Keir Starmer's abstract thinking

The grey man of British politics ... Original picture, ITV News

Anushka Asthana has written a generally favourable profile of Keir Starmer in the Guardian.  It is lightweight stuff, pandering to the typical Guardianista, though reading between the lines one can - perhaps - detect Asthana's frustration at the weak porridge Starmer serves up.

This, in particular, stuck out:

For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that?

“No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.”

But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.”

Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”.

So what is his multi-word answer for those struggling millions?

Dignity and respect.  

I kid you not.

He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.”

 So all Starmer has to offer the working class is ... abstract nouns.

Its barely disguised Thatcherism, with 'dignity' and 'respect' of 'skilled work' hinting at their evil twins - the undignified, unrespectable spectacle of unskilled work or - Heaven forbid - unemployment.   Politically, we're a cat's conscience away from the least dignified and most unrespectable part of society - Daily Mail caricatures of dole bludgers.  I suspect many people struggling to make ends meet will take the 'disrespectful' benefits of redistribution, Keir.

(It is no surprise that Peter Mandelson also appears, like some grisly revenant, shaking his chains and gibbering.)

Mandelson's influence on Starmer is manifest.  Asked about the Hartlepool byelection defeat Labour suffered under his leadership, he responds by invoking the 2019 General Election, rather explaining how his party lost a byelection in 2021:

“When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.”

While he makes the usual noises about the futility of opposition, he neglects the salient lesson.  The 'moderate' wing of the Labour Party squandered a brilliant opportunity after the 2017 General Election.  They couldn't bear the fact the membership wanted Corbyn as leader.  Applying his own logic for a moment, the electorate rejected the 'moderate' candidates twice.  Decisively.  But the anti-Corbyn faction (the party) didn't change.  They simply set out punish the membership for making the wrong choice.

Dear striking British workers: F___ You! Love, the Labour Party

 From the desk of Keir "Patriotic Duty" Starmer:

“We have robust lines. We do not want to see these strikes to go ahead with the resulting disruption to the public. The government have failed to engage in any negotiations.

“However, we also must show leadership and to that end, please be reminded that frontbenchers including [parliamentary private secretaries] should not be on picket lines. 

 “Please speak to all the members of your team to remind them of this and confirm with me that you have done so.”

 So, yeah, there you have it.  Adulate the queen and to Hell with the revolting proles.  It's satirically hilarious but unfortunately true.  We must tug the forelock to the monarch, because she's a nice old bird who has been around forever; we must not do anything as vulgar as acknowledge the historical roots of the Labour PArty in the union movement or show solidarity with workers in general.

Because that might make Labour less electable and thus jeopardise the job security of Mr Starmer and his allies.  Lenin wrote about the aristocracy of labour - the privileged workers in the developed world who were bribed with the 'overflow' of profits from low wage exploitation in the developing world, and so politically neutered and inclined to support the ruling class.  Here we've got the aritstocracy of Labour - lead by a genuine knight, no less! - marshalling the supposed parliamentary champions of the workers against the workers.

And so much for freedom of conscience or association.  Apparently not a concern in the Starmerite Labour party.

Go Away, You Ghastly Little Power Kissing Pipsqueak

 This makes me want to puke:

The Jubilee weekend isn’t just an opportunity for us to reflect on the 70 years since Her Majesty’s accession to the throne – although it will, of course, be that.

And it isn’t simply a chance for a country wearied by the extraordinary circumstances of the last few years to let its hair down – although it is, of course, your patriotic duty to do just that.

No, the first Platinum Jubilee in our nation’s history is a chance to celebrate a truly extraordinary Queen, to reflect on the difference she has made to her country and to consider what our Elizabethan age has meant – and what it will mean for our future.

This isn't Jacob Rees-Mogg or some other doublebarrelled myopic inadequate with a delusions as to wqhat century they exist in.  It's Keir Starmer the leader of the Labour Party and he's writing in The Telegraph.  The f%#king Telegraph.

The long process that began with Starmer's immediate post-election repudiation of the Corbynist legacy that he claimed to endorse while campaigning has been completed.  The Leader of the Labour Party is writing fawning pro-Royalist bilge in the most reactionary newspaper in the country and telling people how to be British, and implying that anyone who doesn't join him in an orgy of monarchist masturbation is unpatriotic.

There were so many signposts along the way - the refusal to support Rebecca Long-Bailey, the dishonest cliam that Corbyn's banishment was prompted by the EHRC report, every piece of 'alignment' with Johnson and the Conservative massif in the name of 'electability.'  Those were more important betrayals than this sickening piece of fawning he's penned.

But sometimes it's the symbolic moments that give the most clarity.

British Labour take a 9 point poll lead

From Opinium, reported in the Guardian.  This, the Guardian is at pains to point out is the biggest lead the party has enjoyed since 2014 or (as they might have preferred to put it since Before Corbyn.

You have to wonder how Labour might have done in 2017 or even 2019 if the right wing of the party had not spend four years trying to assail the hapless and affable Mr Corbyn, and instead directed their energy towards getting a Labour government elected.

Also described by the Guardian, the Lib Dems (remember them?) are threatening a Ribble Valley style upset in the absurdly conservative seat of North Shropshire.

I am horrified to realise I am old enough to remember Eastbourne and Ribble Valley - two glorious by election victories of thirty years ago, where the Lib Dems overturned massive Tory majorities in traditional Blue seats.  The Conservatives were at the wrong end of a decade in power, seen as being in office but barely in power, lurching from crisis to crisis and facing a Labour Party that had replaced its worryingly leftwing leader with a younger, more media friendly person - in this case Neil 'father of Stephen' Kinnock.

You'll remember Stephen Kinnock as the chap who was so delighted at Labour's gutsy performance in 2017 he almost looked unhappy.

Unrestrained Joy on the faces of Stephen Kinnock and his coterie as they absorb the 2017 election result.

With self control like that, he should play poker.  No indication of the internal celebration undoubtedly going on under that worryingly smooth pate.

Of course, one should be cautious.  Following the humiliations of Eastbourne and Ribble Valley, the Conservatives won the subsequent election in 1992 and remained in power for another six years.  Neil Kinnock went off to enjoy a long career of doing obscure, but probably well remunerated, jobs in Europe, so he can probably be blamed for Brexit as well as losing the 92 election.  Starmer has a lot of work to do to convince people - on the left as well as the right - that he is worth voting for.

