labour & capital supply.
    * Migration adjustment funds for councils.
    * Trade unionise migrant workers to build community solidarity.
    * Tariff free trade UK individual companies Europe but Govt pay collectively.
    * Protectiions for workers rights, the environment, policing & security.

    1. I’m with you on those bullets Bazza -always have been – the penultimate one being an interesting idea

  6. According to Channel 4 & BBC, if we leave with ‘No Deal’ (WTO Terms), no medicines; no security; no planes in the air; no food no nothing……..business will just stop? Nobody is talking to no-one? No agreement on anything? End of the world cliff edge. No-one can make other arrangements about anything, or so we are told. Are you sure?

  7. I see these surveys – and wonder why no one ever asks me. I watched the documentary on the background to the Referendum last night which was a useful reminder. It seems to me that Tusk ( a cool man and experienced politician), would not have given any interviews in the way that he did, at all, if there was any chance of the EU moving on the Backstop. I learned a) Theresa May used to be a Brexit ‘leaver’ but was brought onside by Cameron. b) that not only she but he developed the callous Hostile Environment policy to win over Tory backbench eurosceptics and gain voters back from UKIP. (True socialists should never support such a policy). c) That Cameron somehow expected to be allowed to have an equal say on monetary policy in Europe while the UK was not even in the eurozone, d) that he was politically keen to get some say because of the Tories friends in the City who were pressuring him to save them even more £millions, due to new rules being drawn up by those in the EU who are in the Eurozone e) That Tusk is right and Cameron was the ‘victim’ of his own ‘victory’ at the general election in 2015, because he had been relying on the Lib Dem coalition to veto a Referendum. f) and I was usefully reminded that a Referendum result is usually for a very long time, while a General Election is for five years. and g) also reminded that Cameron pushed the EU and got a 7 year stop on migrants from Eastern Europe claiming benefits but never got the chance to wave that in front of the electorate, as the Referendum leave campaign rolled under the snakelike Gove who had betrayed his ‘mate’ Cameron. .
    Other points: I agree that some economic migration had been a phenomena that impacted on the public purse in UK. But we know it was poisonously exploited by the Daily Mail to whip the neglected masses into a frenzy. The finger would have been so much better pointed at bankers, the City, & offshore tax dodgers (£Trillions squirrelled away across the globe). It is worth remembering that there are also good welfare benefits in many EU countries (although not in countries like Italy, and of course Greece hit the buffers). Referendum campaigning happened at the peak of a refugee crisis providing fodder for the Sun and Mail vile xenophobic scaremongering. And the idea that the UK is the only place for welfare in the EU is incorrect. But of course tory welfare changes and austerity attacked our own at the same time as social housing diminished to a trickle and rents increased. (Many EU countries have state pensions far better than the UK -but free health provision was not as standardised or as good. Now of course, rules have changed, hitting migrants who work here cruelly when they are very ill. Finally, why does anyone bang on about sovereignty? Sovereignty to me means British ownership of manufacturing and public utilities. Most has been sold off to foreign countries and we are in debt up to our eyeballs to global money markets . We have not got much left to be sovereign over. Hence the abyss we are facing now. Finally, we are not among the top 6 richest countries -we are not even in the top twenty on all economists measures and we are pushing ourselves off a cliff – cutting off noses to spite ourselves.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: