Well quite. Pushing that second referendum idea was insanity yet it enjoyed popular support within the Labour Party leadership and membership.

Mentalists. All of them.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

The bit I have always struggled with in terms of Labours change to a second referendum stance was that it made zero electoral sense.

Scotland was lost so if Labour wanted to win then it needed to secure a majority in England and Wales. Both of whom voted Leave, not only in 2016 but also then in the 2019 Euro elections.

And in terms of both votes, if broken down on a constituency basis, then a very definite desire for Leave.

It never made any sense on the most basic rational understanding of the electoral landscape out there. The maths not complex to understand and absolutely in your face.

So was it pushed by way of actually wanting Labour to lose? That the desire to rid the party of Corbyn meant that pressure was exerted on it to adopt a policy that GUARANTEED they got slaughtered?

It is the only logical explanation. Nothing else makes any sense because their policy on a second referendum was sheer lunacy and that never made any sense.

Unless it was deliberate. The actual method of sabotaging Corbyn by people in his own party?

Now yes, you might all want to pile on and call me a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic but in light of this current revelation of what happened around the 2017 election, then surely my proposition actually has some credibility?

Edited by Matov (15 Apr 2020 4.37pm)

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

But the policy was electoral suicide. Achieved nothing when put to the ultimate electoral test. With all the facts there. Already in votes case in 2016 and 2019.

The task for Labour was not a complex one in what it needed to do. Win a majority of seats in England and Wales. That was it. And by no longer offering to honour the 2016 result, then guaranteeing you could not achieve that.

Also, as I grasp the nature of these revelations, a significant amount of the 'worst' culprits from 2017 in terms of the Labour hierarchy who apparently did their best to try and ensure that Labour did not win went on to have roles in the Peoples Vote campaign.

Forget 52-48 as the percentages of the referendum. When broken down on a constituency basis it was nearer to 65-35. Meaning that adopting a policy of not honouring that was not only shockingly bad but actually negligent if you want your party to win an election.

And these are people who live and breathe this stuff 24/7. Who know the insides and outs of it all. Professionals. Paid, supposedly, to ensure their chosen party does well.

Leaving you with two options about Starmer who was the chief proponent of Labours change of stance over Brexit.

1. Starmer is a fool.
2. Starmer deliberately sought to stop Labour winning in 2019.

If there is a third option then please let me know.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

A 4th option is that corbyn didnt want to sack abbott so losing was less painful. Skeletons in the cupboard maybe.

They are furious because they would have won the case. This is insanity. Why on earth would a political party throw in the towel on a case they were likely to win?

Labour under Starmer are doing more to convince me of the idea of a 'hidden hand' in British politics than anything else I have ever lived through.

People need to put aside Left or Right here. And ask 'why'?

This is truly f***ed up.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Look below the surface. Look beyond the usual slings and arrows. My understanding is that Labours own lawyers were telling them that they stood a real chance of winning this case. There is a lot more going on here than initially meets the eye.

Why on earth would you throw in a winning hand?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.