There is a chance of a Labour government in 2024.  It's a long road.  But the process needs to start now.  Corbyn's tenure was derailed by factionalism.  Starmer has shown himself very unwilling to heal rifts.  That will mean labour going into a future election still licking the self-inflicted wounds of 2019 and risk returning another five years of Conservative misrule.

He needs to restore the whip to Corbyn and start acknowledging the left are a valid and legitimate part of the party.  He needs to remember the galvanising effect of the 2017 manifesto, with its clarion calls for social democracy and progressive policies.  He needs to reject the bland managerialism and unconvincing attempts to portray 'quiet competence' that won't 'spook the markets.'  That's not worth voting for.  Whatever it is that made Starmer want to be a Labour Party member and fight to become Labour leader, he needs to find it again.

The anti-Semitism report and Corbyn's suspension

It seems pretty clear to me that the outpouring or rage, directed at Jeremy corbyn, following the publication of the long awaited report on anti-Semitism in the Labour party is a phoney whirlwind, a sort of twitterstorm of the mainstream.

This isn't about anti-Semitism.  This is about making sure Corbyn is left holding the blame and - taking a longer term view - the leadership of the Labour Party.

As the report confirms:

The Labour party had - prior to Corbyn - inadequate processes for dealing with anti-Semitism. I don't see any claims that he took a good system and trashed it.  This was a party that had failed ot set up adequate processes for years - years and years - before corbyn became leader.  But it only became an issue after he was elected ... hmmmmm.

Things started to get better from 2018 after Formby took over. Before that, of course, the system was over seen by the likes of McNicol and 'whistleblower' Sam Mathews, who was meant to be overseeing the response to anti-Semitism ...

(as an aside, I'm bemused by the criticism of LOTO 'interfering' with the disciplinary process to speed it up so more anti-Semites could be expelled from the party, in a report that criticises the party for not dealing with complaints swiftly enough.)

This isn't about Corbyn. He's a scapegoat for the people who set up an inadequate system to deal with anti-Semitism,then tried to weaponize it to damage the leader.

None of this needed to happen, except, from the point of view of the self-proclaimed 'centrists' it did.

If Corbyn had been left to his own devices, he would probably have been leader for 3 years, stepping aside before the putative 2020 election to let someone younger and less controversial take over. In all probability, he'd have been content to see through the 'McDonnell amendment' so the left would always have been able to field a candidate.

Instead, the 'centrists' of the party decided to make a fight of it. You will recall they started tweeting their resignations and refusal to serves during his victory speech. No "Well, let's see where he's going with this" - just straight in with the attempts to sabotage his leadership, from the get-go. Then there was the conspiring, the planned rebellion before the referendum, the Chicken Coup, the second leadership contest, the deliberate breaking of the discipline system with the intention of making the party look anti-Semitic and so on, all sauced with briefings and leaking and so on, which the rightwing media lapped up and which the Labour 'centrists' were too dim-witted to think 'why?'

So instead of May trundling along with the majority she inherited from Cameron until 2020 and suffering the same fate as John Major, we had the 'blood in the water' election intended to finish Labour off, which instead broke May's government. Then suddenly Corbyn looked potentially electable - so the campaign intensified, culminating in the 2019 election and the election of a thumping Conservative majority.

The concern for the 'centrists' was that Corbyn would stand down to be replaced by an ideological soul-mate.  So getting rid of corbyn wasn't the point.  The point was to get rid of him and make sure no-one from the left ever wanted to be Labour leader again.  So the demonisation and the undermining was ramped up, resulting in the disaster of 2019.

That's all down to the 'centrists' and their dim-witted 'grown up' politics. I hope they are pleased with what they achieved.

Though I suspect they actually are - leftists will look at how Corbyn was monstered and think twice about standing for the leadership, even though they know they will be in with a good shout. Because who would want to go through what Corbyn was put through, and is still being put through, by the right wing media and their enablers in the Labour Party?

This isn't about anti-Semitism, or even Corbyn per se, but about showing any prospective leftwing leadership candidate what they are in for.

The 'centrists' can't win under one-person-one-vote, so they are making sure no-one from the left will ever want to be Labour leader again. 

Left Out - a serial review

 So, a few weeks ago a book was published, under the title of Left Out.  It was written by Graham Pogrund and Patrick Maguire and purported to tell the tale of Corbyn's leadership from its zenith in June 2017 to the disaster of December 2019.

I hadn't been terribly interested in reading it, frankly, because of some of the immediate media coverage had suggested it was going to be something of a Corbyn bash.  Hell, the Daily Mail got into a lather about it, though I won't link to their write ups.

Then I happened upon Pogrund's twitter account and I thought, "Well, he might work for Rupert Murdoch, but that doesn't sound too bad."  So I acquired a electronic copy of it and will now treat you - my riveted readers - an occasional chapter-by-chapter summary of it.

So now ...

THE PROLOGUE

This is very interesting.  Obviously, I am pro-Corbyn and am mostly interested in things that show him to be the luckless victim of the 'centrists' in Labout who thought they new better than the leader of the party and the membership who elected him (twice.)  But I'll try to be honest and reflect the opinions of the writers.

I am glad to report the opening pages offer plenty of rick pickings.

It opens - almost inevitably - at the moment of neesis, as the exit poll is announced on the 12th of December, 2019, and whatever hopes Labour supporters had of a repetition of the miracle of 2017 were dashed.  I was there, I remember how it felt.  The authors note - without comment - that Corbyn was viewing the exit poll at the offices of a charity called Freedom From Torture.  Perhaps, after the travails of the past few years, that was appropriate.

The authors note that Corbyn's inner circle had been aware they were up against it for sometime - that the grim, static polls in the run up to the election were reflecting what their own polling was showing (if anything, Labour outperformed their private polling, which indicated the party would win fewer than 180 seats.)  Never-the-less, the sense of shock and misery is well described in these opening pages, and rendered sympathetically.

The prologue quickly defines the fault line at the top of the party - between Corbyn's inner circle (McDonnell, Milne, Murphy and a few others) and those who opposed him, implacably, from the start.  Here the authors do not hold back, describing the latter as "the seditious officials at party HQ."  Dwell on that word for a few moments - "seditious."  That isn't all of it.  A few lines later, they quote an email from Corbyn complaining about "self-absorbed disloyalty" following the leaking of the party's campaign grid.  Think on that - someone had opted to divulge information they were trusted with relating to the conduct of the election campaign.  This isn't small stuff.  I'm nervous of throwing words like 'treachery' around, but sabotaging your party's camapign ... what else do you call it?  Let's foll the lead of Pogrund and Maguire and call it sedition.

