Today’s Times has some fresh polling of Labour party members. It was conducted between Tuesday and Thursday this week in the wake of the anti-Semitism row, though is also the first opportunity we’ve seen since the general election to take the general political temperature among Labour party members.

On that second point, the first thing to notice is the major shift in the level of support Jeremy Corbyn has among Labour party members. Two years ago this was still a party divided on the leadership and unsure of his future. Now they are solidly behind him. 80% of Labour members think Corbyn is doing well as leader, just 19% badly. 74% of Labour members think that Jeremy Corbyn should lead the party into the next general, and 64% of members think it is likely that Jeremy Corbyn will become Prime Minister in the future.

This is a complete transformation of attitudes since 2016 – back then, Labour members were split on Corbyn’s performance, didn’t think he could ever win, most didn’t want him to fight the next election. Now, following Corbyn’s victory against Owen Smith and the party’s revivial at the election, Corbyn’s support in the party looks absolutely solid.

Looking briefly at two of the other recent decisions Jeremy Corbyn has made, his members also back him over both his handling of the Salisbury poisonings and his sacking of Owen Smith. 69% think that Corbyn has responded well to the poisonings, and by 50% to 37% they think sacking Smith was the right decision.

Now, moving on to the anti-semitism row that Labour have found themselves in.

19% of Labour members think that anti-semitism in the party is a serious and genuine problem that needs addressing. A further 47% of Labour members agree that there is a serious and genuine problem, but think that is has been exaggerated for political reasons. Finally, 30% think that there is not a serious problem of anti-semitism at all. Broadly speaking, two-thirds of members think there is a problem (though many of those think it is being exaggerated for political effect), just under a third think there is not.

In terms of Jeremy Corbyn’s own handling of the row, most of his members think he has dealt with it well. 61% say he has responded very or fairly well, 33% think he has responded fairly or very badly. It’s less good than his approval overall (implying there are some Labour members who approve of Corbyn’s leadership in general, but think he’s dropped the ball here) but there is still clear majority approval.

Finally, the poll asked whether Labour party members wanted to see Ken Livingstone readmitted to the party or not. 33% wanted to see him return, 41% did not.

I’ll put a link up to the full tabs when they are released.


928 Responses to “YouGov polling of Labour members”

1 2 3 19
  1. C’mon the Jezza!

  2. AW

    “Now, moving on to the anti-semitism row that Labour have found themselves in.”

    Your use of the passive is interesting. What you mean to say is – “moving onto the totally fake and fabricated accusations of anti-semitism levelled at Labour…”

  3. oh gawd-UKPR has turned into Skwawkbox.

  4. Is this the same poll Smithson tweeted about?

    By 73% to 20% current LAB voters tell YouGov it would be WRONG to leave EU

  5. Alec

    “Your view needs to be not exactly dismissed, but certainly not given any credence unless it can be verified as coming from a trusted source.”

    How kind!

    Well I know (I am sure my memory is not at fault here) it came from at least two reliable sources. Whether or not you believe me matters not at all to me. I post here to give my views and occasionally to give information. I am not interested in spending a lot of time researching before posting. I have better things to do.

  6. Colin: I fear the whole of Britain is turning into Skwawkbox…

  7. Makes a change from Guido…

  8. Thanks AW for an interesting summary.

    My own view is similar to that of the 47% who think that there is a serious and genuine problem, but think that is has been exaggerated for political reasons.

    Of course Labour’s opposition is using it for political purposes, why wouldn’t they.

  9. “or he is a doddering old fool who hopes to succeed with ideas that have failed in the past…”

    ——

    The ideas didn’t fail in the past. They were so successful other parties like SDP, LDs and SNP co-opted them and split the left’s vote allowing the Tories in. When the vote wasn’t split so much, e.g. after the war, Tories had to adopt the ideas and Tories are beginning to do the same now. Even leaving the EU is an old Labour idea. Nationalisation remains popular etc. etc.

