Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[Alan_X]

No idea what you mean?

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man." It's the Jesuit motto, attributed to Ignatius_of_Loyola (although that's disputed).

[oldfordie]

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man." It's the Jesuit motto, attributed to Ignatius_of_Loyola (although that's disputed).

Is it,well am glad you told me, that's the last time I use that quote,
I was trying to find the best explanation to show how important the first few years of a persons upbringing shapes their personality.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Is it,well am glad you told me, that's the last time I use that quote,
I was trying to find the best explanation to show how important the first few years of a persons upbringing shapes their personality.

I think that quote almost suggests the opposite though? That already by 7 our destiny as an adult is determined?

An alternative quote that fits what you are saying closer is often attributed to the famous psychologist B F Skinner - "Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything". Obviously whether he was right or not is open to debate! 

[filopastry]

Obviously the Torygraph so I would take it with an immense pinch of salt, but a few claims that Labour look to be in trouble in Copeland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/exclusive-labour-set-lose-copeland-by-election-partys-canvass/

Personally I would think Labour should be able to hold on there, but it will probably be tight.

[TepidT2O]

Obviously the Torygraph so I would take it with an immense pinch of salt, but a few claims that Labour look to be in trouble in Copeland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/exclusive-labour-set-lose-copeland-by-election-partys-canvass/

Personally I would think Labour should be able to hold on there, but it will probably be tight.

They'll win.  It might be close, but they will.

Milne will claim it's a glorious victory as people said they would lose.

To actually lose a seat you've held for 80 years to a sitting government would be unthinkable.  Even this leadership can't lose this one.

[oldfordie]

I think that quote almost suggests the opposite though? That already by 7 our destiny as an adult is determined?

An alternative quote that fits what you are saying closer is often attributed to the famous psychologist B F Skinner - "Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything". Obviously whether he was right or not is open to debate!

The point i wanted to make was not shaping a child into anything. it's not about control or raising a child into your image etc. this particular point was the effect of not telling a child he's naughty when they have done wrong.
If this is not corrected then theres a good chance you unwittingly raise a very selfish child who takes this with them throughout out their life.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

In terms of greed - it's hardly a modern concept. A quick google brings up this fiery excerpt from the Bible 

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. ...

Update the language a bit and it could be a comment below the line on the Guardian website.

I'm not sure if you could argue that we are 'naturally' predisposed to greed though - spending energy acquiring resources that are over and above your needs would seem to me to be a negative behavior in evolutionary terms. This principle holds true right up to the birth of agriculture and resource surplus, which in evolutionary terms is just yesterday. I think it is more a social construct, albeit a very old one.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

The point i wanted to make was not shaping a child into anything. it's not about control or raising a child into your image etc. this particular point was the effect of not telling a child he's naughty when they have done wrong.
If this is not corrected then theres a good chance you unwittingly raise a very selfish child who takes this with them throughout out their life.

It's an old quote so it doesn't really fit with modern 'sensibilities'! One of Skinner's big things was the idea of conditioning - that if you consistently associated a behaviour with a consequence (whether that be positive or negative) you could make the behavior more or less likely. Which is what you're talking about I think?

[oldfordie]

In terms of greed - it's hardly a modern concept. A quick google brings up this fiery excerpt from the Bible 

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. ...

Update the language a bit and it could be a comment below the line on the Guardian website.

I'm not sure if you could argue that we are 'naturally' predisposed to greed though - spending energy acquiring resources that are over and above your needs would seem to me to be a negative behavior in evolutionary terms. This principle holds true right up to the birth of agriculture and resource surplus, which in evolutionary terms is just yesterday. I think it is more a social construct, albeit a very old one.

I think you have to lack empathy if you are greedy as you do this with a clear conscience. this can be viewed as a personalty disorder. most of us are not greedy as we believe it's wrong, we couldn't be greedy at the expense of others.
This didn't come about by accident, our parents all taught us the difference between right and wrong.
Children of a very young age naturally want everything they see and they will take it if they can, nothing wrong with that at all. psychologists make this very point, this is natural and a few words of naughty is vital. if left uncorrected then the child will just grow into a adult with the same personalty. take without any consideration for the person who he has harmed.

