What does the Labour split mean for the People's Vote campaign?

The split of 7 Labour MP from the party is something of great significance beyond what it implies for Brexit, but, for better or worse, that's where my thoughts are now.

What does this split mean for the People's Vote campaign? Spinning Hugo (I don't know him by any other name but his pseudonym) believes it signifies the fact that the chances of a second referendum had become slim. If there were a prospect of moving the leadership in that direction, the newly formed Independent Group would have waited at least until after Brexit to form a group, in the hope of influencing the party leadership beforehand. This seems plausible enough to me, but it's a distinct question for what effects this move will have on the campaign.

These surely depend on how both the independents and rest of the Labour Party respond. If the Independent Group don't show any interest (in this case very soon) on forming a new party, the impact will be small. What limited impact it will have is likely negative, as key proponents of a second vote are now longer in the party.

If, on the other hand, they do, and opposing Brexit is a part of their policy platform, what happens next very much depends on how the Labour leadership read the situation. A clever response would be to recognise that the new danger this presents to Labour electorally is a move of socially liberal, europhile voters to whatever party this new group ends up forming. This does not have to be large to represent a real threat to Labour's hopes of forming a majority government. The easiest way of stemming any move in that direction would be to announce support for a second referendum. This would also eclipse any negative discussion of the split in the news. For this to work, it would have to happen very soon indeed. I am, however, not optimistic that it will.

What we think of the People's Vote campaign shouldn't matter

I am little dismayed over how often I have heard some variation of the following from what might normally be sympathetic voices: "I was warming to the idea of a second referendum, but the elitist and aggressive tone of People's Vote put me off." For what it's worth, I don't think this kind of characterisation is fair; there has been some fantastic work by some very dedicated people, and cameo appearances from celebrities have to a large extent been about generating coverage in an environment where the idea of a second referendum was all but written off a year or so ago.

But even if we agreed with this kind of characterisation (I have at times myself found myself agreeing with it), it should not affect our attitude to the policy. There are some instances in which the character of the proponents of a policy does matter. This might be when we elect a government, or when we judge that there is a significant normative effect of a campaign suceeding. But in this instance, the former is not the case, and the latter is surely less significant than what is at stake. Indeed, rationally, we might even think that if an argument is put forward badly, all other things being equal, the actual case in favour of it is likely to be stronger than it appears.

This is not to suggest that the the effectiveness or strategy of the People's Vote campaign is unimportant. It is deeply important. But we should not base our own support for a second referendum on our appraisal of it.