  10. Personally, I don’t think the choice is between Corbyn as Messiah or Corbyn as fool.

    Simplistic nonsense.

  11. Yes well I was kinda leaving the doddering fool bit to one side. I’m not sure where the threshold is for doddering, and not sure there’s any polling on it yet. There might not even be any polling on rambling. We’re way ahead of the curve…

  12. Personally I always look askance at hystrionic accusations against any party from a group that votes massively for the other side. In 2015, when Labour had a Jewish leader, only 15% of British Jews voted for Labour. So I take these attacks on Labour now about as seriously as I would take attacks on the Conservatives by trade unionists.

  13. Presumably the 30% who think there isn’t a problem and the 33% who want Livingstone back in heavily overlap.

    Combining these about 1/3rd of Lab Members, or perhaps about 150,000 people completely deny there is a problem.

  14. @TOH – “My own view is similar to that of the 47% who think that there is a serious and genuine problem, but think that is has been exaggerated for political reasons.”

    Something on which we can agree.

    I can also extend sympathies to your view on sovereignty and the EU as discussed FPT.

    I think it’s a common misconception among remainers to question leavers views on sovereignty by claiming that any international agreement means the same trade off. In part this is true (eg we need to oblige WTO rules, and there is an external enforcement mechanism that is not controlled by UK courts or parliament) but I still feel there is a quantitative and qualitative difference in issues of EU sovereignty and the ECJ.

    The fact is that we have signed over large areas of competences to both QMV and also direct to the commission. I highlighted one issue recently (states aid de minimis rules) where the member states via their elected heads asked for a change in the rules, and the unelected commission refused. In any democratic system, that is simply wrong, full stop. If a minister instructed a civil servant to pursue a policy and the civil servant refused, they would be sacked.

    There is a quantitative issue whereby the EU treaties extend external influence over policy to a far more areas than any other international agreement we have signed or are ever likely to sign.

    The qualitative issue is (in part linked to this) based on the space for interpretation and development of rules. The WTO cannot decide new rules without members approval, for example. The commission can, in those areas where it has competence. Equally, the ECJ can interpret treaties across a far wider range of areas and with far greater flexibility that under any other international treaty.

    Finally, while we retain complete sovereignty, in the sense that (obviously) we can choose to leave the EU at any time, the reality is that leaving the EU is about the hardest supranational agreement to reverse.

    I do think remainers make a mistake when they seek to downplay the loss of sovereignty within the EU. The loss is substantial, wide ranging, develops over time, and is difficult to reverse. This sets it apart from every other agreement we have ever made, in my view.

    For my money, the issue isn’t whether or not there has been a substantial additional loss of sovereignty, but much more whether this loss is a worthwhile trade off, and whether we are able to effectively control any future losses were we to stay in the EU.

    My personal view on the first question is that the transfer of democratic authority is worth the benefits we get, by a gnat’s whisker only, and that we can prevent further erosion of authority if we choose to stay. Preferably, I would like to see (as I think @Danny mentioned) a defined and permanent limit placed on the powers of the centre in the EU, while at the same time a concerted effort made to open up the institutions to much better democratic control.

  15. If no-one else has posted yet, tabs are here:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a1lnfhilsh/TimesResults_180329_LabourMembers_W.pdf

    I’m not sure what to say about anti-semitism. It seems odd to me that it’s rife anywhere in UK nowadays. I’ve encountered racial and religious abuse against many minorities over the years (not personally, but friends), but I can’t remember any occasion where it’s been against a Jewish friend. Maybe it’s because I’ve never lived in an area with many Jews, whereas I have lived in areas with a large ethnic population of other origins. Maybe this is a ‘London’ thing again, since that’s where there are larger communities, and I’ve never lived there.

  16. Does anyone know if there has been a similar poll of Conservative members? I saw an article that suggested that anti-semitism rates had actually dropped since Corbyn came into power while Conservative anti-semitism had increased. I’m not sure if it was just “fake news” though – I couln’t find a link to the actual poll.

  17. ToH @ 11.10 am

    The reason for pestering you on these City financial job numbers has been to try to resolve the differences, and get a balanced assessment.

    It may be that you saw the “12,000 increase” some months ago, and it had a particular short time span, so wasn`t a real change since June 2016.

    Also as Alec says, the trends depend on what is being counted as financial employment.

    A major source of ammunition for Leavers has been the pre-referendum forecasts of decline assuming Brexit would be implemented rapidly, not with the present 2-year plus delay. Applying these figures to Jun 2016 to Jun 2017 isn`t a fair test of what will come by December 2020.

    This Reuters link seems to me to be more relevant:

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-employment/brexit-caused-37-percent-fall-in-new-london-financial-jobs-in-december-report-idUKKBN1F0003

  18. Like most people I don’t believe there is “endemic” anti-semitism [as was ludicrously claimed by a peer recently] within the Labour party or anywhere else in the UK.

    But what there is, as exemplified by Shawcroft’s latest – since deleted – tweet, is an inability to stop pouring oil on a tiny glimmer of a flame and thus allowing anyone who is against the Party to keep the topic in the headlines.

    I do find that rather pathetic and there’s no doubt it does suggest some insensitivity from some people – how few is not really the issue.

  19. @ Chris Green
    “In 2015, when Labour had a Jewish leader, only 15% of British Jews voted for Labour.”
    The following reputable link gives the data on voting by religious affiliation in 2017. Most “religions” voted Tory, Amongst those practising Judaism the split was 65% Tory, 25% Lab. However, the greatest imbalance by far was in the Muslim vote: over 80% Lab, less than 10% Tory.
    You also remind us that Miliband was subject to the coded anti-semitism of the right-wing press. His father was vilified as a traitor: his alien talent — perfect German — proved in fact to be invaluable in his creditable work in anti-sub warfare. The hate campaign backfired.

  20. @ Chris Green
    “In 2015, when Labour had a Jewish leader, only 15% of British Jews voted for Labour.”
    The following reputable link gives the data on voting by religious affiliation in 2017. Most “religions” voted Tory, Amongst those practising Judaism the split was 65% Tory, 25% Lab. However, the greatest imbalance by far was in the Muslim vote: over 80% Lab, less than 10% Tor

  21. Just to describe the difficulties with negotiating trade agreements. While it is probably easier for one country, still, the difficulties will be similar.

    The trade deal below is bigger in trade terms than the negotiations with Japan by 30 billion Euros, the 7th largest market – Mercosure

    The negotiations between Mercosur and the EU started in 1999. There were a number of interruptions, and now it’s in its 32nd round. The current obstacle is agricultural export to the EU. In exchange Mercosur would reduce the punishing duties on EU industrial exports, would allow more services (shipping, for example), and would allow companies from the EU to participate in state tenders (the EU has already allowed this for Latin-American firms).

    The EU proposes reduced duties on 600,000 tons of ethanol, 100,000 tons of sugar, 70,000 tons of beef, as well as the free trade on citrus fruits and juices, reduced duties on 40,000 tons of poultry and 12,250 tons of pork.

    The Marcosur countries want license for 200,000 tons of beef, but definitely not less than 100,000 tons.

    Now, the EU beef imports is about 246,000 tons of which the Mercosur countries have 75% (half of which from Brazil). The South-American demand triggered interventions by both lobby groups and countries (France in particular, in contrast Italy, Spain and Germany wants to go ahead irrespective of the agricultural lobby). Not too surprising, as the CETA allows reduced duties on 64,000 tons of Canadian beef.Brexit is particularly relevant here (as well as history) as half of Ireland’s beef exports come to the UK.

    The EU wants the agreement as (following the agreement with Japan, Korea, Singapore,Vietnam) they expect free trade agreement with Australia and NZ and use these as A negotiating platform against Trump, and use it in negotiating Brexit.