Later on, they hark back to the happier result of 2017, commenting how that apparent high point really marked the beginning of the decline.  Though "the Project" had earned the authority to try things its way, in the face of "two years of bitter resistance from its internal opponents" it would really be all down hill from June 2017 - "the hostility of MPs and party officials did not abate" the authors note, referring to the leaked report on anti-Semitism, cataloguing the "toxic, distrustful and openly mutinous culture of Southside".

It isn't effusively pro-Corbyn, however.  The authors do note, even ain these aearly pages, that Corbyn and his inner circle aren't blameless in their undoing and offer some wanings of what may come, commenting on the issue of anti-Semitism in ambivalent wording, "Corbyn's own stances on anti-Semitism and foreign affairs came to wreak such damage on the Project."

I haven't gone away. Neither has this problem.

 The attempts to sabotage Corbyn's leadership seems likely to do more damage than Corbyn supposedly ever could have done, even if all the stories about him were true:

I was reluctant to say anything but this is too important, the full story needs to be told.

Don’t let anyone ever tell you anything different: without the actions of some Labour Party staff we would have won in 2017. #LabourLeaks https://t.co/8OazhNBELz

— Joe Ryle (@JoeRRyle) August 7, 2020

So, yeah, six months down the line, I'm still raging about this.  And bear in mind, gentle reader, I'm far, far removed from all this.  British politics has almost no relevance to me (though it does affect directly many of my friends and family.)  So if I am incandescent about this, think how angry people intimately involved in Labour - members and those who worked in 2017 and 2019 towards victory, not against it - must be.

Ryle's account is fascinating and depressing - how juvenile were these people, nicking off with computers and leaving offices untidy?  It almost makes you wonder if the sort of people capable of such petty spiteful acts are capable of the grander allegations against them - the alleged diversion of funds which is identified as possible fraud alleged by Corbyn and key members of his team, which even the Guardian has felt compelled to report on.

And the frankly bizarre story of the Facebook ads and promos that were prepared just for Corbyn's team to see:

Perhaps the most kafkaesque example is the bizarre story of party officials designing Facebook adverts to be seen by only Corbyn’s team. A party official helpfully explained the strategy to the Sunday Times: 

 “They wanted us to spend a fortune on some schemes like the one they had to encourage voter registration, but we only had to spend about £5,000 to make sure Jeremy’s people, some journalists and bloggers saw it was there on Facebook. And if it was there for them, they thought it must be there for everyone. It wasn’t.”

 This souns like something from the latter days of the Soviet Union, with the Great Leader being assured by his self serving toadies and placeholders that everything is being done, everything is just right and the new tractor production statistics are most impresive, as the nation collapses all around them.  Or, more pertinently, the bonkers press appearances of Donald Trump citing - apparently with complete conviction - misleading Covid data offered up by his staffers.  Only, of course, Trump wants to be told everything is awesome and rejects anything that suggests otherwise - he's a willing participant in his own deception; Corbyn and his team wanted the truth, but were being lied to by people they should have been able to trust.

If accounts like Ryle's - and the allegations in the leaked report - are true, people behind this grim farceshould be expunged from the party.  Their work contributed to the Conservatives winning a further five years in power, with the prospect of another them beyond that.

Instead, apparently, they are calling for Corbyn to be thrown out.

I was, of course, completely right - the plot against Jeremy Corbyn

The right wing of the Labour Party actually preferred the party to lose elections than see Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister.

This is made clear in a massive internal report that has been leaked.

It's stunning, as it reveals not just the vindictive, self-destructive madness of the supposed 'centrists' and 'pragmatists' of the party, accustomed to being in charge and reacting with fury to the discovery that they were not.

This is how they responded to the 2017 exit poll:

08/06/2017, 22:48 – Patrick Heneghan: Everyone needs to smile
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Patrick Heneghan: I’m going into room of death
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Emilie Oldknow: Everyone needs to be very up beat
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Julie Lawrence: Its hard but yes
08/06/2017, 22:52 – Iain McNicol: I’m not in smiling and mixing and doing the 2nd floor.
08/06/2017, 22:53 – Iain McNicol: Everyone else needs to do the same.  08/06/2017, 22:53 – Iain McNicol: It is going to be a long night.

It goes on an on, example after example.

They were ecstatic at the idea of Labour losing an election; they celebrated polls showing substantial Tory leads and fretted about ones that showed the gap narrowing. And when reality hit them in 2017 they were devastated:

"They are cheering and we are silent and grey faced. Opposite to what I had been working towards for the last couple of years!!"

The response of Tracey Allen to the 2017 exit poll. She's not a Tory and the people she identifies as cheering are pro-Corbyn members. She's identified in the report as 'executive assistant/office manager, general secretary’s office'.

So, what had she been 'working towards for the last couple of years'? The overwhelming defeat of the Labour Party?

I note she is now identified as an ex-Labour staffer.

Remember how we were told - repeatedly - that Corbyn and his supporters were professional protesters and campaigners and weren't really interested in winning elections? Turns out the people saying that were self describing. They weren't interested in winning; in fact, they wanted Labour to lose.

Further, the report seems to back up claims made by Jon Lansman that the anti-Corbyn faction (that maintained control of the party apparatus until 2018) neglected to take any meaningful action over anti-Semitism:

They did nothing to address what they were later to claim was an incredibly pressing and urgent issue; it's hard to escape the conclusion that this failure to act was wilful and their goal was to discredit the leader, in spite of the damage this would cause the Labour Party - in the hope of forcing Corbyn to resign, either before or after an electoral defeat.

After discovering that Corbyn wasn't the hapless mook they thought he was they concocted an active smear campaign against him, resulting in two years of constant smears and exaggerations about anti-Semitism before they finally got what they wanted.

That's the 'pragmatism' of the 'concerned' Labour centrists for you.

Keir Starmer elected

Comfortably, in the very first round, with an impressive 56% of the votes.

I wonder, did members of the Shadow Cabinet start tweeting their resignations during Starmer's victory speech, or is that only a trick the right pull?

It is odd how all the talk of how the next leader "needs to be a woman" and how the party is "too Londoncentric" and too "elitist" we've just elected a male lawyer who was born in Southwark and represents a London constituency.  I won't even mention his hue - a whiter shade of pale - I don't expect miracles.  But I think he serves as something of a rebuke to the more radical / woke / open-minded (delete according to preference) part of the party.  You can be Labour and small-c conservative as well, and the preference of the party membership for older white blokes has been made abundantly clear, everytime we've been here.  How we respond to that, I'm not sure, but you can't just wish it away.

