MSM, centrists attack Labour leaflet – for stating Labour policy

‘Mainstream’ media happy to amplify centrist ‘outrage’ – but misrepresent Labour policy
Fury As Corbyn European Elections Leaflet Suggests Labour Backs

Political editors and reporters of ‘mainstream’ publications have been talking up the ‘outrage’ of centrist MPs, MEPs and candidates at Labour’s new leaflet for the European Parliament elections – outrage that the leaflets don’t say something that isn’t Labour’s policy anyway.

The Huffington Post splashed on the ‘fury’ supposedly triggered by Labour’s leaflet:

Pippa Crerar of the Mirror amplified:

Waugh also tweeted that “MPs, MEPs and members in full revolt over no mention of 2nd referendum” – and quoted a ‘shadow minister’ claiming that “Keir [Starmer] is furious” because the leaflet “doesn’t reflect [Labour] policy“.

Huffington Post executive editor Jess Brammar got in on the act, stating that it is Labour policy to ‘push’ for a new vote:

But of course, there is no Labour policy to ‘push’ for a referendum. No policy to ‘commit’ to one – or for that matter to ‘mention’ one.

Labour’s policy remains what it has always been. In spite of a months-long habit of journalists and others to either misstate it or claim it’s unclear, it’s not especially complicated:

Honour the 2016 referendum result, achieve a Labour-driven Brexit agreement with the EU – and keep the option of a new vote open, just in case there’s no other way to prevent the disastrous ‘hard’ Brexit the Tories want, or even worse, May’s awful ‘deal’.

Labour’s leaflet rightly makes no mention of a new referendum – apart from anything else it’s been tried in Parliament four times, with Labour fully ‘whipping’ their MPs on three of those occasions; and it’s been soundly defeated each and every time.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

A new referendum is one of those ‘unicorns’ centrists like to refer to – and there’s no justification for wasting space in Labour’s leaflet on it. It’s a needless distraction, as well as not being policy.

In short, Labour was attacked this evening for preparing a leaflet that not only states what its policy is but also reflects parliamentary realism. But you’d never guess it from the ‘mainstream’ mentions.

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. Which is all very well but it does ignore the wishes of the majority of Labour members and voters plus it is a betrayal of what most delegates thought they had voted for at conference. It’s hardly surprising that there is some kickback.

    1. “A betrayal of what most delegates thought they had voted for at conference”,oh really SteveH,and you were privy to the thinking of all the delegates were you,quite an achievement that.

      1. The rapturous applause and standing ovation that Keir Starmer received plus a number of articles written by conference delegates plus delegates I have spoken to myself plus the actual text of the composite motion passed unanimously.

    2. Establishment man Sir Starmer. The chap who decided not to prosecute PC Simon Hardwood over the death of Ian Tomlinson…

      He did however prosecute that chap who said some stupid crap on twitter, Paul Chambers.

      Also involved in advice (for a while) to Gina Miller. That’s the woman who spends more on glasses of wine than your kid earns for a day’s pay.

      Man reminds me of Tony Bliar…

      1. “Establishment man Sir Starmer. The chap who decided not to prosecute PC Simon Hardwood over the death of Ian Tomlinson…”

        Yes, indeed.

        The very same ‘sir’ starmer that resigned as DPP on the very day the met said
        seb fox/michael green/grant shapps’ (Or whatever he calls himself this week) *ahem* ‘business dealings’: ‘May have constitued an offence of fraud’.

        But of course, that was the Met’s decision not to prosecute…

      2. ‘Establishment’ : the epithet selectively scattered around like confetti when argument fails.

      3. None of what you say changes the fact that Keir Starmer’s speech at conference received a resounding endorsement from conference delegates.

        It’s notable that you have had to resort to attacking personalities rather than the ideas being discussed here.
        What do you have against Gina Miller?

      4. So RH, what would you describe a man with a knighthood, with the initials KCB (Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath) and a member of the Privvy council.

        Yes, Corbyn is on the Privvy council, but only because he is leader of the opposition, and its well known that he was begrudged this)

        So, please educate us on what Sir Keir Starmer, queen’s council, should be described as…

        Is it because he’s a remainer?

      5. @SteveH Money, entitlement. A complete disregard for democracy…

        Husband is a hedge fund manager. Makes more in a month than we all do in a year.

        A major contributor towards inequality, the blight of this country.

      6. Kier Starmer is quite simply “our man in the Party from the UK Deep State”. You don’t get to be DPP unless the capitalist state have utter confidence in your unswerving support for the neoliberal status quo. Starmer’s speech at Conference was indeed clapped to the echo by the noisy , cynical “Love Corbyn-Hate Brexit” T shirt wearing ,pro EU, middle class Left Liberals who were there in very large numbers. They obviously had no problem with an utterly uncritical pro EU position indistinguishable in any way from a speech Lib Dem Vince Cable could have made. There is no “Remain and Reform” in Starmer’s vision of the EU – he is just for “Remain” , perfectly happy with it just as it is – neoliberal enforcement machine and smasher of the Greek economy, and enforcer of endless austerity, that it is. But the fact remains that the composited Brexit motion does NOT require that Labour adopts a second referendum as policy – but only retains it “as an option”, as Skwawkbox states. The umpteen pro Remain, pro second referendum, motions on offer would, if adopted, have destroyed our Party voting base across the midlands, north and Wales. A fact of no concern to our resident pro EU trolls.

