Westminstenders: Boom. The Brexit Backlash starts to hit.

[RedToothBrush]

So it turns out that immigration figures that stated students overstayed were wrong. The home office knew this. And sat on it. Since 2015. Under Theresa.

That smells a bit doesn't it?

Imagine it: "Let's do lunch Paul. I'll cover up and give you a nice immigration story for your front page. In return, crown me PM."

Then tonight BOOM. Labour look like they have made a move. Soft very swishy Brexit. Even less brexity than the Beano Brexit that the Tories have been trying to announce on the quiet over the summer whilst Brexiteers are on holiday.

amp.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit
Labour makes dramatic shift on Brexit and single market
Party opens clear divide with Tories, with support for free movement and paying into EU budgets for up to four years

Labour is to announce a dramatic policy shift by backing continued membership of the EU single market beyond March 2019, when Britain leaves the EU, establishing a clear dividing line with the Tories on Brexit for the first time.

In a move that positions it decisively as the party of “soft Brexit”, Labour will support full participation in the single market and customs union during a lengthy “transitional period” that it believes could last between two and four years after the day of departure, it is to announce on Sunday.

This will mean that under a Labour government the UK would continue to abide by the EU’s free movement rules, accept the jurisdiction of the European court of justice on trade and economic issues, and pay into the EU budget for a period of years after Brexit, in the hope of lessening the shock of leaving to the UK economy. In a further move that will delight many pro-EU Labour backers, Jeremy Corbyn’s party will also leave open the option of the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market for good, beyond the end of the transitional period.

Why would Labour suddenly do this? It's not just because of the youth vote. What about their leave voters?

Faisal Islam on the subject:
2. On Labour Leavers is very very interesting and involves quite the psephological judgement re the election....
...the calculation appears to be that Labour Leave voters had the chance to vote for Theresa May's brand of Brexit, and bar 5 seats, said No
Was that because Lableave voters were already signalled "hard Brexit"? Or many millions such voters much more concerned about other things?

Have Labour been polling their voters on this?

Theresa has also apparently set her sell by date: Friday 30th August 2019.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-sets-date-shell-quit-11061894.amp
Theresa May sets date she'll quit as Prime Minister - giving herself time to see Britain through Brexit

The longer the transition and the squishier it gets, the more the more you wonder.

Mr Barnier will enjoy his coffee and newspapers tomorrow as he prepares for round two of Brexit talks starting next week.

The question on his mind most: Will David Davis remember to bring his notes this time?

celeste Many of the voters who turned out to vote for Labour, (and indeed the Libdems where they were the credible alternative to the Tories) in the cities in numbers larger than before were young, and research shows that they were indeed voting to protect the NHS and welfare state from the Tories, but second on their list of priorities was stopping Brexit. I canvassed and it was inspiring to see so many young people motivated to engage with the political process. It defies belief that the Tories have so completely ignored that demographic, perhaps Labour are realising that support for Brexit will be a policy of deminishing returns.....

Dh and I are labour, though voted lib dem for tactical reasons. This policy statement is what I had hoped labour had always been for, but it really was not clear. They had been infuriating in their vagueness meaning that while I hoped they wanted a soft brexit and a transition period it was really me being hopeful. I was starting to lose faith to be honest. This statement is definitely a big step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. One bit from the guardian article stood out to me:

"Permanent long-term membership would only be considered if a Labour government could by then have persuaded the rest of the EU to agree to a special deal on immigration and changes to freedom of movement rules."

From memory aren't there already discussions between some of the other EU countries about FoM? I seem to remember France in particular wanting to review it (or did I imagine this?). I wonder if the 2-4 year transition period would give them enough time to have these discussions, which might them be enough to keep is in permanently.

Firstly, labour didn't win the election, and secondly a large majority of labours traditional vote selected leave in the referendum.

Firstly, labour didn't win the election, and secondly a large majority of labours traditional vote selected leave in the referendum.

We all know that, but they certainly weren't slaughtered as the polls predicted and May believed would happen. So traditional voters voted Leave - but why? Was it in the belief that the NHS would get more money? I would certainly expect that this swung it for some voters. I notice you have ducked my question - where are UKIP now? Is this not a sign that significant numbers of voters have changed their minds over two years?

Firstly, labour didn't win the election

The Tories didn't get a majority either, so I'm not sure what your point is.

UKIP's sole purpose was to get a leave vote with very little else in substantial political manifesto. They are a spent political force now as their job is done. You could also use your argument with the snp's vote share last time out which dropped notably; so does that mean people voted for someone else other than snp becasue they didn't like their anti-brexit manifesto?

my point was someone above was suggesting there was a surge in votes for labour as some sort of brexit protest. If so, labour didn't even win the largest share of votes, and anyhow labour's manifesto was clear to respect the vote.

Research has suggested that labour did indeed pick up a lot of remain voters despite it's official leave stance. They were seen as the best chance for remain by many people.

'Soft Brexit' policy won Labour votes in general election, says study
Labour was predominantly viewed by voters in the general election as the party of soft Brexit during a campaign dominated by the subject of how best to depart the EU, a major study of electoral opinion has concluded.