In spite of that carping, I think Starmer will be adequate.  I don't expect miracles from him, though if Covid 19 takes off proper, he might not need one.  The political and economic landscape in a couple of years time will be utterly, utterly different to just now.  History books will perhaps congratualte Corbyn on his strategic nous in passing on winning in 2019 - can you imagine what the press would be doing to a Labour government just now, trying to deal with Covid while still getting lost on their way to their ministerial offices and forgetting which side of the House they are meant to sit on?

It will be interesting to see how Starmer adjusts his position now he's got the prize - was all that somewhat leftish talk during the campaign just a tactic to stall RLB, and will he stomp right?  Or is there a genuine, if rather paternalistic, social conscience there?

Mr Freedland in the Guardian

Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian has penned a column which chastises the left wing of the Labour party for daring to retain principles and ideals, qualities - it seems - that should be jettisoned in pursuit of power.

Never mind that Freedland was an ardent Remainer, that is to say, one of the people who fundamentally didn't get it and argued vociferously for the Labour Part to commit ever more public acts of self-mutilation.  Now he's on the job and about his usual business of telling the little people what's best for them to think.

He ends it with a paragraph of blatant self-justifying, it-weren't-my-fault-guv blame shifting:

But the first step is to accept its importance, to recognise that winning power is the sine qua non of politics, literally the thing without which there is nothing. Labour deputy leadership candidate Richard Burgon might worry that party members will panic and “just reach out for whatever is most conventionally electable”, rather than opting for the most “radical” wishlist of promises, but there is a ready response to that. Labour’s experiment with the not “conventionally electable” ended in a conventional crushing two months ago – and there is nothing socialist or radical about that. Its only achievement was to grant the Tories five more years – and the power to reshape the world around them.

Mr Freedland should have spent the last four years writing columns like this reminding the right wing of the Labour party that winning power was far more important than undermining and besmirching the reputation of the Labour leader.

Instead, as I recall, he and his ilk in the allegedly leftwinf media were more than happy to join the Mail, Telegraph and the howling decayed giblets of the Murdoch press in demonising Corbyn. To borrow Freeland's own climactic line, "Its only achievement was to grant the Tories five more years – and the power to reshape the world around them."

But, of course, the same people who gleefully joined in the kicking to death o the Labour party between 2017 and 2019 are the same people busily re-writing history to disguise their culpability in handing Johnson those five years. By repeating the lie that defeat was all down to Corbyn and his radical policy platform they mask their own guilt.

I'm a forgiving chap but the likes of Freedland, Cohn and Toynbee need to acknowledge their own responsibility rather than pointing the finger elsewhere.

Everyone, we must be united and work together (now we've got rid of the Corbyn)

Yvette Cooper has written a piece in the Guardian outlinig 'Seven things Labour Must Do To Win The Next Election'.

I'll overlook the absurd headline - no-one is talking about Labour winning the next election and I assume that Cooper didn't write the headline (she doesn't mention winning the next election anywhere in her piece); I assume it is typically witless work by someone in the Guardian, drawing to much inspiration from the style of clickbait ads. There's enough wrong wirth what Cooper says to set that nonsense aside. She shows a spectacular lack of political self-awareness, attempts to duck all responsibility and implies everything is the fault of Corbyn and the 'narrow hard-left'; effectively continuing the condescending and arrogant attitude towards the membership.

According to Cooper, the party must:

1 Face the scale of defeat with humility.
2 Stop the factional infighting.
3 Be a party for the whole country – not just a liberal-labour party for the cities.
4 Learn to love the achievements of the last Labour government.
5 Be a strong and credible opposition, as well as a radical alternative government.
6 Bring kindness and integrity back into politics.
7 Get involved.

The seven basic points she makes aren't too wide of the mark - though one can't help but think 'trite' and 'obvious'.  I mean, would anyone advocate more factional infighting or call for increased unpleasantness and bitterness?

(Actually, plenty have done just that - since the December debacle I've read plenty of people demanding 'Corbynists' and 'Momentum' need to be 'eradicated' and 'driven out' of the party.  Cooper's oddly silent on that.

It is the commentary she expands them with that tastes foul. Who else but Yvette Cooper could write Labour must "Stop the factional infighting" and then continue "We cannot be a narrow hard-left party. That doesn’t reflect our values or history. Nor will we win next time if we collapse into polarised factional infighting. Parties are teams. If we can’t compromise with each other, we can’t hold any coalition of voters together"?  Remember, this is the person who refused to be part of Corbyn's cabinet - showing a distinct lack of team spirit - and And it is has only bothered to issue this fatwah on the importance of unity after Corbyn has been endured four years of undermining and back-stabbing. Strange she didn't bother to say anything before.

A more honest appraisal would have acknowledged infighting and factionalism originating on right wing of the party contributed massively to the failure of the Corbyn project, and that the party's 'establishment' never accepted the membership's choice of leader and worked to overturn it from the moment Corbyn was elected.  She does not even mention the Chicken Coup of 2016, or the rantings of Margaret Hodge and others.

(She then turns the rest of her commentary on that point into a puff piece indicating she isn't going to stand as leader this time, although people have been begging her - literally begging her - to do so. Because she knows this "isn't the time" as "there are many in our party who won’t see me as the person to pull all sides of the party together" - which isn't surprising given the attitude on display here. The implication being that she might stand next time - when the post-Corbyn leader has brought the party back to something like electability, and those pesky leftists (aka members) have been rooted out of the party.)

So not much effort to build bridges and heal there.

This is good

Still feeling very kicked in the head.  Took some time off over Christmas and New Year to think about stuff, contemplating the unthinkable idea that i might have been ... wrong.  But, after a thorough deconstruction of my cerebellum and rigorous self examination, I conclude I was not, am not.

Okay, obviously, I was wrong about the whole Labour-being-the-largest-party and the shy-Labour-voters bit, but I don't think I was wrong in y fundamental diagnosis post-election; that the catastrophe was brought about by the revolt on the right of the party, the sustained, deliberate attempts to undermine the Corbyn project and demonise a decent man.