      7. jpenney 26/04/2019 at 11:46 am

        Do you mean the same Keir Starmer who is the son of a toolmaker and a nurse.

        As for Gina Miller Why would you even mention who she’s married to. Don’t you think that this a little old fashioned and misogynistic of you. Do you have a problem with successful women.

        I suggest you educate yourself and read up on their respective biographies before you embarrass yourself further.

      8. Well, NVLA – I notice your confirming selectivity.

        Try these three for impeccable ‘establishment credentials in terms of background and position :

        Jeremy Corbyn
        Seaumas Milne
        Andrew Murray

        .. all public school alumni with impeccable upper middle class backgrounds (and Milne – shock horror – with direct links to the BBC and the Guardian!)

        I point this out merely to highlight the fatuity of such simple generalisations (aka bollocks) based on naive classism – when it suits.

      9. @RH. So they got a nice education…

        Ever read about what was done to Milne’s father?

        Note also that he was popped onto gardening leave. And that there was no room at the inn as MI5s candidate, Viner took the reins. Note also the Scott trust board members.

        What about Corbyn? Failed his education didn’t he? Learned more from pig farming than school. At least that’s what the media tells me.

        Murray. Trades unionist. Not a fan of unions myself. More about lining their own pocket. But their legal departments are handy to have behind you.

        YoullY note than not one has been knighted, or awarded an establishment bauble.


        Patience! I can’t be here to reply everytime, but I promise I will not shirk away. If I see it, it gets a reply (if the comment deserves one, of course)

      10. Gina Miller, former model (not sure of what she modelled exactly), clearly rose to the top for her brains and not her figure…

        Her husband is using her, and its painfully obvious.

        Still, if you want to think of her as someone she isn’t, you crack on.

        And it’s not misogynistic to point out her husband’s obvious interests. If he was a model, then I’d agree with you that it’s wrong.

      11. NVLA 26/04/2019 at 12:36 pm
        “Gina Miller, former model (not sure of what she modelled exactly), clearly rose to the top for her brains and not her figure…

        Her husband is using her, and its painfully obvious.

        That’s sexist and could you please explain how her husband is using her and how that was expressed when you wrote “Husband is a hedge fund manager. Makes more in a month than we all do in a year.”

        You really should take the time to read up on her biography before you embarrass yourself any further.

        I suppose the question remains apart from the fact that she is a very successful business woman with a successful husband what has Gina Miller done that you are so concerned about.

      12. I love it, NVLA. Immediately falling into the trap of busting a gut papering over ‘establishment’ backgrounds when it so suits!

        Point proved, I think.

        Just stop using the term as meaningless blarney as an ad hominem substitute for substantive argument. The terms ‘establishment’ and ‘class’ aren’t much use as virtue/vice signalling. They’re just a sign of bullshit when used like this.

      13. @SteveH seems I had the wrong Miller in my sights. And for that, I apologise.

        It’ll teach me to cross reference next time.

        However, reading her bio, it’s not like she started off in the Mossside with bugger all, is it?


        None of the three you mentioned are my mates. Hence the name…

        Corbyn is spineless, Milne is out for revenge and Murray is a union man…

        But the three combined don’t compare to Starmer’s establishment credentials.

        And this has nothing to do with remain or leave.

    3. Why do you think you are superior to other people and that the opinions of a few hundred thousand Labour members outweigh 17,400,000 leave votes?

      You aren’t and they don’t.

      If you don’t like democracy go and live in Saudi Arabia.

      1. I don’t know which offends me more,the arrogance of “Remainers”, or comments like yours Internal Affairs,that belong in the Daily Express

      2. Ad hominem attacks are usually the sign of a person who is unable to make a reasoned argument. I will give you a chance to regain the credibility you have lost with that silly smear.

        I am a democratic socialist, therefore I respect democratic results.

        Do you respect democratic results, John? Are you a democrat?

      3. Ad hominem attacks are usually the sign of a person who is unable to make a reasoned argument. I will give you a chance to regain the credibility you have lost with that silly smear.

        If you apply the same criteria to your own posts then you lost any credibility you may once have had many, many moons ago.

        Your lack of self awareness is staggering.

      4. … you mean in the same way as a simple majority of voters supported the continuation of austerity? Perhaps we should just give up on that one too?

      5. There are always exceptions to the rule SteveH.

        Me calling you and RH and John Thatcher imbeciles, cretins, and right wing Blairite trolls who want Labour to lose the next election are not ad hominem attacks, they are merely self evidently true statements of fact.

      6. “Me calling you and RH and John Thatcher imbeciles, cretins, and right wing Blairite trolls who want Labour to lose the next election are not ad hominem attacks,”

        No – you’re right, IA. They’re just barmy (and nonsensically contradictory and hilarious, to boot).

  2. The Labour leadership have fulfilled the instructions given to them by Party members and in full open consultation with them at the last Party Conference. The option of a second referendum is still on the table, just in case there is no other way of preventing a damaging hard Brexit or any other kind of Tory inflicted economic suicide on this country, along with our first choice option, which is to also campaign for the general election the country desperately wants and needs.