The long-running British Election Study, which has followed a 30,000-strong panel of voters over the past three years, found Labour picked up significant support from remain-minded voters, despite its ambiguous stance on what sort of Brexit deal to pursue.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/01/soft-brexit-policy-won-labour-votes-in-general-election-says-study

can someone wake me up when when it's all over, please. Not sure I can cope with the cringe factor of seeing DD fake-outrage at this week's negotiations...unless it coincides with another James C twitterfest taking him doooooooown. I live in hope.

Thank you, Red.

Over 60% of Labour voters voted Remain!

Celeste Labour came from behind to do far better in the election than was expected and that swing was mainly young and urban, a demographic that is pro remain. Currently they are ahead in the polls. It defies belief that against that backdrop with the clear message that their dismal shortfall on their expected decisive election win should have sent to them, the Tories are still being hijacked by their backward looking right wing but I would hazard a guess that Labour have done their research and spotted the political opportunity and where their growing support is coming from. The 48% were never going to go away and certainly in my constituency 5000 new mainly young voters added their voice and helped swing the constituency from the Tories.

Research has suggested that labour did indeed pick up a lot of remain voters despite it's official leave stance. They were seen as the best chance for remain by many people.

So, research from a pro-eu media outlet suggests people voted for a party with a clear manifesto to leave the eu, in the hope that the uk would remain in the eu, instead of voting for the lib dems who clearly stated they would overturn the referendum? If there was such a appetite to overturn the referendum result then we would currently have a lib dem government. The argument is arrogant at best.

You lot are clutching at straws you really are. The fact is the referendum voted leave, and the last election the parties with manifestos to respect the referendum had the largest shares vote, i.e. labour and tories.

The British Election Study isn't a media outlet, it's an impartial, statistically representative survey that has been run in pretty much its current form since the 1960s. In fact, it's the most respected longitudinal survey of its kind in the world.

So, research from a pro-eu media outlet suggests people voted for a party with a clear manifesto to leave the eu, in the hope that the uk would remain in the eu, instead of voting for the lib dems who clearly stated they would overturn the referendum? If there was such a appetite to overturn the referendum result then we would currently have a lib dem government. The argument is arrogant at best.

Over 63% of 2015 Labour voters voted Remain. I don't see why its arrogant. This research has also been done by independent polling companies and this shows similar.

celeste the old Leave campaign soundbites have been progressively exposed as the deceitful lies they are....something I didn't think would happen "in time". But after 14 months it would take a deluded saint to keep the faith that there will ever be an operational plan. All thanks to the government's utter incompetence, plus the fact it was based on undeliverable BS. It's very entertaining watching the scales fall from Leave voters' eyes. Better late than never.

So research takes paramount over actual democratic referendums and elections?

Advisory referendum

Celeste the referendum was advisory. The leave campaign was based on now-proven lies. A third of those eligible to Vite fell for it. Their average educational profile has been widely reported by credible research authorities. Those most affected (EU and UK citizen expats) we're often denied a vote.

This is not democracy. There is nothing to respect. Nothing whatsoever.

There may have been many voters who wrote to them after the last election to tell them they got their vote DESPITE their Brexit stance, not because of it. I was one of them

so am I.

3 emails (all marked as unanswered by "WriteToThem") since the election. It's not inconceivable that this seat could go Tory in another election ....

celeste Where the Libdems were the second party to the Tories they did win seats. Unfortunately it is in the nature of our parliamentary system that if you wanted to get the Tories out you had to vote for the party that came second in your constituency and in most cases that was Labour.

I think that you must be clutching very hard at the straws in the shape of all the Leave campaign promises because they look to be dissolving rapidly in the face of hard reality. I actually think it is a shame that there were no unicorns because my family has already been affected badly by all the uncertainty and shocking failures of governance and it would have been a little more bearable if it had actually been for something other than internal Tory politics and the lies and manipulations of a few power hungry right wing billionaires.

So research takes paramount over actual democratic referendums and elections?

Research would take precedence over past referendums because ... why ever not? People change their minds. It would be a kind of insanity to hold to a policy that is damaging for the nation and that people have changed their minds on (as it became clear the referendum was utterly unrigorous by standards of modern democracy) just because people voted for it at a point in the past.

To hold people to that result would be to display the kind of logic you see when a parent punishes a child by making them see through the consequences of a poor decision. It's not how you run a country.

And as for research taking precedence over an actual election result: well, the research is of that election result. So the situation there is not either/or (either research or the result: it's research of the result). As I'm sure you know, the first past the post system in this country makes it very hard for people to vote for a third party, such as the Lib Dems, on one single policy. People compromise and make 'best fit' decisions. Hence the analysis of the result.

So the positioning of 'research' in opposition to 'election result' is incorrect. The research is to make clear what the result actually means, and crucially, what might motivate people to vote one way or another in another election.

I see Labour have rattled some cages. Good for them. It is their job as the Opposition to provide opposition. That's how our democracy works.

It still amazes me that there are a large number of leave voters who seem to think democracy = one vote on a subject ever. That's not democracy. That's an illusion of democracy. Though I suppose it feels like democracy to those of certain persuasion.

Place Mat Keir ( from holiday!)