[Dr. Beaker]

People are either 'money people' - who are generally a pain in the arse, or 'people people' - who are usually much more fun to be with. It's a bit of an oversimplification but it seems to work for me. And funnily enough you don't have to be rich to be a 'money person', or poor to be a 'people person'.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

They'll win.  It might be close, but they will.

Milne will claim it's a glorious victory as people said they would lose.

To actually lose a seat you've held for 80 years to a sitting government would be unthinkable.  Even this leadership can't lose this one.

If labour win, even by one vote, they'll spin it as an endorsement of Corbyn.
If labour lose, even by one vote, they'll spin it as a rejection of a non-Corbyn favoured candidate.

So it's basically win-win for them.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Obviously the Torygraph so I would take it with an immense pinch of salt, but a few claims that Labour look to be in trouble in Copeland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/exclusive-labour-set-lose-copeland-by-election-partys-canvass/

Personally I would think Labour should be able to hold on there, but it will probably be tight.

an area that is heavily dependant on the nuclear industry not being that keen to vote for a party who's leader who hates that industry isn't going to like that guy, as if he had his way they wouldn't have their well paying jobs.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I think you have to lack empathy if you are greedy as you do this with a clear conscience. this can be viewed as a personalty disorder. most of us are not greedy as we believe it's wrong, we couldn't be greedy at the expense of others.
This didn't come about by accident, our parents all taught us the difference between right and wrong.
Children of a very young age naturally want everything they see and they will take it if they can, nothing wrong with that at all. psychologists make this very point, this is natural and a few words of naughty is vital. if left uncorrected then the child will just grow into a adult with the same personalty. take without any consideration for the person who he has harmed.

I think we are derailing the thread a little, but one last point about the grey areas of 'greed'.

Let's say you are in a job where financially you are getting along fine. An opportunity comes up (whether it be promotion or a different job) where your pay will be significantly better - making a real positive difference to your life. You go along to the interview and it feels like you ace it. Whilst you wait for the response you find out that a friend or colleague, who you know to be struggling to make ends meet, has applied for the same position. You then get the call telling you your application has been successful. How many people in that position turn the opportunity down and say "give it to X - they need it more than me"? If you take the position is that greed? If not where is the dividing line?

[Libertine]

Yvette Cooper has deepened Labour infighting over Brexit, by warning MPs who vote against triggering Article 50 will be behaving like Donald Trump.

The former leadership contender turned her fire on MPs from all parties who have insisted they will not give consent to a Brexit they believe will be deeply damaging.

“It was a referendum that was fought in good faith and nobody said at any time ‘you know what, I am not going to respect the result afterwards’,” Ms Cooper said

“That’s the kind of thing Donald Trump says - and did say before the presidential election - and we were all appalled and horrified that he was saying that about the outcome of a vote.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-donald-trump-labour-mps-yvette-cooper-article-50-a7537171.html

So if you don't follow May completely with her destructive course of hard brexit, you're just like Donald Trump?

Can't believe I actually voted for this party at the last election. I certainly won't be in the next one.....

[Dr. Beaker]

I think we are derailing the thread a little, but one last point about the grey areas of 'greed'.

Let's say you are in a job where financially you are getting along fine. An opportunity comes up (whether it be promotion or a different job) where your pay will be significantly better - making a real positive difference to your life. You go along to the interview and it feels like you ace it. Whilst you wait for the response you find out that a friend or colleague, who you know to be struggling to make ends meet, has applied for the same position. You then get the call telling you your application has been successful. How many people in that position turn the opportunity down and say "give it to X - they need it more than me"? If you take the position is that greed? If not where is the dividing line?

This isn't derailment. This is the train being carried off by a UFO and discovered by Steven Speilberg in the Gobi desert 50 years later.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

This isn't derailment. This is the train being carried off by a UFO and discovered by Steven Speilberg in the Gobi desert 50 years later.

Yeah sorry  just think it's an interesting argument that's all

[oldfordie]

I think we are derailing the thread a little, but one last point about the grey areas of 'greed'.