    The biggest advocate of the negotiations is the EU car industry (including spareparts), but machinery, textile and pharmaceuticals are also pushing for an agreement.

    Oddly, a faction of the agrarian lobby also wants agreement: dairy, sweets, alcohol (the Mercosur duties are very high), especially as there is no similar agreement between Mercosur and other countries.

    It makes the negotiations even more difficult that Brazil will have elections in October, so it will suspend the negotiations once the real campaign starts. Then there are the EP elections in 2019, and there will be a new European Committee.

  22. I did say on here that a leadership challenge and/or split was in the offing, timed for the local elections, several weeks ago and long before the anti-semitism issue was brought back up. So Labour members were keenly aware of right-wingers making moves prior to the latest manufactured scandal damning the Labour leadership into oblivion. This is reflected in the latest YouGov polling, left activists have been on a war footing for weeks prior to all this kicking off.

  23. “manufactured scandal”

    “war footing”.

    Say no more………….

  24. re the Labour anti-semitism kerfuffle – I believe that Labour are the main beneficiaries of the Muslim vote, and that many Muslims are anti-Jewish. (anti-semitic is the wrong term because Arabs are semites as well).

    Therefore there is a difficult balance for Labour to keep both groups happy, as there is also between the socially-liberal and socially-conservative factions. For instance the potential conflict between those in favour of gay marriage and ‘trans’ rights etc versus those from cultures where homosexuality is punishable by death.

    I think that in the medium term these differences will be a major problem for Labour.

  25. Alec
    “Preferably, I would like to see (as I think @Danny mentioned) a defined and permanent limit placed on the powers of the centre in the EU, while at the same time a concerted effort made to open up the institutions to much better democratic control.”

    If I thought that was achievable, I might have voted Remain.

  26. @Pete B

    The statement that “many Muslim voters are anti-Jewish” is a crude racist stereotype on a par with the sort of crude anti-semitic tropes portrayed in that mural. I am from an area in Leeds which has a Labour party with a large Muslim, Jewish, Christian and everything-in-between membership and I can assure you from my work in this very diverse area that what you’re suggesting is completely untrue.

    Most UK Muslims are not Arabs, but of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi background, so your ridiculous qualification that “arabs are semites too” is not just redundant, but reinforces how superficial your understanding of these things are. The implicit assumption that anyone who is a muslim with brown skin must be an Arab is itself a racist one.

    The idea that it’s “in the culture” of the UK Muslim community to punish homosexuality with death is grossly offensive and is an incitement worthy of the EDL or any other crackpot fascist. Were anyone to say “Orthodox Jewish culture condones murdering gays” none of us would have a moment’s doubt about condeming it as overt anti-semitism and incitement, but when aimed at the Muslim population of this country it’s fair game.

  27. pete b

    “Therefore there is a difficult balance for Labour to keep both groups happy”

    It’s my understanding [and my own view] that attempts at triangulation are completely irrelevant to Corbyn, and that it is simply a matter of doing the “right” thing, as you believe it to be.

    The rest is up to the voters.

  28. To triangulate, often means to cede ground to your opponent. You shift in their direction.

    If you stand firm, you may force your opponent to triangulate and hence shift the centre in your direction.

    If you care more about the right policies being enacted, rather than just achieving power, then you might prefer not to triangulate.

    The 1945 government forced Tories to triangulate, Thatcher forced Labour to triangulate, and currently Tories are already starting to cede ground.

    Corbyn’s lukewarm approach to EU didn’t make Cameron triangulate so much as capitulate.

    Corbyn knows he’s a bit long in the tooth, you could say he’s setting the scene for what comes after.

  29. Good Afternoon all.
    I think denial of the anti semitism in the Labour Party, due partly i think to the genuine love and affection members have for the LP and the leader is reminiscent of the reasons why senior Catholic Clergy denied the systemic abuse within the (my-just-about) Church.