This, from Corbyn's erstwhile spin-doctor, Marc Zarb-Cousins, shows I am not alone in thinking this:

I have been asked by some to "own" the defeat. I am happy to hold my hands up and say I misread the mood of the country. But I won't apologise for voting for the best candidate in both leadership contests, and then supporting the leader of the Labour party. I won't apologise for campaigning for a Labour government, or for working harder than I've ever worked as Jeremy's spokesperson 2016-2017. With what little profile I actually have, what did the people asking me to apologise want me to do? Did they think me using my platform to attack the leadership of the party would have made a Labour government more likely? 

People who have spent the past 4 years undermining the Labour party and the leader are now telling us to "own" this defeat, while we've been campaigning relentlessly -- in some cases for certain hostile Labour MPs who now have the temerity to say to us: "Look what you've done, this is all your fault." None of us, least of all those with a profile or a safe Labour seat, are passive observers in politics. We are all active participants, able to affect change and influence those undecided. If you've spent the past few years attacking the leadership of a political party, it's not exactly endearing to now be having a go at those people who had in the meantime been giving up their time and money to help bring about a Labour government.

He then goes on to suggest that the leadership contest will be between candidates all essentially claiming the 2017 / 19 manifesto policies.  Which is interesting as it suggests that even in their moment of triumph, the right of the party are already defeated.  The next leader will be elected by the electorate that twice voted - overwhelmingly - for Corbyn.  There will be no swing to the right.

Which will then reveal the Great Lie of 2017 and 2019.  When the new leader is monstered in the same way that Corbyn was monstered - by the right wing media and by the increasingly bitter right wing of the Labour Party - it won't be possible for them to claim that the problem was Corbyn.  We've been hearing that for four years.  It was never true.  The problem was that Corbyn challenged the hegemony of the Blairites over the party, and the policies that he put out there threatened wealth, power and privilege in Britain as a whole.  Only a tiny, tiny bit, but enough to bring down the fires of Hell upon him.

The right wing of the Labour party feared they would never get their party back (they won't) and so they were willing to crash the party and deliver the country over to Boris Johnson.  The Establishment didn't like to see their position under threat, so happily connived with them in a project that suited them even more than it suited Tony Blair and his successors.

And if Corbyn had been as hapless and hopeless as he is portrayed as he would not have been subjected to this - an epic, four year campaign of character assassination, intensifying to an unparalleled degree after 2017 when it looked like he might actually find himself in a position to do the things he said he would do.

Will the next leader be subjected to the same fire and brimstone?  Probably not.  The Conservatives probably have enough of a majority to make the next election another round of First-Past-The-Post attritional warfare.  Labour are in the position the Conservatives enjoyed in 2005 - no prospect of winning, but having to do the groundwork for the next again election.  Though a lot can happen in five years.

I think - once the dust settles a bit and the Blairite wing of the party realise that, in spite of everything, they still haven't got their party back - they may realise that they are and were the problem, not Corbyn.  They will slowly go through the process of realising that - if they ever want to taste power again - they need to actually accept the judgement of the membership and come to terms with Labour being a left wing party.

Right now they are accusing the left of being in dnial, or going through the stages of grief, or having their heads in the sand.  Truth is, it is them doing all these things, and they've been doing them since Corbyn's election in 2015.  Time for them to face up to the reality and accept it.  Theyre always going on about how to succeed in politics you need to be pragmatic, and be ready to sacrifice principles.  Always, this is directed at the 'naive' and 'idealistic' left; while the right don't budge. Well, let's see them doing some sacrificing and compromising.

The Aftermath, Part 3 - Who Is To Blame?

So, following the catastrophe that overtook the Labour Party last week, blame is inevitably being directed at Corbyn.  As pointed out in my last post, there is some dubiour research that supports that conclusion, if you are minded to accpet it at face value.

I think, however, that blaming Corbyn's leadership, or lack there of demonstrates a massive misunderstanding about the situation confronting the Labour Party.  Corbyn and his adherents are being demonised and portrayed as something to be crushed and driven out of the party, like fleas or ants. It works on the assumption that once Corbyn and the Corbynistas have been eradicated then everything will be okay again.

I think this is, fundamentally, missing the point.

Corbyn is not the disease, he is the symptom of the disease. His election in 2015 was not some whimsical decision by the membership, a jolly jape they decided on without thought to the consequences.

It was their way of signaling to the 'elite' in charge of the party how utter dissatisfied and disaffected they were, after almost two decades of Blair, and Brown, and Milliband; how neglected, ignored and taken for granted they felt. that's why Corbyn's message resonated and that's why he got elected.

Of course. the aforementioned 'elite' didn't get the hint. If there is one thing they are very bloody good at it is thinking they know best. They viewed the election of Corbyn as a foolish error on the part of the membership, who had to told off, sent to the naughty step and made to elect a proper leader this time; hence the Chicken Coup - only the 'elite' (significantly misnamed; there isn't much elite about them in terms of intelligence or wisdom) were so clueless and craven they put up Angela Eagle and the Owen 'Lacklustre' Smith might be viable alternatives, with fairly predicable results. Corbyn won, and the elite decided that, obviously, the membership were being recalcitrant and really, really needed to be taught a lesson.

At no point, it seems, did anyone bother to ask, "Why DID they vote for Jeremy?" Or if they did, the answers were probably just a load of patronising generalisations and sneers.

Remember what happened with Corbyn as leader (before Friday the 13th, I mean): membership soared to almost half a million and there were genuine signs of a mass movement developing.  People becoming re-engaged and excited about being Labour again.  2017 happened, just as much as 2019 did, and can not be ignored.  The message resonated and the messenger was not deemed too abhorrent then.

Only, of course, the 'elite' knew better.  Corbyn and his rag tag bunch had stepped out of line and had to be put back in their place - for the good of the party, you understand, and especially for th good of the membership, who had let the power Ed Milliband had unwisely gifted them go to their heads and used it unwisely.

They identified real but not Earthshaking issues - the presence of some foolish people in the party who don't think before they tweet, plus some genuine anti-Semites - and started to make Quite A Fuss about it. And they never missed a chance to confide just how awful things were to their friends in the media.

In the meantime, of course, Brexit was rumbling on. They noticed that Corbyn and the Unions weren't too hot on Remain and the 'elite' - who love skiing in the Alps and holidays in Umbria - felt once more they knew better. The 'elite' always knows best and if they have to keep intervening to correct the unruly plebs, well, noblisse oblige.  After all, THEY haven't gone to Oxford to do PPE so how could they be expected to know what's best for them?