Let's say you are in a job where financially you are getting along fine. An opportunity comes up (whether it be promotion or a different job) where your pay will be significantly better - making a real positive difference to your life. You go along to the interview and it feels like you ace it. Whilst you wait for the response you find out that a friend or colleague, who you know to be struggling to make ends meet, has applied for the same position. You then get the call telling you your application has been successful. How many people in that position turn the opportunity down and say "give it to X - they need it more than me"? If you take the position is that greed? If not where is the dividing line?

I agree we are derailing the thread, I never intended or expected the word greed would turn into a discussion.
Psychology is obviously very complicated and disorders overlap and they have extremes.
Am not giving my opinion as such am giving the opinion of top psychiatrists. If anyone's interested in the subject then it's worth reading a few books written by psychologists in the FBI behavioural science unit. the Roman Emperor syndrome in particular is relevant to this discussion, it's fascinating and explains how children left uncorrected grow up with many bad personality disorders,in extreme cases psychopaths.

[Alan_X]

They'll win.  It might be close, but they will.

Milne will claim it's a glorious victory as people said they would lose.

To actually lose a seat you've held for 80 years to a sitting government would be unthinkable.  Even this leadership can't lose this one.

I was surprised but the Tories are the bookies favourite. I don't think it's in any way guaranteed that Labour will win. Corbyn's relaunch seems to have had the effect of reminding people how shit he is. Local issues are against a Corbyn-led party with the Tories quoting his anti-nuclear stance. And no one knows what Labour's stance is on Brexit. Add in the fact that the local party rejected his choice for candidate and it's all looking a bit shit for Labour.

As a side issue, Canary tried to blow minor Tory campaign funding issues into a massive story. This time round, Labour are reportedly throwing money at the campaign before the deadline kicks in and limits campaign spend.

[Anfield Ed]

Emily Thornberry was at my CLP tonight.

I asked about freedom of movement and Labours position on it and she said 'I don't know'

[Sammy5IsAlive]

The only time they usually start checking that EU Migrants have been exercising treaty rights in the correct manner is if that EU migrant wishes to be joined by a non EU family member or the EU Migrant wishes to apply for PR and Citizenship.

To get the thread back on track (ish) - outside of the initial Jobseeking period for JSA (which FWIW only gives entitlement to JSA, not to Housing Benefit which is often the major concern for someone in that position) every time an EU national applies for the large majority of benefits (or indeed for homelessness assistance) their entitlement depends on whether they have been exercising treaty rights. The Home Office may not be keeping track of it but the DWP and Local Authorities definitely do.

The concessions Cameron brought back were rubbished in the press but if they had been applied effectively they would, for better or for worse, have gone a significant way to reducing the EU migration that many were so concerned about.

[ShakaHislop]

Yvette Cooper has deepened Labour infighting over Brexit, by warning MPs who vote against triggering Article 50 will be behaving like Donald Drumpf.

The former leadership contender turned her fire on MPs from all parties who have insisted they will not give consent to a Brexit they believe will be deeply damaging.

“It was a referendum that was fought in good faith and nobody said at any time ‘you know what, I am not going to respect the result afterwards’,” Ms Cooper said

“That’s the kind of thing Donald Drumpf says - and did say before the presidential election - and we were all appalled and horrified that he was saying that about the outcome of a vote.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-donald-trump-labour-mps-yvette-cooper-article-50-a7537171.html

So if you don't follow May completely with her destructive course of hard brexit, you're just like Donald Drumpf?

Can't believe I actually voted for this party at the last election. I certainly won't be in the next one.....

She says in the article that "it's right to argue strongly what kind of Brexit we should have" but why should Theresa May listen to even the strongest of arguments from Cooper if the latter has agreed to invoke Article 50 whatever? No-one yet knows for sure whether Article 50 is reversible, and if even if it is, whether voting down the final deal in parliament would mean we remain a member of the EU yet MPs are being coerced into voting to enter the unknown.

[oldfordie]

Yvette Cooper has deepened Labour infighting over Brexit, by warning MPs who vote against triggering Article 50 will be behaving like Donald Drumpf.