    People, I think, tend not to want to see evil, or wish to downplay it if is too close to home.

    I felt very moved listening to Luciana Berger on Radio 4 today; the great niece of Mr ‘Manny’ Shinwell.

    Maybe there will be real action taken against the abusers, but i think there will be a fudge; on the other hand the LP has come back from the ‘dead’ before- when the LP had tough members like Bevin in the thirties and Healey from the 50’s onwards.

  30. @ LASZLO – Your post highlights how much easier it is for bilateral deals (ie UK-Brazil, rather than EU-Brazil). The EU have been at it for 18years!! have you become a BeLeaver?

    I’m glad you showed the beef stats and RoI info. That is a very good example for the likes of SOMERJON (and others). If we allow low/zero tariffs possibly phasing in via TRQs on Brazilian beef then they get what they want (at expense of RoI most likely), UK then improves vastly on the service sector opening of Brazil for UK companies – so UK gets what it wants. Win-Win!

    With the EU, they protect farming so it is always less likely they will get a good deal for UK. They sacrifice service sector liberalisation to protect farming and ensure max access for manufacturing. We might well chose to protect farming a little, phase in full non-tariff trade but we don’t want or need to protect it in the way EU do. We also would put service sector higher on the priority list!

    In a ‘no deal’ scenario, the EU’s current precious TRQs are going to be an issue – for the EU! We can go to likes of Brazil and cut our own deal, EU can sort out their side – default being they take the full pre-Brexit quota which invariably is a big jump spread across the 27 from what is was spread across 27+UK. The doom+gloomers see TRQs as a problem (like everything else) where as played intelligently (something May+DD struggle with) it is an ace card.

    The EU have had the benefit of UK’s food imports to wave as a carrot to high food export nations (e.g. Brazil) so that Germany can get access for it’s exports. Without the UK the appeal of doing a trade deal with EU drops – and that is before each of the 27 (and sub regions in some cases) puts up a fuss about their special interest.

    Quicker, UK specific trade deals with the rapidly growing economies of the World – less than a year to go ;)

  31. Good afternoon all from a damp windy Winchester.

    I can’t believe the amount of hysteria coming from the Jewish community towards ol Corby and Labour. The problem the Jewish community have is that they think any criticism of the treatment by the despicable disgusting regime in Israel towards the people of Palestine somehow constitutes as antisemitism.

    For a minority group the Jewish community certainly do have a big and powerful gub on both sides of the Atlantic. That also gets up a lot of peoples backs.

  32. @Chrislane1945

    Amusing to see you invoke Ernie Bevin as the sort of upstanding, sensible, moderate centrist that Labour should emulate in its desire to be rid of any lingering anti-semitism.

  33. The tabs that TRIGGUY posted have a x-break on length of membership. Interesting, but not surprising, that the Corbynistas that joined since the EURef (shame that wasn’t split out to show since the run up to 2017 GE) are by far the most ‘loyal’ (some might say cultist).

    A LAB partisan might be able to give the membership growth numbers but the x-breaks show Corbyn is far less popular with ‘before 2015’ members (e.g. ‘since EURef’, net 78% rate Corbyn as doing well but that drops to 42% for ‘before 2015’)

    The momentum/far-left take-over of LAB might appeal to the new members but less so old members and judging by the lead CON are building over LAB in the polls – less so with the electorate at large!

  34. @ TW

    “e.g. ‘since EURef’, net 78% rate Corbyn as doing well but that drops to 42% for ‘before 2015”

    Makes for interesting reading doesn’t it, but I’m not quite sure where you got that figure from. It’s true that ‘before EURef’ members are slightly less supportive, but the difference isn’t huge, I think. In fact what’s remarkable is how much support JC gets across the board, and it’s pretty similar between Remain and Leave voters, which seems a particularly difficult balancing act (or it just reflects that it’s not a big issue for them).