    1. What would be “damaging”, Nicola K, for the interests of working class people is any Brexit settlement which does not safeguard the freedoms of a Labour government to
      (a) extend public ownership through the radical expansion of national monopoly
      (b) deploy state subsidy to distort markets and help British industry
      (c) use public procurement to boost national employment and living standards and
      (d) have an immigration policy which precludes an unlimited labour supply.

      In other words, hard Brexit is the only socialist option. Soft Brexit is Remain by another name.


      1. Danny 26/04/2019 at 8:21 am

        I think you’ll find that manipulating markets through state subsides is also against WTO rules.

        According to this client briefing paper published by leading City law firm Clifford Chance membership of the EU is not a threat to Labour’s nationalisation plans for rail,water, energy or the Post office but post Brexit trade deals will be the real and actual threat to these plans.

        Take back control?

      2. Your point is well made, Steve. The idea that trade agreements outside the EU are free of constraints is naive at best. In fact, one of the main planks of the Remain argument has always been that they will be *more* constrained from a weakened negotiating position.

      3. So why did the Leave campaign repeatedly dismiss talk of hard Brexit as Project Fear and insist it would never happen?

    1. The question to be asking is why they joined in the first place?

      Iain Hook?
      Rachel Corrie?
      James Miller?
      Tom Hurndall?

      Never mind others who have been left disabled, such as Brian Avery.

      Then there’s the thousands of Palestinians killed or injured, including small children…

      Any MP involved in this “club” should be thoroughly ashamed, and is not worth and decent persons vote or support!

      1. Apparently all MPs are “invited to join” as soon as they enter Parliament. It’s like fresher’s fair and older guide them through what to join and what not to.

      2. Shows massive ignorance, or naivety, or greed.

        If a minimum wage grunt like me can be aware, how does a Labour MP (elected due to “being the best” to represent) get away with this?!?!

  3. Mention of a 2nd referendum would be hailed or derided as a Corbyn commitment by the scum press and both sides of the barricades.
    More words would be needed to explain the manifesto than are in the manifesto itself – too much for a leaflet.
    Even people here still argue over it and the meaning/effect/intention of conference decisions.
    This isn’t the time to commit – let the Tories eat brexshit until it chokes them.

  4. I meant to post the following a few days ago, but then forgot to. It’s an excerpt from a piece Craig Murray posted on his website on March 7th (2019), and what he’s relating must be one of the most amazing coincidences in the history of the planet. If you believe it WAS a coincidence, that is! In his article, he goes on to explain how – and when – it came to light (in part 3):

    The very first person to discover the Skripals ill on a park bench in Salisbury just happened to be the Chief Nurse of the British Army, who chanced to be walking past them on her way back from a birthday party. How lucky was that? The odds are about the same as the chance of my vacuum cleaner breaking down just before James Dyson knocks at my door to ask for directions. There are very few people indeed in the UK trained to give nursing care to victims of chemical weapon attack, and of all the people who might have walked past, it just happened to be the most senior of them!

    Pure: Ten Points I Just Can’t Believe About the Official Skripal Narrative


    1. PS But of course anyone who believes that two people – who had come in to contact with a nerve agent three to four hours earlier (I wonder if for some strange reason they both gripped the door handle at the same time, or at different times!) – could both suddenly be affected by it in exactly the same moment, is either living in Cloud Cuckoo-land, or is lying.

      And in the Real World, it would have been all over the media that the Chief Nurse of the British Army was the first responder, except for the small matter that it would have seemed too incredible to most people that she just happened to be walking past at that precise moment and, as such, made them very suspicious about it all, and THAT of course is why it DIDN’T get into the media.

      And there’s no way on this Earth that it would take five months to identify the culprits (with dozens of people working round the clock looking through the CCTV), more like five days!

      And then there were Sergei Skripal’s guinea pigs and his cat, who were taken away to be examined at some point shortly afer the (alleged) poisoning, as reported by the Sun in an article on March 17th, and then lo and behold, the guinea pigs are found dead in Mr Skripal’s house – and the cat in such a state that it had to be put to sleep – some ten days or so AFTER the Sun article (which actually had a picture of the animals at the facility where they were taken). They are of course alive and well, and long re-united with Sergei and Yulia Skripal!

      1. What possible beans could he spill that would have the affects you refer to? Oh, *I* know, Heinz baked beans.

        Triple Skripal, yerse, it’s got a nice ring to it.

  5. Poor old Skripal is undoubtedly dead, probably his daughter too. He helped compile the Steel dossier and my logic informs me that the narrative closest to the truth is, he was a triple agent wanting to return to Russia.

    1. But just out of curiousity, who do you think had them killed? As for wanting to return to Russia, he didn’t – just to be clear – want to go back there to live, he just wanted (allegedly) to go back to visit his family, which are two entirely different things.

