More evidence CLP ‘demand’ for new referendum wildly overstated

Earlier this week, the media media claimed that ‘hundreds’ of motions sent by constituency Labour parties (CLPs) to Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) demanding the party consult members again about a new referendum.

The SKWAWKBOX showed that the claims were incorrect, with one NEC member saying ‘a couple of dozen at most’ had been received. The journalist in question subsequently retracted the claim and changed it to about sixty.

However, other NEC members have contacted the SKWAWKBOX with further information showing the number is far lower.

One told the SKWAWKBOX that the number was ‘as low as ten and certainly no more than twenty’, while a third was more specific and stated that there were seventeen.

Interestingly, one of the sources told this blog that for the approaching women’s conference the party has received more than 170 motions – but only one was related to a new referendum or even to Brexit.

It seems Labour Party members recognise, whatever their feelings about leaving the EU, that a Labour government is a far higher priority for the suffering millions in this country.

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.

15 responses to “More evidence CLP ‘demand’ for new referendum wildly overstated

  1. This may be a little misleading. I fully support a second referendum, but am no longer pursuing it because it’s highly unlikely that it’s going to happen; there’s no point flogging a dead horse! That may be a reason why it’s not being raised for the women’s upcoming conference.

    • The fact that you personally still want a second Referendum, but have given it up as a tactical dead parrot, is of note, but politically irrelevant. The point is that CLP’s in any numbers are not clamouring for a second Referendum. In other words the entire , supposedly massively popular, PV stunt has been a load of deliberately diversionary hokum by the Mandelson/Blair /Big Business anti Corbyn sabotage lobby in our party. Still, now that you have given the PV diversion up , Joe, welcome back to the real priority, ie, working flat out for a General Election

      • So – a policy option agreed at Conference is :

        ” diversionary hokum by the Mandelson/Blair /Big Business anti Corbyn sabotage lobby in our party.”

        How do you sleep at night with all those conspirators (plus ordinary Labour Party members) continually out to get you?

        On one thing I do agree with you – referendums do tend to be diversionary hokum, or a tactical ploy at best. The one we’re subjected to at the moment is a typical right-wing cunning plot that has successfully diverted attention from the real issues. Problem is : another one might be the only way to undo the damage.

      • You are being disingenuous again RH. You know that the option was only added to placate remain supporting MPs. Given that it was never going to be realised unless the people as a whole, across all political boundaries demanded it. That never happened, except in a few constituencies, which never gave you the right to claim there was “overwhelming support” for a second referendum and quote YouGov polls funded by Best for Britain as fact…..it never was, except in your bubble.

      • I guess it’s possible to close one eye and label any conference decision that you don’t like as inauthentic in terms of an imagined Party rather than the real one.

        I’m afraid that *all* the credible evidence indicates the basic fact that *all* analysed categories of the Party prefer remaining in the EU.

        The question of whether they would back another referendum is very much dependent on what specific question is asked, and perceived practicalities – but again, a majority are in favour in general terms, as reflected in the policy.

        What *is* total bollocks is the idea that support for Brexit and opposition to a further vote is a badge of left wing principles, and conversely that it is a rightist plot to be in favour. I’d hardly call John Mann, for instance, a scion of the left.

        That’s just the way it is.

  2. It’s increasingly obvious that you oppose a new referendum because you want to leave the EU. AM I right? (A GE won’t solve a thing, by the way!)

    • It depends what you mean my “a thing” redistribution of wealth, student fees, NHS and councils adequately funded, etc. Brexit is a side show not the main event.

      • Surely whether one views Brexit as a side show or an essential precondition depends entirely on whether one believes that the redistribution of wealth and adequate funding of public services are compatible with the capitalist system. Under the EU Treaties the Member States may not depart from capitalism in any meaningful way. Tony Benn called them the only constitution anywhere in the world which explicitly protected capitalism.

        The collapse of social democracy in Britain under the 1976-9 Callaghan government and its durable replacement by neoliberalism showed that shifting wealth in favour of working people and well funded services are incompatible with the domination of private enterprise which the EU protects, through its insistence on marketization.

      • It was certainly a blow when the working class began to swing behind Thatcher in 1980.

  3. A little insight from a local level, my CLP had 2 motions supporting a 2nd referendum discussed at this last Wednesday’s GM as you would expect it was a heated and at times not comradely at all! however they were not carried and the vote against was overwhelming with a larger than normal turn out from members many new.

    The motion at conference was clear the abiding aim is before anything else is to force this morally and politically corrupt govt into a GE.

    The comment above from Chris Lovett a GE won’t solve a thing, it will give us the chance to fight for a Labour Govt and that means one hell of a lot to many people, and this is not an overstatement it’s life & death to many people in this country! Leaving the EU is not the only big issue, to many it’s way way down the list, getting food is first!!

  4. The conference resolution merely said that a public vote should be on the table as an option.

    Moreover it never said that “Remain” should be an option on the ballot paper of any such second referendum.

    Indeed logic would suggest otherwise – since the EU referendum already determined the “Leave versus Remain” issue.

    • The leave v remain issue has not been resolved. The reality of remaining lost to a thousand different versions of and beliefs about leave.

      What we need is a vote of real world v real world, not real world v everyone’s mutually incompatible idealised fantasies.

      • “The leave v remain issue has not been resolved.”

        Of course it hasn’t, as is proved by the parroting of the nonsense that the last mess of a referendum produced a decisive result that should be cast in stone.

        It didn’t, and the resort to the fiction of pretending that it did is usually a substitute for rational argument in the face of clear evidence in order to progress the ERG.

  5. I agree with Chris, a General Election won’t resolve anything, but I put in a post earlier this week that a General election isn’t likely to happen. Those who think it is are equally deluded as I was over a second referendum.

Leave a Reply