    What is remarkably different (if not surprising) is the increase in JC’s support from one year ago to the present. “Total well” goes from 50% to 80%. I find it difficult to see how any group who wants to depose JC can be bothered to try. As long as he stands as a candidate for leadership, no-one else has got a chance.

    Would be interesting to see a similar poll of support for TM in the Conservative membership. Does anyone think she’d get 80% in the “Total Good” column?

  35. TW: That is a very good example for the likes of SOMERJON (and others). If we allow low/zero tariffs possibly phasing in via TRQs on Brazilian beef then they get what they want (at expense of RoI most likely), UK then improves vastly on the service sector opening of Brazil for UK companies – so UK gets what it wants. Win-Win!

    Oh dear, where to begin?

    First, Mercosur is a customs union and free trade bloc, so your idea of doing a quick bilateral deal with Brazil, letting in loads of their (ecologically suspect – it’s largely raised on cleared rainforest) beef in exchange for a deal on services is pie in the sky. We would have to do a deal with Mercosur, and as the EU experience shows, that is more likely to take decades rather than years. Especially as Argentina would have a veto and might just have an unsettled dispute with the UK. Anyone up for swapping the Falklands for services access? And the UK farming lobby might have something to say about torrents of Brazilian (and Argentine) beef. On top of all that chlorinated chicken.

    There’s much, much more to say. But I’ll spare everyone. If you went to rest your hopes on a quick and easy deal with Mercosur, on terms favourable to us, then all I can say is… Dream on.

  36. Fans of Blair often like to point to Blair’s triangulation gifts, but oftentimes he didn’t so much triangulate as do the heavy lifting for his opponents. it’s not like the Tories were already doing ATOS or tuition fees or Academies and Blair sort of went half-way and took the edge off. Nope, Blair actually went FURTHER than Tories had dared go, introducing these things for them to seize upon gratefully.

    With PFI, this took triangulation to a new extreme, whereby you hand things over to the private sector at the outset, saddled with a juicy taxpayer-funded contract for many years to come.

    Calling this sort of thing triangulation is like calling The Treaty of Versailles a compromise.

  37. @Somerjohn

    “And the UK farming lobby might have something to say about torrents of Brazilian (and Argentine) beef. On top of all that chlorinated chicken.

    There’s much, much more to say. But I’ll spare everyone.”

    ———

    But I was just getting into it!! And it raises many questions. Like, do they chlorinate beef?

  38. It’s a tad picky and relates to comments on the previous thread, but as it is apposite to this topic and not about Brexit I’m going to say it anyway.

    The comments that the next election might be as late a June 2022 are wrong in either likely circumstance.

    Under the FTPA the election has to be on 5 May 2022.

    Under the old rules, it would have been the dissolution that would have to happen within five years; so if the Parliament ran to term the latest the election could be would have been July 2022.

    In neither case is it June.

    I also recall reading (though I can’t recall the source so apols if this is nonsense), that mere repeal of the FTPA is problematic as in the event the FTPA is merely repealed without replacement, since it itself repealed the Septennial Act of 1715 and the part of the Parliament Act of 1911 changing 7 to 5, the maximum term of a Parliament would not revert to five years but to three, which it was prior to the passage of the Septennial Act.

  39. Carfrew: But I was just getting into it!!

    Ah, sorry to disappoint. Actually, I’ve got a flight back to rainy/sleety ole Brexitland tonight, so a bit busy right now.

    But I can add one little nugget (not a chlorinated chicken nugget, but it will have to do).

    Since Mercosur was established in 1991, it has managed to sign just four free trade agreements: with those giants of world commerce, Israel, Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon.

  40. An example where you could say Blair triangulated with some success, was over the economy. Having accepted the liberal way to some extent, he and Brown were quick to row back on the extremes of liberal economics and to instead enact a quick stimulus in a downturn. This saw the effects of the dot com crash largely averted here, and later under Brown, it ameliorated the effects of the Crunch, an economic shock so quick and severe it was hard to avoid some significant effects.