The proles had voted foolishly - AGAIN, you'd almost think they were doing it on purpose - and once more had to be corrected. A botched compromise was devised and Labour was forced to go into an election offering a fudge that might have been morally principled but only seemed to tell people they were being ignored - again.

So, now that Corbyn is on his way out, the impetus will be to make sure that him and his horrid followers are excluded from the party and never even given a whiff of a shot of getting anywhere near power. It will be very hard for anyone running on anything that even resemblance of a Corbynite ticket to get the nominations to stand as leader. There won't be any more 'widening of the debate' because the elite know they will lose that debate. They will try to force a bland slate of safe, Blairy candidates on the membership. One of them will win, and it will be just like the 2010 leadership election all over again.

The lesson of 2019 is not that Corbynism needs to be crushed but that the 'elite' need to look at why Corbynsim ever happened in the first place, and be honest about why something that was actually working pretty well in 2017 was an abject failure two years later. And acknowledge their own failings and responsibility for the stagnation and failures of the last 20 years.

I'm not holding my breath.

Aftermath, Part 2 - Why Did All The Votes Go?

Predictable, there has been a lot of effort being put into saying the disaster of Friday the 13th is down to Corbyn, Corbynism and Corbynistas.

There was a poll published by Opinium the day after the election, asking why people did not vote labour, and why Labour voters who voted for other parties switched.

The survey found the main reasons people did not vote Labour were:

• The leadership (43%)
• Brexit (17%)
• Their economic policies (12%)

They also looked at the reasons given by party vote:

Further polling focused on those who voted Labour in 2017 but not in 2019:

• The leadership (37%)
• Brexit (21%)
• Their economic policies (6%)

On the surface it looks pretty convincing.  Clearly, the Blairites were right.  The issue is and was Corbyn and his leadership team.

But ... but ... but ... but ...  I have some issues with this data.

First of all, 'Leadership' is a very vague category compared to 'Brexit' and 'Economic policy'; a lot comes under than heading so it isn't surprising it is the biggest category.  Does it mean the leadership was too leftwing?  Was it to do with the alleged failure to address anti-Semitism?  The inability to silence the criticism and attacks from within the party?  The disunity?  Because some of these aren't really criticiss of the leadership per se, but of the behaviour of the MPs and others who have been trying to throw Corbyn since he got into the saddle in 2015.

I'm also disappointed with the lack of geographic detail. I'd be very interested in seeing the result broken down by region - what if 'Brexit' was more of an issue in the Northern constituencies?  This was an election where what happened in the north was critical.  Traditional Labour heartlands revolted just two years after they had enthusiastically embraced Corbynism.  In 2015 Labour polled just under 18,000 votes in Blythe Valley; in 2017, that swelled to just under 24,000; but by 2019, the total was down to just under 17,000, and the seat was in Tory hands.  Those are remarkable changes in a couple of years.

The absence of the Brexit Party from the data breakdown by party is unforgivable. The BXP were critical in draining Labour support in a lot of constituencies, allowing the Tories to win on quite modest vote gains.  If we looked at that crucial demographic would we see Brexit significantly more prominent?  That seems to be the trend from the limited data available - where former Labour voters were more concerned about Brexit, and less so about 'leadership.'

I'd like to see more information about the reasons given for defection. Given the skewing we can see in the data we have, where almost a third of Lab / Con defectors identified Brexit 31% of the time as their reason for switching, I think it nothing much can be deduced without a more detailed picture. At the end, someone switching from Labour to Conservative is likely to be on the right wing of the party, so is likely to be opposed to the leadership anyway; we really need to know what went wrong in those northern seats and where the Brexit Party was decisive.

If we zoomed in on the Northern seats, and then in again on the Labour voters who went to BXP, would we see Labour voters switching to BXP because their old party had not embraced the referendum result?  And if we did the same again in other areas, would we see the Labou voters switching to the Lib Dems because Labour was not sufficiently Remain?

Aftermath, Part 1 - Where Did All The Votes Go?

So, that didn't go so well.

Immediately after the election, the Guardian published data showing where Labour's vote had gone:

Labour to Conservative - 4.72%
Conservative to Lib Dems - 1.34%
Labour to Lib Dems - 6.06%

The impact of the Brexit Party (BXP) on Labour has already been noted - in seat after seat, the BXP absorbed Labour votes and allowed the Tories to take the seat on relatively small gains.  In Blyth valley, the Conservative vote went up by about 2,000 - small change.  But the Labour vote dropped by 6,000 - 3,000 stayed at home and 3,000 appears to have transferred to the Brexit Party.  And this allowed the Tories to take the seat.

(It is a shame the figures don't include the BXP.  I imagine the transfer would be small, but critical in a lot of seats.)

But the third figure is also interesting.  Labour lost a lot of votes to the Lib Dems, and as a result neither went anywhere.  In spite of Swinson being ousted in East Dunbartonshire and ending up a couple of seats down on 2017, they actually increased their vote share substantially by absorbing Labour votes.  In 2017 the Lib Dems won a national vote share of 2,371,861, or 7.4% of the vote. In 2017, their vote was 3,696,423, 11.6%. It seems unlikely that the extra illion were people inspired by Swinson's charismatic leadership. It looks like they absorbed a lot of Labour voters.

Perhaps the hidden story here is that Labour lost Leave votes to BXP AND Remain votes to the Lib Dems, with both sides of the argument rejecting Labour's measured, sensible Seocnd Referendum compromise. Be interesting to know - though there is probably no way of telling - how much of this was smart tactical voting, and how much Remainers dumbly rejecting the second referendum.

This time, Labour seems to have been caught between two vote sinks - the Lib Dems taking their votes on one flank, and the BXP giving disaffected Labour voters an option than stopped short of voting Tory. And the result of this mess is that it enabled a Tory government with a massive majority.

Some of it was intentional - Farage's ploy of standing own candidates in Conservative seats was an obvious but effective ploy. And some of it boils down to the continual madness of running two parties competing for the centre left vote. Thatcher's reign in the 80s was enabled by the SDP-Liberal Alliance absorbing 25% of the vote and returning fewer than 5% of the MPs.

It seems we've learned nothing since.

This is not about trying to transfer all the blame onto the Lib dem - another, oft overlooked, reason why Blair's government should be remembered as a failure. They had the opportunity to change things in 1997; but they decided the system was working for them, so they would keep it like it was.

Of course, subsequent incarnations of the Labour Party have failed to embrace electoral reform. Stupid short-termist idiots.