      And if, as has been alleged by a friend of Mr Skripal’s, he wrote to Vladimir Putin asking for his forgiveness (which the Kremlin categorically denies), then if Vladimir was so keen to bump him off, wouldn’t the obvious thing for him to have done is to tell Sergei that he forgives him, and tell him he is free to visit his family in Russia whenever he wants to, and then when he DOES, make sure he has an unfortunate ‘accident’, or a ‘heart attack’. Oh, right, but I suppose THAT was too easy!

      1. Allan this thread is about Labour’s manifesto commitment to leave the EU.

        Please stop posting long winded off topic comments on this site.

      2. IA. As I said to you just recently, is anyone forcing you to read them? No, of course they’re not. Problem solved. And who the hell do you think you are telling ME what I can or can’t do. Are you some kind of fascist authoritarian. People on here go off topic all the time if they feel they have something that will be of interest to others, but I don’t recall you ever saying anything about it. I mean REALLY, what the #### are you on. And what purpose does it serve to say such things when you know of course that I will continue to do what I want, and I’m hardly going to bow to your commands…… Jeeze, I just hope to heaven you’re not a school teacher! One thing’s pretty much for certain though, you like to throw your weight around don’t you, like the bully-boy you undoubtedly ARE!

      3. Go and set up your own website if you want to make off topic and long winded comments.

        Stop cluttering up this site please. Readers fo not come here to listen to you waffle on about subjects unrelated to the reports being posted.

        Everyone knows that is what trolls do. People also know that trolls accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. Your last paragraph perfectly describes your own behaviour here.

        Do everyone a favour and fuck off, there’s a good troll.

      4. I would like to apologise for swearing, Allan. That is not acceptable.

        But my point stands. Your contributions here clutter up this site, detract from the issues at hand and make the comments section unreadable and incoherent.

        It is possible that you are just a lonely individual who posts long winded and off topic comments to feel part of this community. Alternatively you are just a right wing troublemaking troll.

        Your response and behaviour going forward will determine which of these you actually are.

      5. But just out of curiousity, who do you think had them killed? ”
        I’m not sure you’re being serious. Who’s hands were they in when they were last known to be alive? If I’m wrong, one day they’ll reappear….I’d bet every last penny that will never happen. “It’s now a year since he was alleged to have recovered. During that time there have been zero public appearances and not even one public statement put out in his name. Additionally, it is known with certainty that he has not been in contact with his mother back in Russia — not on her birthday, not at New Year and not at Christmas — which has caused her great distress. This is not just odd; it is highly disturbing, especially given that Mr Skripal was said to be in the habit of contacting his mother every week prior to 4th March. With Yulia Skripal. Not only was a statement released in her name upon departure from Salisbury District Hospital, followed by a Reuters video of her reading out a pre-prepared statement, but she was also allowed reasonably regular contact with her family, including her cousin and grandmother — up to 24th July last year (that is, up to the point that she told her cousin that she “now understood everything”). If Yulia’s security can be protected, there is no reason that Sergei’s security can not also be guaranteed.

        One thing I am sure of having read all the available comment is, there was no novichok, other than samples supplied by Porton Down. And Dawn Sturgess was an unfortunate red herring foisted on us by the security services, I’d also be willing to bet she died from a heroin overdose, but that is never going to known.

    2. @Lundiel.

      Your description is the most likely reason behind the farce. Not sure if MI5 were out to silence Skripal and he contacted his old handlers, or vice versa.

      But, considering that experts have said the Steele report is just like an old school KGB report is not to be dismissed.

      If military spec chemical weapons had been used in Salisbury, half of Salisbury would be dead. And that’s everything with a pulse too!

      And there’s no way the Army’s chief nurse would let her kid near chemical attack victims, because she would have been dead!

    3. I’m not sure if this post is gonna end up where I hope it’s gonna end up, but anyway, it’s in response to lundiel’s 1.49pm post.

      Lundiel, I know you said you’re not going to comment on this issue again, but I just want to respond to what you said, and you can then decide whether you won’t to answer, or not. I only know the basics about the Steele dossier, but from what I DO know, I can’t see or understand why British security forces would have any reason to bump him off just because he (allegedly) was involved with the Steele dossier, but maybe THAT’S because you know something about it al that I don’t. Whether the dossier was real or all fabrication, the only person it was going to’hurt’ was Donald Trump, so why would British security forces have any reason to bump him off? And if that was their only intention, why would they create such an elaborate story involving Novichok etc, etc, etc? Yes, I know he hasn’t been in touch with his mother and all the rest of it, and Yulia hasn’t been in touch with her cousin (and I seem to recall that she had a boyfriend in Russia as well, but the longer the ‘silence’ goes on, the more people are going to wonder about them, and given that Yulia’s a Russian citizen, you would have thought that they would be asking – demanding even – proof of the British Government that she’s still alive.

      Anyway, I really would be grateful if you could just quickly explain why Sergei Skripal’s (alleged) involvement with the Steele dossier would give the British security services reason to bump him off. Thanks.

      PS And IA, if you just read this post then you have only yourself to blame! And I have no doubt if I were to go back through all the SB articles during the past year that WEREN’T related to Brexit, I would find dozens and dozens of examples where the main topic being discussed ended up being Brexit – ie it quickly took over from the subject matter of the article – and no doubt you yourself have been involved in more than a few of them. Lighten up bro. Or are you just doing what you’re paid to do! Whatever the case, you’re obviously a nasty piece of work, and I mean that most sincerely. And I will of course continue to post what I think will be of interest to many people or, for example, do you really expect me to wait around for another article by SB about ‘Salisbury’ before I post about the amazing coincidence that happened that day. Give over! Clutter, my foot (or perhaps some OTHER part of my anatomy)!!