The former leadership contender turned her fire on MPs from all parties who have insisted they will not give consent to a Brexit they believe will be deeply damaging.

“It was a referendum that was fought in good faith and nobody said at any time ‘you know what, I am not going to respect the result afterwards’,” Ms Cooper said

“That’s the kind of thing Donald Drumpf says - and did say before the presidential election - and we were all appalled and horrified that he was saying that about the outcome of a vote.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-donald-trump-labour-mps-yvette-cooper-article-50-a7537171.html

So if you don't follow May completely with her destructive course of hard brexit, you're just like Donald Drumpf?

Can't believe I actually voted for this party at the last election. I certainly won't be in the next one.....

Crazy. I thought this was about carrying out the wishes of the people and respecting what they voted for. I would of thought Labours job was to fight for those wishes and not give their consent to the triggering of article 50 if they believed those wishes were being ignored.

[Dr. Beaker]

I've criticised Yvette Cooper on here a few times over the last year or so, particularly because of her abysmal performances during the original leadership election, but there must be something amiss here because she aint thick. This can't be as advertised surely.

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

He has to go now. The end.

[Alan_X]

I've criticised Yvette Cooper on here a few times over the last year or so, particularly because of her abysmal performances during the original leadership election, but there must be something amiss here because she aint thick. This can't be as advertised surely.

The best spin I can put on it is that she's appealing for party unity. Very disappointing though.

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

Yvette Cooper has shown herself to simply be loyal to the party here and that'll have knocked a few for six as she was quite highly thought of in some circles.

Now, on one hand, she's tainted by being heavily associated with Blairism and on the other hand she thinks Article 50 should be waived through.

That's her done then.

[BoRed]

Cooper is a realist, and this only shows that Labour voting for Article 50 is not a hard left issue. This was posted some days ago:

It appears that the general public are as confused about Labour's goals on Brexit are as I am, with 42% not sure of what Labour's priorities on Brexit are.

It shows that blocking Article 50 would upset at least 64% (and potentially up to 77%) of the people. A party like the Lib Dems can openly go for the remaining 36%, a figure they can only dream of, but Labour must aim higher. As someone said above, the Labour line should be Soft Brexit or No Brexit, but at this point they have very little choice - voting against Article 50 would be suicidal (especially since the Tories would probably push it through anyway, and would then present themselves as the only ones who respect the wishes of the people).

[TepidT2O]

Difficult though it may be to accept, blocking article 50 just for the sake of it can surely only be harmful..

Only thing that can be done is try to get the best deal...

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Cooper is a realist, and this only shows that Labour voting for Article 50 is not a hard left issue. This was posted some days ago:

It shows that blocking Article 50 would upset at least 64% (and potentially up to 77%) of the people. A party like the Lib Dems can openly go for the remaining 36%, a figure they can only dream of, but Labour must aim higher. As someone said above, the Labour line should be Soft Brexit or No Brexit, but at this point they have very little choice - voting against Article 50 would be suicidal (especially since the Tories would probably push it through anyway, and would then present themselves as the only ones who respect the wishes of the people).

thats the situation right now, labour need to be playing the longer game as when this goes tits up and they just wave through what the Tories throw at them it's Scotland all over again for them and they become even more irrelevant

[oldfordie]

Cooper is a realist, and this only shows that Labour voting for Article 50 is not a hard left issue. This was posted some days ago:

It shows that blocking Article 50 would upset at least 64% (and potentially up to 77%) of the people. A party like the Lib Dems can openly go for the remaining 36%, a figure they can only dream of, but Labour must aim higher. As someone said above, the Labour line should be Soft Brexit or No Brexit, but at this point they have very little choice - voting against Article 50 would be suicidal (especially since the Tories would probably push it through anyway, and would then present themselves as the only ones who respect the wishes of the people).

Am surprised you can look at those figures and come to the conclusion Labour has to vote to trigger art 50. the proofs right their. 61% of the public don't want a hard Brexit.
This is not about brexit itself, .everyone has to respect the result of the vote, that is not in dispute. this is how we persue Brexit, the Torys have shown they are ignoring all the promises and all the reasons why people voted to leave the EU.
They have to be stopped from abusing the vote to do as they please.