    In a way you might say this was triangulation proper, where it wasn’t just something in the middle ground but had a bit of a transcendent quality. (It would have been more transcendent not to leave things so open to these shocks in the first place of course).

  41. Blair’s greater achievements of course, are where he forced Tories to triangulate, notably over social liberalism. Hence Cameron pushing through SSM.

    Interestingly, Blair’s Liberaism left little space for the LDs, who lacking room to triangulate then had to shift further out to the left than Labour.

  42. @ TRIGGUY – the figures are from the first question on the tabs you posted. Total Well – Total Badly = net well.

    Since EURef is 89 – 11 = 78
    Before 2015 is 70 – 28 = 42

    I very much doubt May would get high numbers for several reasons.
    1/ She is PM so has to deal with reality, being leader of opposition is ‘easier’
    2/ CON don’t operate on the membership model (and it sometimes appears LAB only pay lip service to it).

    You can interpret things in many ways but I would agree 100% that Corbyn (and the momentum faction) have achieved full take-over of LAB and it would be impossible to remove him and see a ‘moderate’ (Progress) leader. My point is that that might not be appealing to 12million+ voters (likely number required for most seats) as it is for the Corbynistas that swelled the LAB membership with their 3quid joining fees.

    @ SJ – :-) :-) We can and will maintain high food standards – that is one of the more absurd parts of Project Fear 2.0 that only the truly gullible or brainwashed fall for.
    “Swapping Falklands for services access” Wow, that has to be your best one yet! :-) :-)

    We’ll have to wait and see what happens. I’m not saying it will be easy (never have) but a mutually beneficial trade deal – putting UK’s interests first (rather than the EU’s favoured sectors), will be far more likely and achieved in a far quicker time frame outside of EU.
    “Pie in the sky” shows the huge opportunity for CON VI. Project Fear 1.0 and 2.0s only ‘success’ has been in setting the expectations bar for Brexit very low. Exceeding those low expectations will then give them a boost – and they are already in the lead!

    P.S. LASZLO mentioned Brazil, I was replying. You wanted examples of trade growth opportunities and the benefits to both sides and Brazil is a good example – high growth, mutually beneficial and matching competitive advantages, etc. Argentina, rest of Mercosur and LATAM, the same – and that is just one continent! Brexit offers a World of opportunities.

  43. Alec

    Good we can agree on Labour and the anti-Semitism issue.

    Many thanks for your thoughtful comments to me in your 11.50 re sovereignty. Much of what you post reflects my own views as a Leaver and why sovereignty is the biggest issue with the EU that I have. You have laid them out better than I could, and it is kind of you to take the trouble. As you know I don’t have that much patience. Perhaps if I had taken the time and trouble we would not have been at cross purposes so often in the past. Where we disagree is in your last two paragraphs of course. I do not think the trade offs are worth the loss of sovereignty and have not done so for many years.

    Davwel

    The two references to the 12,000 increase in jobs have been within the last month so not out of date information.

    Thank you for the reference to the Reuters piece. I had seen that, but that is a reduction in new jobs not a loss of jobs. I don’t find that surprising as of course there is a good degree of uncertainty as we move towards the leaving date. It would be amazing if it there wasn’t. However, remember that the point of my original post was to point out that the “scare tactics” of 100,000 job losses was just that “scare tactics”. There will be losses and gains, but overall losses if any, now look like being very small.

    Pete B
    “If I thought that was achievable, I might have voted Remain.”

    You also obviously feel that Alec’s piece was very thought provoking as I did, but I would still disagree with him. We have given up much too much sovereignty already. A good deal that we have given up would have to be returned before I would think again. Certainly, back to before the Treaty of Maastricht.

  44. On “sovereignty”, at the risk of appearing to segue a little into semantics, I think the term is misapplied.

    Even ToH kind of concedes this on the previous thread in admitting that we retain the ultimate “sovereignty” of leaving, although (and here I agree with him) the nature of the EU is that this is just about the hardest extrication we will ever have to engineer.