      1. Afterthought: Do you write for the Sun by any chance, or perhaps the Daily Mail!

      2. Because if he were a triple agent planning to return to Russia and spill the beans, it would have been a huge global political embarrassment, imagine Sergei holding a press conference in Moscow. It would have signalled the end of the new cold war, sanctions, the European policy on the Baltic states, the end of the fascist regime in Ukraine, massive weakening of NATO and countless other investigations into western security services. The whole thing doesn’t add up and the facts that are available point to a hastily constructed fabrication to protect American interests. Otherwise you would currently have a massive investigation into the Democrats. When Sergei and Yulia appear in public and all the glaring gaps in the official narrative, including film from static cameras never used and questionable imagery….then I might change my mind.

  6. Despite the fulminations of a minority of Labour supporters, and just as with the timidity over confronting the antisemitism scam, Labour has walked right into this one.

    It’s no good rabbiting on about policy being ‘perfectly clear’. That is not how it is seen out there, and the fence stuck up the arse has been a problem for a long time. All perfectly predictable and frustrating.

    1. But not as frustrating as if they were to commit electoral suicide and hand a massive propaganda victory to Farage by committing to a second referendum.

      1. That is not the outcome shown by analysis. Remember – there is a majority of Remain votes now to tap into.

  7. “But of course, there is no Labour policy to ‘push’ for a referendum. No policy to ‘commit’ to one – or for that matter to ‘mention’ one.”
    Not according to our own Change supporters RH &SteveH eh comrades.

    1. ” Change supporters”

      … most accurately describes the effect of those in the Party supporting Brexit,(and opposing democratic resolution) – ensuring a drift of voters away from Labour to – more particularly – the Greens and LibDems.

      1. While the Liberal Democrats lost over 300 deposits at the last election with a pro EU policy, Labour won 40% of the vote on a pro-Brexit ticket. 82% of voters voted for pro-Brexit parties at the general election.

        The Liberal party’s polling has been flat as a pancake since that election.

        The Brexit Party, a party established literally five minutes ago, is now outpolling parties which have been established for over a century.

        And you keep arguing Labour should copy the electoral suicide strategy of the Liberals.

        You must be clinically insane.

      2. The LibDems’ annihilation had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit (if you check the polls you’ll see that most LibDems are pro-EU) and everything to do with the betrayal of their member’s and voter’s core values and beliefs. A lesson that Labour would do well to heed.

      3. As usual and as with most fanatics, Int Aff goes over the top with his language.

        The only democratic way forward, which despite the vociferous opposition by a few Labour eccentrics, should be clearly stated by the Party as a confirmation vote by the people, no ifs or buts.

      4. Indeed, IA’s argument is a red herring. A lot of votes went to Labour *despite* a lukewarm pro-Brexit position, not because of it.

        Currently, Labour’s relative recovery is linked to transfer of Tory votes to Garage et co.- not to any massive growth in Labour support.

        As UCL research has most recently shown, the potential of losing Remain votes is far more of a threat than losing Leave votes.

        The Labour vote always has been solidly pro-EU, and not a ‘working class’ Leave vote. That idea is a total myth.

      5. @RH

        Put your money where you confidence is.

        I’ve bet on Farage’s new party sweeping up seats.

        Then there’s that odious git Robinson… hilarious how religious leaders and MPs can unite over this new “democratic” threat, yet are silent on their congregation and constituents suffering…

        The political class is reaping what they sow, and remain is partially enabling this.

  8. Time to beat the drum & follow the ‘Socialist Path’ as endorsed by Owen Smith; Keir Starmer; Tom Watson; Alastair Campbell………Luciana Berger; Chuka Umunna et al………..beat the drum, who do you follow?

    1. steve richards at 11:17 am

      I stronly believe that as a members led party we should be following the views endorsed by the the vast majority of our members (and voters).

      Do you agree?

      1. So you are arguing we should abolish Trident then SteveH? The members are in favour of that too.

      2. Internal Affairs 26/04/2019 at 12:14 pm
        “So you are arguing we should abolish Trident then SteveH? The members are in favour of that too.”

        YES of course I do, don’t you?

      3. Yes.

        So, let us progress the argument. If Labour members wanted guns to be made freely available without background checks then by your own logic a Labour government should introduce that too?

      4. “Members led……?” I have been a member of the Labour Party for most of my adult life, except for a time when Blair became leader. I was unable to stomach that corrupted concept of Socialism. A lot of members voted for him & still would; you are still heeding his call & those of his acolytes. When Jeremy Corbyn became leader I re-opened my subscription.

        There is one leader who has spent most of his working life criticising the European Union. His message……accept the Referendum result! It appears that you don’t like it.

      5. steve richards 26/04/2019 at 1:47 pm

        To quote Jeremy Corbyn “policy will be made by Labour members, not the leader”

      6. So, SteveH, you agree that the membership of the Labour Party can and should be ignored if its views are ridiculous or would damage the party.