[Millie]

To get the thread back on track (ish) - outside of the initial Jobseeking period for JSA (which FWIW only gives entitlement to JSA, not to Housing Benefit which is often the major concern for someone in that position) every time an EU national applies for the large majority of benefits (or indeed for homelessness assistance) their entitlement depends on whether they have been exercising treaty rights. The Home Office may not be keeping track of it but the DWP and Local Authorities definitely do.

The concessions Cameron brought back were rubbished in the press but if they had been applied effectively they would, for better or for worse, have gone a significant way to reducing the EU migration that many were so concerned about.

The DWP would only be interested in their NI contributions, and if they are habitually resident. 

I am talking about when the EU migrant first arrives in the UK.  After 90 days, to stay in the UK they have to start exercising treaty rights (obviously some do this from day 1 of arrival).  One way is to be a job seeker - this does not mean claiming job seekers allowance - it means actively seeking employment and being able to demonstrate that fact to the Home Office.  If it is going to take longer to actually get a job (usually 6 months max) then the EU citizen has to demonstrate to the Home Office that they have a good chance of gaining employment.

However, as registering with the Home Office is purely voluntary, usually the only EU migrants who do have to prove they are a genuine job seeker are those who wish to be joined by their non EU family member/s. 

[BoRed]

thats the situation right now, labour need to be playing the longer game as when this goes tits up and they just wave through what the Tories throw at them it's Scotland all over again for them and they become even more irrelevant

I agree, they should be more vocal along the Soft Brexit or No Brexit line, making it clear that they are not voting for May's plan, and that, while they will be voting to invoke article 50 now, they reserve the right to vote to revoke it if it turns out that the offered deal will be a disaster.

Am surprised you can look at those figures and come to the conclusion Labour has to vote to trigger art 50. the proofs right their. 61% of the public don't want a hard Brexit.

A soft Brexit also requires triggering article 50. As I said, Labour should make it clear that voting to trigger it is not a green light for any kind of Brexit the government comes up with. If the parliament can trigger it, it can also revoke it if and when necessary.

[oldfordie]

A soft Brexit also requires triggering article 50. As I said, Labour should make it clear that voting to trigger it is not a green light for any kind of Brexit the government comes up with. If the parliament can trigger it, it can also revoke it if and when necessary.

The Torys plan is a hard brexit, they have layed out their plan to the country. a hard Brexit is the goal with impossible demands to have access the single market. there will be no soft Brexit. therfore they cant trigger art 50 under the pretense of a soft Brexit being a option, it's not a option.
If the vote is to trigger art 50 then we cant work on the assumption it can be revoked. this is a opinion.

[zero zero]

Am surprised you can look at those figures and come to the conclusion Labour has to vote to trigger art 50. the proofs right their. 61% of the public don't want a hard Brexit.
This is not about brexit itself, .everyone has to respect the result of the vote, that is not in dispute. this is how we persue Brexit, the Torys have shown they are ignoring all the promises and all the reasons why people voted to leave the EU.

I'm in agreement with your posts. I'll add, that "blocking article 50" is a red herring. It would be suicide, but too much is made of being for or against "the will of the people. It is the will of the people to have a Conservative Government and therefore it is the lot of the Opposition to be against this. This is not something that is unique to the EU referendum. The Opposition are supposed to hold the government to account but that won't happen as the current Labour leadership have the same aims as UKIP when it comes to Europe.

They have to be stopped from abusing the vote to do as they please.

At a bare minimum Labour should be pointing out the lack of a plan, the lack of clear direction from May and the lack of any idea what Brexit will actually look like. This would have two benefits for Labour:

1. Distance the party from the mess when Brexit fails to bring about the promised utopia
2. Highlight that the Tories can't be trusted with the economy

[Dr. Beaker]

So have we now narrowed Labour's choices down to

a). Oppose article 50 as the only way of preventing the tories impending opportunist hi-Jack. Or,

b). Give article 50 the go-ahead and push for a highly vocal Soft Brexit or No Brexit.

Or are there any other options out there.