You Gov MRP Poll Out

So, You Gov's MRP poll - the weird one that tries to reflect what will happen at a constituency level and which pretty much nailed the hung parliament in 2017 - is not looking too good for Labour:

UK #GE2019 MRP seat projection:

CON: 339 (-20)
LAB: 231 (+20)
SNP: 41 (-2)
LDEM: 15 (+2)
PC: 4 (-)
GRN: 1 (-)
BREX: 0 (-)

via @YouGov,
Chgs. w/ 26 Nov

— Britain Elects (@britainelects) 10 December 2019

None-the-less I am feeling pretty confident the actual gap will be less than polls are showing.

Maybe it is my Scottish second sight, or my equally Scottish refusal to acknowledge the cause is lost, or something.

I think:

a) Labour clearly have the momentum (intentional, et cetera and will still make some progress in the final 24 hours;

b) the polls have always tended to overestimate the Tory support;

c) the polls are underestimating youth vote and turnout;

d) the last couple of days will have cost the Conservatives a lot of potential votes;

e) especially undecideds, who will have looked at Johnson's dithering over JustLookAtTheBloodyPhotoOiGiveMeMyPhoneBackYouThievingDickGate and decided they certainly can't be voting for that.

f) Labour will have a terrific Get Out the Vote campaign.

On the down side, the Tories have the mirage of getting Brexit done, the splitting of the anti-Conservative vote and the slight advantage that a third of the voting population have been conditioned to hate.

And before you say anything about "If only they'd switched leader ..." that goes for every Labour leader. Even Tony Blair got it a bit in 1997 - though perhaps they went easy on him, and it was only 25% of the electorate that got the 1984 style 'Two Minutes Hate' style conditioning.

My earlier prediction of Labour finishing as the largest party feels wildly optimistic, but I think I said that at the time, and I'm going to stick with it because, you know, Scottish, refusal to acknowledge and all that.

Rabbi urges congregation to vote against Corbyn

Though Jonathan Romain is a fairly high profile Rabbi, writing in several papers and popping up on TV and the radio, this story doesn't seem to have made it to the Guardian yet, so I'll take the unusual step of linking the Stephen Pollard edited Jewish Chronicle:

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain has taken the unprecedented step of writing to his congregation urging them to vote for whatever political party stands the best chance of beating Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour candidates in the forthcoming general election.

The Maidenhead synagogue minister revealed he had sent the letter to 823 families who are members of the Berkshire shul across 16 different constituencies suggesting that “a Corbyn-led government would pose a danger to Jewish life as we know it.”

The source article notes that it is unusual for a Rabbi to be issuing political advice like this, then continues with a lengthy Romain's letter.

"I should stress that the problem is not the Labour Party itself, which has a long record of fighting discrimination and prejudice, but the problem is Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn-led Labour, has at best, let antisemitism arise within its ranks, or at worst, has encouraged it.

“This has never happened under any previous Labour leader, whether under Tony Blair on the right, Neil Kinnock in the centre or Michael Foot on the left, so the finger of responsibility really does seem to point to Jeremy Corbyn.

“I am therefore suggesting we should each put aside all other considerations and vote for whichever party is most likely to defeat Labour in whatever constituency we are in - even if we would never normally vote for that party.”

I am quite happy with Rabbi Romain expressing his opinion.  I can't see the point of religion that isn't engaged in social and political activity.  Religion is a political activity, and religion that tells its members not to be political is an inherently political act.  Quiescence and silence are de facto support for the status quo.  You can't be neutral or disengaged.

That doesn't mean I agree with what the good Rabbi says, of course.  I hate what you say but I defend to the death the right to et cetera, et cetera.  It's a ridiculous mish-mash of nonsense.

It's absurd to say "Corbyn-led Labour, has at best, let antisemitism arise within its ranks"; 'let' implies a degree of quiescence and apathy.  Labour has not been passive.  It might not have done as much as the Jewish Chronicle or, it would seem, Rabbi Romain would like, but it has not ignored the issue with the passive indifference that 'let' suggests.

But Corbyn's Labour party has taken far more action against anti-Semitism and anti-Semites within Labour than any previous iteration of the party in the time frame laid out by Romain.  Setting aside Corbyn's long history of engagement and expressions of sympathy for British Jews, following the Chakrabarti inquiry anti-Semitism is now something you can specifically be expelled from Labour for.  Previously, it was fudged under the heading of 'bringing the party into disrepute'; the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been adopted by the party, controversial examples and all; and many, many cases have been processed, and at a faster rate than previously.

It has been alleged - by Jon Lansman - that the delays in processing of anti-Semitism cases was not due to indifference by Corbyn and his team but by politically motivated neglect by anti-Corbynites on the NEC, who delayed processes in order to generate negative headlines about anti-Semitism.

On this troubling issue, where justice is being delayed and anti-Semitism used as a prop in political theatre, Rabbi Romain appears silent.

That was his 'best case' scenario, remember.  He suggests that, at worst, "has encouraged" anti-Semitism with in the party.

I think claiming Corbyn has "encouraged" anti-Semitism is someone wanting to be martyred. He's either hoping for a libel writ or (more likely) fishing for abuse so he can jump up and down and say, "See! Anti-Semitism!" and Pollard can write more articles bloviating about the wickedness of Corbynites and Corbyn.

I hope people will observe the distinction between criticism and abuse.  It is not wrong that Rabbi Romain has used his position to make a political point; it is wrong that his point appears not to be based on facts and the genuine interests of his congregation but political animus seeking a means to its end.  But he does not deserve to be shouted down, threatened or abused for that.

First, because it would be utterly wrong to do that.  Second, because it would be utterly wrong to do that.  Third, (and a distant third) because it would play into the hands of the sort of people who don't have the interests of Labour or of British Jews in their hearts.

I wonder if any journalists will interview members of his congregation to find out what they think of the Rabbi's letter?  Find out what actual Jews think, rather than just disseminating the utterances of their leaders.

Of course, that would require a bit of journalism, something of a dead art in 2019.

"I have a plan, Sir"

The Lib Dems are considering giving their support to an attempt to by-pass the Fixed Term Parliaments Act to give Boris Johnson an election:

Boris Johnson has been offered a route to securing the pre-Christmas election that he has been seeking, through a plan that would only require the support of a simple majority of MPs.