        Unfortunately for you that completely undermines your whole argument about the party leadership having to listen to the membership who want to ignore the referendum result.

      7. Internal Affairs 26/04/2019 at 8:27 pm

        Don’t be a f wit, would you want to be a member of a party that you disagreed with on something so fundamental. ·

    2. Sound like a group of folks who beat off…

      Can’t believe remainers are happy cosying up to liar Campbell. The man is a disease…

      1. NVLA

        Oh come on, please don’t continue to belittle yourself with such a silly childish argument.

      2. Each ‘Waaah!!’ leaver post tends to be a mark of the defeated argument.

        Obviously, the Labour Party has a wide open field to now speak for the genuinely progressive vote, since the Tories and Farrago are hoovering up the recidivists.

      3. They are a bunch of wankers.

        Umunna? Top bloke… Smith? Corporate white…Berger…vocab vocab consists entirely of two words anti Semitic. Got where she is from shagging Bliars lad…Twatson? ‘Nuff said…Starmer…already spoken about further above.

        And Campbell. The liar, or spinner (to use the company speak)

        The man helped take us to war. All because the yanks wanted regime change in Iraq (as admitted by warhawk, Bolton).

        He would be doing time, and be uniting with him (over a different subject, granted) leave you tainted (just a bit)

        Why do you think I have the posting name I use? Because I’m workshy? Or because I’m fed up with extremely dubious characters involved with my chances (or much more importantly), and the youths chances

      4. NVLA
        Doesn’t warhawk John Bolton also support a hard Brexit

      5. RH’s or your comment? These are my feelings.

        I particularly dislike Campbell because I was involved with Desert Storm. After seeing the MSR aka Highway of death, finding out I was lied to (also by the Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter) wasn’t pleasant.

        I’ll never _ever_ be able to erase what I saw on that road. And all for lies…

      6. Indeed he does, as does Trump. But I would imagine that’s more to do with destabilising the EU than anything else.

        It doesn’t convince me to vote remain though. Amongst other things, I can still remember Obama telling us it was back of the queue. Also, the yanks are spoiling for war.

  9. You are right to say that Labour was attacked by the MSM for stating our policy. However we, and in particular Jeremy Corbyn, are attacked by the MSM every day for something – we are simultaneously attacked for being pro and anti Brexit, our pledge to help the least well off in society is portrayed as ” Marxist”, we are accused of being an army of anti Semites, institutionally racist and a lot of other guff which most people recognise for what it is and take with a pinch of salt. I do accept however that some people swallow it whole but generally speaking fair minded people don’t – they see it as a disgusting attempt to manipulate public into voting the way the billionaire owners of the media and the state broadcaster – the BBC whose senior staff are on astronomical publicly funded salaries -want them to vote.
    At the last election we saw a huge increase in our Vote and we deprived Theresa May of her majority. Now despite all the slurs and smears Jeremy and the rest of us have to contend with, we are now well ahead in the polls and public dissatisfaction with the Tories becomes more obvious every day. That’s why the attacks on us have become more vicious. These are clearly not working and as long as we don’t do a Kinnock and throw the next election away by being overconfident we have every chance that Jeremy Corbyn will be our next Prime Minister.

    1. “… we are now well ahead in the polls and public dissatisfaction with the Tories becomes more obvious every day.”

      Those of us who are adamant about out ‘Remain’ position are that in part because we see the evidence that the current Labour lead is fragile as a result of the ambiguity of the position on Brexit. Come the crunch, analysis shows that this will do damage, and that the idea of picking up leaver votes to compensate is a mirage.

      The hard fact it that Labour support is way below what would be deemed a healthy position (look at the moving average of polls) – the period of ‘constructive ambiguity’ has seen a shedding of support from the high point of the election of about 10 percentage points.

      This is masked by the collapse of Tory support. ‘Well ahead in the polls’ needs to be realistically qualified – and scrabbling for the same votes as those that the Tories, Brexit and UKIP are fighting for guarantees nothing. It will be the solid core of Remain voters that will make the difference for Labour, and simply assuming that vote will stay with a Leaver Party is hope rather than strong odds.

      1. Don’t you imagine the party have done the numbers and their current stance isn’t because Corbyn is a closet Brexiteer, despite voting remain, but because the VOTERS, not the members count. And though the numbers run in remains favour in the metropolitan areas (where most of the members live), they don’t in the constituencies that Labour needs to win. Plus Labour has lost some metropolitan votes due to its stance, but not enough to make any difference.
        How many times do I need to tell you, most people aren’t fanatical remainders, they understand the referendum vote can never be rolled back and they are sick and tired of all the lies and propaganda.
        If your fantasy was anyway near true, Labour would back staying in. They would still not back a second referendum because it would be dishonest and a betrayal of principal.

      2. My ”fantasy’ is based on solid electoral research. What’s your view based on?

        ‘The referendum result can never be rolled back’ – ?????

        Error …. that sounds like a religious dogma rather than a rational view. Since when was a minority vote irreversible?