    To me this is the essence of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the source of the power not the mechanism of its exercise. The UK cedes legislative and administrative powers to the EU, but the authority to grant and withdraw those legislative and administrative powers, the ultimate sovereignty, is reserved.

    And in the same way, and this is where I don’t quite get the sovereigntist arguments of some leavers, the UK centrally cedes legislative and administrative powers to various other august bodies, from the Scottish Government to the North York Moors National Park authority and the Nether Wallop Parish council. But sovereignty is reserved.

    There is an argument that we shouldn’t delegate a particular legislative or administrative power to the EU. There is an argument that we shouldn’t delegate any legislative or administrative power to the EU. In which case we must leave. But for me it’s still the same argument as the argument over what powers the devolved governments, the councils or the quangos have.If there’s no sovereignty issue in any of those cases, there isn’t in the EU case either.

  45. ALEC

    @” Preferably, I would like to see a defined and permanent limit placed on the powers of the centre in the EU, while at the same time a concerted effort made to open up the institutions to much better democratic control.”

    If Macron has his way it will be defined for sure :-) And permanent !

  46. ALIENATED LABOUR.
    Hello to you.
    ‘Nye’ Bevan was on the Left of the Party and flirted with alliance with CPGB in the Popular Front and with uniliateralism,

    Ernie Bevin was on the right of the party and led the UK brilliantly at home during WW2 and as Foreign Secretary 1945-50

  47. Peter W

    “it’s still the same argument as the argument over what powers the devolved governments, the councils or the quangos have. If there’s no sovereignty issue in any of those cases …..”

    Other than that legislative powers are not devolved to Governments but to Parliament/Assemblies, that’s a reasonable statement of “the Nokes principle”.

    It is a very highly centralist model of government. A more normal governance system involves establishing models in which sovereignty is owned by the people at different levels of government.

    Just because a system of government is based on English constitutional tradition doesn’t mean that it should continue into post-medieval times!

  48. @ TW

    “Since EURef is 89 – 11 = 78
    Before 2015 is 70 – 28 = 42”

    Fair enough, that’s a very good way of exaggerating a relatively small difference. Are you in marketing by any chance? One could also say (within errors) that “support averages at 80%, with a maximum of about 10% more for recent members, and a minimum of 70% for older members”. That doesn’t sound quite so dramatic as 78 to 42 does it? And 70% support is not really that bad. One should also note that the statistical errors are quite high.

    I agree that what’s appealing to the members of the Labour party is not necessarily the same as what might appeal to the electorate. Time will tell.

    What I find most interesting, as I said, is the difference in the numbers between now and one year ago. While Labour is still struggling with internal disagreements, can you imagine what it would have been like without the GE? I suspect these numbers would not have changed so dramatically, and the pressure to get rid of Corbyn would have been fierce (if it hadn’t already succeeded by now). As it is, due to the positive (though not victorious) GE result, there is some chance Labour might actually pull itself together for a bit – but don’t hold your breath. So potentialy, calling the GE was not just a bad call because of the lost majority, but also because it actually might have triggered the start of the Labour party coming together. Or not, as the case may be, its still got some way to go.

  49. Arrrgggghhhh, apologies for (non) apostrophe blunder above. I shall sit in a corner for half and hour.

  50. @ Chris Lane
    “I think denial of the anti semitism in the Labour Party, due partly i think to the genuine love and affection members have for the LP and the leader is reminiscent of the reasons why senior Catholic Clergy denied the systemic abuse within the (my-just-about) Church.”

    I do not wish to trivialise anti-semitism but there is a difference between being personally affronted by, say, K. Livingston’s comments about Hitler & Zionism & being a helpless child traumatised for life by sexual abuse.

    PS I have given up moderating apostrophe atrocities but as you’re a teacher: it’s ’50s not 50’s.

1 2 3 19