[zero zero]

So have we now narrowed Labour's choices down to

a). Oppose article 50 as the only way of preventing the tories impending opportunist hi-Jack. Or,

b). Give article 50 the go-ahead and push for a highly vocal Soft Brexit or No Brexit.

Or are there any other options out there.

c) Insist we are told what Brexit the Tories are working toward and how the Tories propose to get there before we trigger article 50

[oldfordie]

I'm in agreement with your posts. I'll add, that "blocking article 50" is a red herring. It would be suicide, but too much is made of being for or against "the will of the people. It is the will of the people to have a Conservative Government and therefore it is the lot of the Opposition to be against this. This is not something that is unique to the EU referendum. The Opposition are supposed to hold the government to account but that won't happen as the current Labour leadership have the same aims as UKIP when it comes to Europe.At a bare minimum Labour should be pointing out the lack of a plan, the lack of clear direction from May and the lack of any idea what Brexit will actually look like. This would have two benefits for Labour:

1. Distance the party from the mess when Brexit fails to bring about the promised utopia
2. Highlight that the Tories can't be trusted with the economy

Yes, they definitely have to distance themselves from this Tory Brexit. they've put themselves in a no win situation.
I think this will all be looked at in a different light in years to come. the public have heard nothing but the hard right talking about lets get on with, trigger art 50, the people voted for this and it has to be carried out.
Labour cant oppose the Triggering of art 50 on a argument of we should not leave the EU. that would be walking into the Tory trap.
I still think the Torys would have s.. themselves if Labour had stood firm from day 1 and told them we will not stand by and watch you abuse the wishes of the people to implement a hard right Tory Brexit.
The Torys would have the impossible task of implementing a Brexit that dosent exist. they would be in a nightmare situation right now if Labour had did this.
Problem was Corbyn allowed the Torys to get out of Jail. the Torys dont have to deliver those impossible promises now. they've solved their internal problems as well. win win.

[Dr. Beaker]

So have we now narrowed Labour's choices down to

a). Oppose article 50 as the only way of preventing the tories impending opportunist hi-Jack. Or,

b). Give article 50 the go-ahead and push for a highly vocal Soft Brexit or No Brexit.

c). Insist we are told what Brexit the Tories are working toward and how the Tories propose to get there before we trigger article 50

Or are there any other options out there.

[zero zero]

I still think the Torys would have s.. themselves if Labour had stood firm from day 1 and told them we will not stand by and watch you abuse the wishes of the people to implement a hard right Tory Brexit.
The Torys would have the impossible task of implementing a Brexit that dosent exist. they would be in a nightmare situation right now if Labour had did this.

Agreed. And I think we're guilty of only looking at Labour's problems on Brexit - that a lot people who voted Leave are in Labour constituencies. The flip side is also true - there are a lot of Tory voters, in Tory constituencies who voted Remain. I live in one of them. We have a Tory cabinet minister as my constituency MP, with another Tory and one Labour MP making up a Borough that voted 70% to Remain. There are many voters who voted Remain across all who will feel that we're rushing toward Brexit without a plan and no heed to any consequences.

This would be an opportunity for Labour if it didn't have a pro-Brexit Leader.

[SP]

Agreed. And I think we're guilty of only looking at Labour's problems on Brexit - that a lot people who voted Leave are in Labour constituencies. The flip side is also true - there are a lot of Tory voters, in Tory constituencies who voted Remain. I live in one of them. We have a Tory cabinet minister as my constituency MP, with another Tory and one Labour MP making up a Borough that voted 70% to Remain. There are many voters who voted Remain across all who will feel that we're rushing toward Brexit without a plan and no heed to any consequences.

This would be an opportunity for Labour if it didn't have a pro-Brexit Leader.

But any of the above actions increase the pressure on the Tories in Remain areas. At the moment it is a binary discussion of May's Brexit or denying the will of the people. A more nuanced debate becomes far more challenging for the non-rabid Tories. Make sensible points about jobs over absolute immigration control and it poses really awkward questions to the Tory backbenchers. The Tories don't have a huge majority to work with and decent opposition should be able to push some Tories to back a soft Brexit.