      3. I would think that your position as a adamant remainer is a minority one – the Lib Dems are making no headway despite being a pro remain party and the impression I get is that most remainers( like me) respect the outcome of the referendum and are happy with a soft, jobs first Brexit. I have no evidence to back this up – its just the feeling I get talking to others who also would have preferred to remain in the EU.
        Regarding our lead in the Polls I don’t think it has that much to do with Brexit. I think issues like the NHS, Universal Credit, Tuition Fees, law and order etc are what are upppermost in peoples minds and that is why we are in the lead.

      4. “respect the outcome of the referendum”

        As I’ve often pointed out, smartboy, the ‘outcome of the referendum’ was a conclusive ‘?????’, with only a minority supporting Brexit. It was way less convincing than the 1970s decision, and to portray it as decisive is sheer fiction.

      5. The referendum result was a close one I agree. Maybe the government at that time should have required a two thirds majority for change ( as most Trade Unions do on constitutional change)rather than a simple majority – they didn’t and all parties undertook to abide by the outcome.
        You don’t like the result – neither do I but the difference between us is that you won’t accept it. I would reiterate that in my opinion your are in the minority on this one.
        I really feel that most people don’t want to overturn the result and would find a soft Brexit totally acceptable . This will not suit either Remain or Leave hardliners but it is the only sensible outcome – a compromise – which will accommodate the views of most people and which will reflect the closeness of the vote.

  10. I’ll say it again, Steve H & RH…

    ”You put your own affairs in order before you sort anyone else’s.”

    Remember when camoron went to the EU telling us he was gonna get this, that and the other out of them – or else? What did he come back with? What happened about it?

    Even merkel was pissing herself; telling all & sundry: ‘We gave him nothing’.

    Reform from within doesn’t work and has been PROVED not to work.

    So the Great British public told the EU to get bent. And were well within their right to do so Deal with it, we’re offski.

      1. Is that question directed at me?

        Is so, so what if they ARE socialist? Our own Goverment isn’t.

        You really ought to leave the pipe alone if you think a socialist EU president’d be anywhere near enough to even have a fart in a hurricane’s chance of changing the collective mindset of the coroporatocracy ffs.

      2. PES President Sergei Stanishev said:

        “Socialists and Democrats are the driving force behind the social rights agenda, and we will continue to be. Inequalities in wages, in economic development, in social opportunities, in employment, are yet to be addressed, and we are campaigning to change that. At the European elections we are proposing a New Social Contract for Europe, a contract to deliver a Europe with more social rights and protections for everyone.”


      3. I read as far as this and had to stop right there & then.

        ‘We wouldn’t have a NHS or a Welfare System if our predecessors had all been as timid as you.’

        Neither were products of the EU so what’s yer point again?

      4. Well I suppose in a way you have ilustrated my point for me. You’d much rather find some silly excuse rather than read the information provided and reflect on it. The reference to the NHS etc was to make the point that we would never have got anywhere if we all just ran away from the struggle for what is right.

      5. Either read the information provided and comment on it in which case I’ll be more than happy to have a sensible exchange with you or stop wasting my time.

    1. You want me to debate your pipe dream? Debate something that hasn’t and probly won’t happen over something that HAS AND SHOULD?

      Rather peremptory of you, innit? Take yer rattle in yer hand and keep it in your pram because I won’t be the one handing it back.

      1. Reaffiming WHAT point?

        I don’t deign to debate with someone what essentily links foundation of the NHS and welfare state to the EU (On behalf of those fearless remain campaigners).

        And you try to portray yourself as a socialist; at the very least a man of the left? Just WHO are you trying to kid? Pull the other one, lad – You’ll easily recognise it, it’s got a handmade Italian shoe on the end of it.


      2. My apologies, I hadn’t appreciated that you had a problem with basic English comprehension.

      3. No need to apologise, vince. I hadn’t appreciated your interminable struggle with reality…

      4. Brave steve h. Alongside his EU buddies he bravely fought the baddies and gave us the NHS & welfare state.

        You couldn’t make it up…Unless you was steve h.

        I suppose the EU are in the thick of the battle to save the NHS from the privateers, eh? You know – Like they are with the utilities, power, rail etc?

        F**king pathetic. Now it’s my turn to make demands of you & see if you can comprehend.

        Where was the ‘reform from within’ when camoron went to brussels like billy big bollocks, and came back with his kecks around his ankles, crying for his mam?

        Go on, steve – we’re dying to know.

      5. I’d have said that they sent him bag with a balloon and a party bag, but your description is superior.

        (Would like several of your comments too, but my browser doesn’t play nicely with many features)

  11. The delegates @ the Labour Party Conference voted for their personal preferences & represented their own beliefs. Voting decisions were not made by the wards or constituencies; no prior agenda is discussed & then mandated via representatives…………they are delegates.

    1. Steve, it wasn’t just delegates who cheered the decision to consult the people. It was virtually the whole hall and by all accounts they/we represent at least 70% of the Party and the Labour voting public.

      1. Mental. If 70% of the party think something, it doesn’t follow that 70% of Labour voters, or the public think the same. You’re so wriggly because you’re using Guess work and wishes as if they’re facts. For the last 2 years you (pro remain supporters on this blog) have been peddling the Best for Britain narrative that paid for YouGov polls reflect Labour views, even though I’ve pointed out many times that Donald Duck can join YouGov and claim to be a Labour member/voter.
        The fact is, you just don’t know and the only measure likely to predict current opinion is the results of the upcoming MEP elections.

