Read on Twitter
I have always been reluctant to talk about Brexit and between 2016 and 2019 I just hoped that it wouldn't derail the left's attempt to revive Labour as an institution capable of governing. 1/
FWIW, it seems the correct approach from the point of view of the electoral arithmetic in 2019 would have been to respect the referendum. It would have been a clear message to convey to people who aren't easily reached by whatever communicative assets the left could create. 2/
"Labour respects democracy - and wants you to have more power and control over your lives. Besides, the Tories can't get Brexit done. We can." But there were deeper problems. First, we had no communicative means to explain that position to left-remain. 3/
Key elements of Corbyn's coalition were drawn away into the dead end of campaigning for a second referendum in the absence of a communicative infrastructure that could have held them together around a radical policy offer. 4/
Much of left remain might have been kept in the tent if the choice between the Conservatives and hard Brexit on the one hand and Labour, a soft Brexit and a social democratic revival on the other had been made clear. 5/
But how would that have been achieved? Where was the constellation of media operations - blogs, animators, film makers, etc. - that could have made that a kind of common sense in left remain circles between 2017 and 2019? 6/
In its absence the idea that support for Brexit was intrinsically racist was bedded down. A strange situation for a Bennite leader to preside over. 7/
Second, much of the PLP would have rebelled against this position. Not out of principle, but because it would have been a way of heading off the threat of a Corbyn victory. The desperate effort to head off a split after the 2017 result look like a major mistake in retrospect. 8/
Once again Labour's self-styled moderates are teaching the radicals a lesson: there can be no half measures. 9/