With most Labour MPs still against the idea of a snap election, the prime minister looks set to lose his bid to secure a December poll on Monday in a vote that requires the backing of two-thirds of MPs. Other parties are also opposing an election until the EU has granted a three-month Brexit delay, although the DUP hinted on Saturday it could back the move.

However, in a sign that the coalition opposed to an election is under strain, the Liberal Democrats have drawn up a plan allowing Johnson to secure a December poll with a simple majority of MPs, with the support of Jo Swinson’s party and the SNP.

Typical short-sighted tactics by the Lib Dems, undermining the one good thing to come out of the Coalition. Undermining parliament's control over its own destiny.

This ploy could be used by government to bypass the FTPA and have an election at their convenience. If the Lib Dems do it now, they have legitimised it and any future PM will be able to use the same mechanism. The moral injunction against anyone doing it evaporates as soon as it is done. So they shouldn't do it, in case a some point in the future they want to be able to tell other people not to do it.

I want an election but I want it done properly and in accordance with the law, not through some wily subterfuge that will later on become a tool for cynical PMs.

Labour, meanwhile are calling on Johnson ruling out No Deal. I'm interested in seeing what Labour mean when they are calling for No Deal to be ruled out. That's consistent with what they have always wanted so it makes sense. I'm not sure how they expect it to work - unless it is based on a promise from Johnson, which isn't worth much - but I accept they *MAY* be smarter than me and know what they are about.

I wouldn't give them too long to sort it out though.

Surely the Lib Dems would be interested in preventing No Deal?

There is an alternative.  It proceeds on the assumption we get a lengthy extension, which the EU seems to be about to announce. The main aims (as I see it) at this stage are: remove No Deal from the table as a 'default' option; secure a second referendum; secure a second election; humiliate Johnson to ensure maximum chance of doing well in that election.

The proposed route where the FTPA is by-passed is not satisfactory. It sets an unpleasant precedent that could be abused later on. Also, it gives Jonson control. He's not going to rule out No Deal, it won't get a second referendum, he's going to set the terms of an election and he's going to come out of it enhanced, not humiliated. So a big old fail there.

If I was Seamus Milne, this is what I might be planning:

1. Demand the PM puts forward a bill (or something) pledging that No Deal is not an option. Argue it has to come from Johnson so he is honour bound to stick with it if he wins the up-coming election. Johnson, of course, refuses.


2. Spring a VONC in the government when Johnson refuses to rule out No Deal. If Johnson survives, so be it. At least they tried. If the motion succeeds, Johnson's government falls. He is humiliated and loses control of the schedule.


3. Try to set up a GNU, led by Corbyn. Dare the Lib Dems and pro-remain indies to vote against it. If they do, then Labour can campaign arguing their true colours were exposed and their commitment to the EU was found wanting; if setting up the GNU succeeds, then they have a short window to pass legislation ruling out No Deal, setting up a second referendum and having the election at the time of their choosing. They might even have time to grab an 'off the shelf' Norway style deal from the EU.


4. If a Corbyn GNU can not work, throw the party's weight behind another candidate. The important thing is to be seen to be genuinely trying. If that doesn't work, an election follows.


5. In the election, campaign like fiends, pointing out that Corbyn was PM for a month and the sky did not fall, or that he gallantly set aside his own ambitions to enable a GNU, or that he tried his utmost but the Tories, Lib Dems and supposedly pro-Remain indies frustrated his efforts.

Steps 3 and 4 are the crucial ones - if the push came to shove, would the Lib Dems and pro-Remain Indies actually support a Corbyn led GNU? Would Corbyn be able to rally his own party to support another figure?

You have to wonder about a party where the leader muttered something about supporting Johnson's deal (with the proviso of a second referendum) and which now is contemplating supporting his efforts to undermine a law the Lib Dems insisted on being passed in the coalition years.

Lib Dem's anti-Corbyn poster

The Lib dems have unleashed this:

Playing on the same themes that the Conservatives have been using against Corbyn - that he's naive, possibly a bit ideologically suspect ("Comrade?") and hinting at supposed disloyalty.

I don't think it is 'offensive' as some are claiming; but I do think it is shit and every time I think mebbe we've been a bit too hard on the Lib Dems they pull some stunt like this - and then I think, "Too Hell wi' them."

I see the Lib Dems are back to their Revoke fantasy politics (they only need about 310 more seats to do it!); but in the real world, do they really expect sane politicians to leave No Deal roving about as an option in this mess? Any referendum has to be between Remain and a Brexit deal of some sort. Preferably Soft Brexit, but anything will do right now.

It's also effin' hypocritical of the party that literally put the Conservatives into Downing Street (2010-2015 coalition) and facilitated austerity and class war obscenities like the 'Bedroom tax' to be making a poster themed on Labour working with the Tories.

I'm not sure the Lib Dems - whose current leader was actually a part of the coalition government - really want to get into a dirty fight with Labour about who enables Conservative misrule.

Just sayin'.

What the actual Hell?

Keir Starmer has hinted that Labour might vote in favour of the Johnson government's shoddy deal, with the proviso that a second referendum is attached:

Speaking to BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show, he said: “We will see what that looks like but it makes sense to say that by whatever means we get that referendum. 

The spirit of this is clear. We offered this to Theresa May. We said: we don’t think your deal is very good but if it’s up against the safeguard of being able to remain then we will allow it to proceed in that way.” 

He added: “The position we have adopted is whatever the outcome, whether it’s Boris Johnson’s bad deal or a better one which could be secured, it has got to go to a referendum up against remain.”

Backing a referendum amendment is common sense.  Backing the whole bill is stupid.

It was stupid when Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson was talking about it and it is stupid now when Starmer is talking about it. Even if it is just a ploy, a bait-and-switch, it will encourage rebels - "You were considering backing it, so you can't blame us for just taking it a step further."

And after all the rhetoric about the deal in the last few days either Labour look like liars if they are now willing to back a deal they'd described as so awful, or they look untrustworthy and cynical for saying it was so bad and then voting for it.

Of course, a referendum might result in Remain winning, and the whole sorry episode being brought to a close starting over again. But that's not a risk I am comfortable taking. I'd rather have Remain run off against Soft Brexit because - guess what - everyone was confident the British public would more likely than not reject Brexit back in 2016. They didn't.

Also, Labour voting for the deal makes it harder for them to then campaign against it. "You're tellig us to stay in the EU, Jeremy? But you voted for the deal."

Vote for the amendment and vote against the deal.

The only acceptable explanation to me is they are waiting for the EU to grant an extension, before coming out against the bill.