      2. Denial is just denial, lundenial.

        Sorry to offend your distorted view of reality, but all the evidence indicates that the Labour vote came from those who favoured ‘Remain’ – across the board.

        That doesn’t mean that there were no ‘Leave’ supporters within the Labour vote – they were just in the minority by some margin. Just consider the global picture :

        The electorate was split about 50/50. The Tories and UKIP hoovered up a majority portion of the ‘Leave’ vote. So where did the 50% that were Remain supporting place their crosses? They didn’t all go to the LibDems and Greens.

        Sorry – but your frantic attempts to exaggerate a ‘Leave’ preference amongst Labour voters simply doesn’t stack up under any analysis.

        Oh … and if you want to get into the validity of information, I suggest you examine the role of the right-wing foreign-based Tory press. *That’s* where the overwhelming bias and distortion lies – on the ‘Leave’ side..

  12. SteveH 26/04/2019 at 9:23 am · ·
    None of what you say changes the fact that Keir Starmer’s speech at conference received a resounding endorsement from conference delegates.


    Seem to remember skwawky making several posts about how certain CLP’s were stitching up delegations…Coincidental, I’m sure; but I’ll bet a shitload of them standing to applaud starmer then won’t be delegated to go to the next conference. 😉

      1. Do your own legwork, skwawky made several posts about it.

      1. I see enough sat down in that clip to assure myself it’s not the almost unanimity you’d have people believe with your slippery M.O.

        ‘Resounding’? Nah, not for me it ain’t. Possibly reflects the 70% you’re fond of, but 70% of that room isn’t reflective of the population of the country as a whole – and that’s why remain didn’t get 70% of the vote (and never would, no matter how you’d love that to be the case) isn’t it?

        Oh, and have you evidence of how many (stood up) were there legitimately? I never claimed they all weren’t legit, but I never claimed they all were…can you?

      2. Numeracy not your strong point is it, Toffee? – especially when you cast yourself as a messiah speaking for ‘the population of the country.’ when the Labour Party and vote contradicts your assumptions.

        For clarification – the country is observably split 50/50 (to be generous to the Leave vote), but of the 50% voting Remain, they are in a significant majority in the Labour vote. Let’s leave aside that they additionally, represent the younger and more informed 50%.

        And 50/50, by definition, precludes any wild generalisations about ‘the population of the country’, O Voice of The People.

  13. In fact I’m just gonna leave this here then bugger off to me pit.

    Those like steve h and rh, with their incessant repetitive, spoilt-brat like bleating over a second referendum, only work to the detriment of domestic issues affecting vast swathes of the working class.

    And as a result, their actions have enabled the toerags to the point where it’s now beginning (if increasing murmurs are to be believed) to take their toll on the lower-middle class; regardless of any of their respective EU leanings.

    They are, in my opinion (And I KNOW I’m far from alone in holding it) EVERY BIT as much of a disruptive, unwelcome distraction – as well as being vote-killers and further ammunition for the toerags – as the likes of hodge, streeting mann etc.

    There are other things affecting as many people as brexit, and definitely more than this supposed rife antisemitism.

    I know where my finger’ll be pointing if Labour fail to win the next general election…

    1. Totally agree. They are right wing trolls trying to sabotage the election of a socialist Labour government. End of story.

      I think they are toiling in vain, toffee. The Tories are doomed.

    2. I’ll be surprised if Labour do win. And I won’t be surprised if daft things happen if they do somehow pull it off.

      The broad church crap _is_ crap. There’s the issue of closet Tories and Lib Dems (who for whatever reason don’t stand for their true ideals), then there’s the corruption and pocket lining from characters like Twatson, and even countries…

      Many will do cartwheels in an attempt to hamstring Corbyn (Luke Akehurst) and tell outright lies (Hodge)

      Finally, there’s that quote (supposedly by Mark Twain?)

      “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it”

      I don’t want to bring people down, I just feel that democracy is cobblers. A complete charade.

      Good night

      1. “I just feel that democracy is cobblers. A complete charade”

        .. I remember the guy with the toothbrush moustache and the arm-seizure, and cuddly Uncle Joe (amongst others) having the same problem.

        Still, certainly blows out of the water any appeal to ‘democracy’ over the minority referendum result. 🙂

      2. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

  14. There was a poll for RT done by YouGov on the day A50 was triggered.
    It showed 53% of Leavers and 20% of remainers wanted the return of the death penalty.
    On corporal punishment, 40% leavers and 14% remainers wanted a return to child abuse.
    52% leavers wanted blue passports back, only 16% of remainers.

    Like I always say, more than half the population are thick as fuck.

    1. Well – considering that most of the ‘Leave’ arguments were lifted straight out of the Tory/Non-Dom/Foreign propaganda sheets, you’d have to be somewhat one of the underpowered bulbs in the chandelier to be persuaded by such without clocking their provenance before sticking a gun to your head, and ‘feeling lucky’ by playing Russian Roulette with five bullets. 🙂

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: