Hillary Clinton leads, but Donald Trump supporters are more certain they'll vote – Washington Post

Addressing a conference U.S. mayors in the wake of the Brexit outcome, Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton said the next U.S. president should put the interests of the American people ahead of their own. (Reuters)

There’s a very good reason that political hacks and the hacks who love them like to insist that elections all come down to turnout: Elections all come down to turnout.

For a salient recent example, we can peek over the Atlantic at the results of the British referendum on leaving the European Union. Young Brits overwhelmingly preferred to stay in the E.U., but older ones wanted to leave — and those voters turned out more heavily. If more younger voters had gotten to the polls, the narrow result would probably have flipped to the other side. It all came down to turnout.

Younger voters voting less heavily is not unique to the U.K. We’ve noted before how age and turnout correlate here, as well. Younger voters — who are more likely to move frequently, have jobs that demand odd hours and may not be in the habit of voting — turn out out less than older voters, across the board.

But there are differences among other groups, too. And when we consider the new Washington Post/ABC News poll of the 2016 general-election campaign, Hillary Clinton’s large lead looks a bit shakier when we consider who is firmly committed to getting to the polls in November.

We asked that question explicitly in the poll. Different demographic groups had different rates at which they said, yes, I’m absolutely certain to vote in the general election — and by comparing those figures to similar Post/ABC polling in the past two presidential elections, we can get a sense for what the electorate might look like.

By race. Seventy-three percent of white men said they were certain to vote, compared with 70 percent of whites overall. Among non-whites, the rates were much lower, with 55 percent saying the same. That’s a much lower rate than in 2012 for non-white voters, which was itself down from 2008. Bear in mind, there are more non-white people eligible to vote now than there were eight years ago. As we’ve pointed out before, the electorate in 2014 was as diverse as it was in 2008.

Most alarming to Clinton supporters may be that only 44 percent of Hispanics said they were certain to vote in November. (Without data for that group from 2008 and 2012, it isn’t shown on the chart above.)

By age. Here we can see the pattern above. Voters ages 30 to 39 have become much less likely to say they’re certain to vote, while only half of those younger than 30 said in the most recent poll that they were certain to do so. Older voters are more likely to be committed to turning out in November.

By education and income. These two groups overlap to some extent (which is to say that income and education levels are correlated). Those who earn more and are more educated are much more likely to be committed to voting in November.

But let’s dive into why this is a problem for Clinton, in case it wasn’t already obvious: The groups that are less likely to say they’re certain to vote are also groups among which Clinton does better.

Overall, slightly more Donald Trump supporters say they’re certain to vote than are backers of Clinton. Seventy-six percent of Clinton backers say they’re certainly or probably going to vote in November; 84 percent of Trump backers say the same.

Consider the race/gender split. We don’t yet know how white and non-white voters will cast their ballots, but we know whom they prefer in our most recent poll. If we compare those margins to the exit poll results from 2008 and 2012, the concern becomes apparent: same support from non-white voters, but less certainty of actually voting.

Clinton gets the same support from non-white voters in our current poll as Barack Obama got in 2008 and 2012. But at this point, those voters are much less likely to say they’re certain to vote than they were four and eight years ago. Meanwhile, Trump does about as well with white men as did Mitt Romney four years ago — and white men are just as likely to say they’re going to vote as they were then. White women are much less supportive of Trump than Romney, but they are also less likely to say they’re certain to turn out to vote.

Part of this probably overlaps with the general dissatisfaction with both candidates. White women are less likely to support Trump than they were Romney and less certain to vote — perhaps because neither option was palatable. That may also be the case with younger voters. They prefer Clinton to Trump but heavily backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. They, too, may be more indifferent to voting in November as a result.

It’s worth noting that the figures above include data from people who aren’t necessarily registered to vote. Just among those who are registered, though, the graph above doesn’t change much. Registered voters are more likely to say they’re certain to vote (again, in part, because voting tends to be a habitual act). The most noticeable change here is that the drop among non-white voters is much smaller than in past polling.

But then we loop back to those figures among Hispanic voters. The Democrats will and are putting a huge emphasis on registering and turning out Hispanic voters, a group that heavily prefers Clinton. In fact, the graphs above tell the story of the most recent elections: When the electorate is younger and more diverse, Democrats often do better.

This election, like every other, will come down to the voters who make it to the polls in November. There may be a more succinct way to say that, which we will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Fractures From 'Brexit' Vote Spread Into Opposition Labour Party – New York Times

LONDON — Britain’s political crisis intensified on Sunday after its decision to leave the European Union, with the opposition Labour Party splitting into warring camps, Scotland’s leader suggesting that its local Parliament might try to block the departure and many Britons wondering if there was a plausible way for the nation to reconsider its drastic choice.

The hostilities in the Labour Party broke out as the battle lines became clearer among the governing Conservatives, left in turmoil by the vote on the European Union and the subsequent announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron that he would resign once his party chose a successor.

Michael Gove, the justice minister and one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, threw his support to the former London mayor Boris Johnson, the most prominent figure in the anti-Europe movement. Aides to Theresa May, the home secretary, who backed the Remain side in the referendum on Thursday, were calling legislators to seek their support to take on Mr. Johnson.

The British news media reported that close allies of Mr. Cameron were also working to stop Mr. Johnson, reflecting the sense of betrayal on Downing Street over Mr. Johnson’s decision to tie his political ambitions to the movement to leave Europe. Other cabinet ministers were considering whether to run, including Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, and Liam Fox, a former defense secretary.

Hanging over the jockeying for power was intensifying discussion of whether the British exit, or “Brexit,” might somehow be avoided or circumvented. Mr. Cameron has said he will leave to his successor the decision on whether and when to begin formal divorce proceedings, and neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Gove has been demanding such a step, leaving open at least the possibility that Britain could negotiate new terms of membership with Brussels and hold another referendum.

Mr. Johnson said from the start of the campaign that a vote to leave would push European Union nations into a new negotiation with Britain to keep it in the bloc. Leaders on the Continent have little appetite at the moment for such a deal, and circumventing the clear will of British voters would appear politically problematic for whoever succeeds Mr. Cameron.

But both Britain and the European Union have a tradition of muddling through crises and finding compromises to avoid the worst outcomes.

Sunday’s developments underscored how the stunning vote to leave the European Union has upended politics and exacerbated ideological and regional strains in Britain, leaving the nation with no unifying figure, at risk of coming apart and facing jittery financial markets.

The turmoil spread on Sunday to the Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a leftist, now faces a challenge from members of Parliament who have never favored him.

Early Sunday, Mr. Corbyn abruptly fired his shadow foreign secretary — the party’s spokesman on foreign affairs — to try to head off a coup begun by some Labour members of Parliament disappointed with Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster campaign to keep Britain in Europe.

With the Conservatives in disarray and the possibility of another general election within the year, some Labour legislators see this as a good moment to try to dethrone Mr. Corbyn, 67, whom they think would lead the party to electoral disaster.

Over the course of Sunday, at least 11 of the Labour shadow cabinet’s 30 members, not counting the foreign secretary, resigned as a signal of their opposition to his leadership. Mr. Corbyn’s office insisted that he would remain party leader and would beat back any challenge by appealing to grass-roots Labour Party members who elected him overwhelmingly in the first place.

After newspaper reports about the planned coup against Mr. Corbyn, the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, telephoned him early Sunday to say he and other key legislators had lost confidence in Mr. Corbyn to lead the party to victory. Mr. Corbyn ended the call by firing him, Mr. Benn told The Press Association, a British news agency.

“Following the result of the E.U. referendum, we need strong and effective leadership of the Labour Party that is capable of winning public support,” Mr. Benn said. “In a phone call to Jeremy, I told him I had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party, and he dismissed me.”

Mr. Corbyn faces a vote of confidence called for on Friday, after the referendum, by two lower-ranking Labour legislators.

Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary for the Labour Party, leaves his home in London on Sunday after he was fired.

Chris J Ratcliffe / Getty Images

“If a general election is called later this year, which is a very real prospect, we believe that under Jeremy’s leadership we could be looking at political oblivion,” Margaret Hodge, who proposed the no-confidence motion, wrote in a letter to fellow Labour legislators.

Mr. Corbyn and his allies were reported to be organizing demonstrations in his support. On Sunday morning, his office issued a terse statement: “There will be no resignation of a democratically elected leader with a strong mandate from the membership.”

Adding to the confusion about how Britain would proceed, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Sunday that the Scottish Parliament might move to try to block the British exit from the European Union by withholding legislative consent.

“You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests,” she said in one of numerous television interviews.

It was not clear that the devolved Scottish Parliament had the power to veto a British exit, with constitutional scholars in this country, which famously lacks a formal constitution, differing on the question.

“I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be that requirement,” Ms. Sturgeon said of the need for Scotland’s approval. “I suspect that the U.K. government will take a very different view on that, and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up.”

Since the Scotland Act of 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in accordance with European Union law, some argue that the Parliament’s consent would be required to leave. The same might hold true for the devolved Parliaments of Wales, which supported Brexit, and Northern Ireland, which did not.

Further, said Christine Bell, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, a law that took effect in March stipulates that the British Parliament “will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.” That law was promised by Mr. Cameron to persuade Scots not to vote for independence in 2014.

A plausible argument could be made that withdrawing from the European Union over the objections of the Scottish Parliament would violate that law, Professor Bell said.

A fierce proponent of remaining within the European Union, Ms. Sturgeon said Scotland would insist on another independence referendum if Britain pulled out, and would try to negotiate with the Europeans to maintain Scottish membership in the bloc. She is “not going to be part of negotiations that accept the inevitability of Scotland exiting the E.U.,” she said.

Ms. Sturgeon’s remarks only fueled discussion of whether Britain might choose to seek a way to sidestep the results of the referendum. The formal process of unwinding Britain’s membership in the European Union begins only when the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing the bloc’s operations. Yet Mr. Cameron has declined to do so, and Mr. Johnson and other leaders of the Leave campaign have avoided being pinned down on the issue.

Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of politics at Princeton University, wrote in April that Brexit was “Kabuki” theater, arguing that “under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum.”

In the end, he suggested, Britain would do what other European Union members have done after negative referendums: “It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it,” with the agreement of a public that knows little about the European Union.

But the European Union may be in no mood to dicker while the European structure burns from other problems like Greece, migration, low growth and an aggressive Russia.

Some suggest that a newly elected British Parliament might block exit, if a new referendum were a stated commitment of the victorious party, or that somehow the Europeans will just bend to the British will and grant the nation privileges no other country has to block immigration of other European Union citizens.

But for the moment, with Mr. Cameron on his way out and Mr. Corbyn possibly joining him, thoughts of how to avoid Brexit seemed a parlor game next to the political battles the vote has unleashed.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Fractures From 'Brexit' Vote Spread Into Opposition Labour Party – New York Times

LONDON — Britain’s political crisis intensified on Sunday after its decision to leave the European Union, with the opposition Labour Party splitting into warring camps, Scotland’s leader suggesting that its local Parliament might try to block the departure and many Britons wondering if there was a plausible way for the nation to reconsider its drastic choice.

The hostilities in the Labour Party broke out as the battle lines became clearer among the governing Conservatives, left in turmoil by the vote on the European Union and the subsequent announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron that he would resign once his party chose a successor.

Michael Gove, the justice minister and one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, threw his support to the former London mayor Boris Johnson, the most prominent figure in the anti-Europe movement. Aides to Theresa May, the home secretary, who backed the Remain side in the referendum on Thursday, were calling legislators to seek their support to take on Mr. Johnson.

The British news media reported that close allies of Mr. Cameron were also working to stop Mr. Johnson, reflecting the sense of betrayal on Downing Street over Mr. Johnson’s decision to tie his political ambitions to the movement to leave Europe. Other cabinet ministers were considering whether to run, including Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, and Liam Fox, a former defense secretary.

Hanging over the jockeying for power was intensifying discussion of whether the British exit, or “Brexit,” might somehow be avoided or circumvented. Mr. Cameron has said he will leave to his successor the decision on whether and when to begin formal divorce proceedings, and neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Gove has been demanding such a step, leaving open at least the possibility that Britain could negotiate new terms of membership with Brussels and hold another referendum.

Mr. Johnson said from the start of the campaign that a vote to leave would push European Union nations into a new negotiation with Britain to keep it in the bloc. Leaders on the Continent have little appetite at the moment for such a deal, and circumventing the clear will of British voters would appear politically problematic for whoever succeeds Mr. Cameron.

But both Britain and the European Union have a tradition of muddling through crises and finding compromises to avoid the worst outcomes.

Sunday’s developments underscored how the stunning vote to leave the European Union has upended politics and exacerbated ideological and regional strains in Britain, leaving the nation with no unifying figure, at risk of coming apart and facing jittery financial markets.

The turmoil spread on Sunday to the Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a leftist, now faces a challenge from members of Parliament who have never favored him.

Early Sunday, Mr. Corbyn abruptly fired his shadow foreign secretary — the party’s spokesman on foreign affairs — to try to head off a coup begun by some Labour members of Parliament disappointed with Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster campaign to keep Britain in Europe.

With the Conservatives in disarray and the possibility of another general election within the year, some Labour legislators see this as a good moment to try to dethrone Mr. Corbyn, 67, whom they think would lead the party to electoral disaster.

Over the course of Sunday, at least 11 of the Labour shadow cabinet’s 30 members, not counting the foreign secretary, resigned as a signal of their opposition to his leadership. Mr. Corbyn’s office insisted that he would remain party leader and would beat back any challenge by appealing to grass-roots Labour Party members who elected him overwhelmingly in the first place.

After newspaper reports about the planned coup against Mr. Corbyn, the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, telephoned him early Sunday to say he and other key legislators had lost confidence in Mr. Corbyn to lead the party to victory. Mr. Corbyn ended the call by firing him, Mr. Benn told The Press Association, a British news agency.

“Following the result of the E.U. referendum, we need strong and effective leadership of the Labour Party that is capable of winning public support,” Mr. Benn said. “In a phone call to Jeremy, I told him I had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party, and he dismissed me.”

Mr. Corbyn faces a vote of confidence called for on Friday, after the referendum, by two lower-ranking Labour legislators.

Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary for the Labour Party, leaves his home in London on Sunday after he was fired.

Chris J Ratcliffe / Getty Images

“If a general election is called later this year, which is a very real prospect, we believe that under Jeremy’s leadership we could be looking at political oblivion,” Margaret Hodge, who proposed the no-confidence motion, wrote in a letter to fellow Labour legislators.

Mr. Corbyn and his allies were reported to be organizing demonstrations in his support. On Sunday morning, his office issued a terse statement: “There will be no resignation of a democratically elected leader with a strong mandate from the membership.”

Adding to the confusion about how Britain would proceed, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Sunday that the Scottish Parliament might move to try to block the British exit from the European Union by withholding legislative consent.

“You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests,” she said in one of numerous television interviews.

It was not clear that the devolved Scottish Parliament had the power to veto a British exit, with constitutional scholars in this country, which famously lacks a formal constitution, differing on the question.

“I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be that requirement,” Ms. Sturgeon said of the need for Scotland’s approval. “I suspect that the U.K. government will take a very different view on that, and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up.”

Since the Scotland Act of 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in accordance with European Union law, some argue that the Parliament’s consent would be required to leave. The same might hold true for the devolved Parliaments of Wales, which supported Brexit, and Northern Ireland, which did not.

Further, said Christine Bell, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, a law that took effect in March stipulates that the British Parliament “will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.” That law was promised by Mr. Cameron to persuade Scots not to vote for independence in 2014.

A plausible argument could be made that withdrawing from the European Union over the objections of the Scottish Parliament would violate that law, Professor Bell said.

A fierce proponent of remaining within the European Union, Ms. Sturgeon said Scotland would insist on another independence referendum if Britain pulled out, and would try to negotiate with the Europeans to maintain Scottish membership in the bloc. She is “not going to be part of negotiations that accept the inevitability of Scotland exiting the E.U.,” she said.

Ms. Sturgeon’s remarks only fueled discussion of whether Britain might choose to seek a way to sidestep the results of the referendum. The formal process of unwinding Britain’s membership in the European Union begins only when the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing the bloc’s operations. Yet Mr. Cameron has declined to do so, and Mr. Johnson and other leaders of the Leave campaign have avoided being pinned down on the issue.

Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of politics at Princeton University, wrote in April that Brexit was “Kabuki” theater, arguing that “under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum.”

In the end, he suggested, Britain would do what other European Union members have done after negative referendums: “It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it,” with the agreement of a public that knows little about the European Union.

But the European Union may be in no mood to dicker while the European structure burns from other problems like Greece, migration, low growth and an aggressive Russia.

Some suggest that a newly elected British Parliament might block exit, if a new referendum were a stated commitment of the victorious party, or that somehow the Europeans will just bend to the British will and grant the nation privileges no other country has to block immigration of other European Union citizens.

But for the moment, with Mr. Cameron on his way out and Mr. Corbyn possibly joining him, thoughts of how to avoid Brexit seemed a parlor game next to the political battles the vote has unleashed.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Britain's Labour Party in turmoil over Brexit vote results – CNN

Story highlights

  • Five senior Labour MPs resign from shadow cabinet, calling for new leadership
  • Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn won’t resign, his spokesman says
Four senior MPs resigned from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet Sunday, and a fifth was sacked by Corbyn for reportedly plotting against his leadership in the wake of Thursday’s referendum.
“There will be no resignation of a democratically elected leader with a strong mandate from the membership,” a spokesman for Corbyn told CNN.
Under Britain’s parliamentary system, the shadow Cabinet is a senior group of opposition members of Parliament tasked with criticizing the government’s policies; each is given a specific portfolio on which to act as spokesperson.

Plotting alleged

The turmoil began when Corbyn fired shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn on Sunday following reports that Benn was planning a coup against his leadership, Britain’s Press Association reported.
British Labour MP Hilary Benn in London Sunday following his sacking from the shadow cabinet.

British Labour MP Hilary Benn in London Sunday following his sacking from the shadow cabinet.

The agency quoted a Labour spokesman as saying, “Jeremy has sacked him on the grounds that he has lost confidence in him.”
Benn described the events to the BBC on Sunday, saying it had become “increasingly clear that there is growing concern in the shadow Cabinet, in the parliamentary Labour Party, about (Corbyn’s) leadership.”
“I said to him that I no longer had confidence in his leadership. He then dismissed me from the shadow Cabinet, which is understandable, and I thanked him for having given me the opportunity to serve as shadow foreign secretary,” he said.

MPs resign from shadow cabinet

Benn’s sacking was followed by several shadow Cabinet resignations: shadow cabinet of shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander, shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray, shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, shadow secretary for environment, food and rural affairs Kerry McCarthy and shadow chief secretary to the treasury Seema Malhotra.
Malhotra wrote in a letter to Corbyn that she was proud of the opposition’s past work, particularly in protecting tax breaks for working people. But it has become clear since the EU referendum that “we do not currently look like a government in waiting,” she said.
“I have come to the view that under your leadership we will not be able to build bridges across the party, be the strong official opposition that the country needs or reach out to voters and build confidence in Labour, ” she told Corbyn.
Alexander wrote in her resignation letter that in the wake of the referendum result, the country faced “unprecedented challenges,” and she believed a change of leadership in the party was “essential.”
“As much as I respect you as a man of principle, I do not believe you have the capacity to shape the answers our country is demanding and I believe that if we are to form the next Government, a change of leadership is essential,” she wrote.
In his resignation letter, Murray wrote that the country faced a “deeply challenging time ahead” following the Leave vote, and required a “strong opposition.”
“I do not believe that can be achieved under your leadership,” he wrote.
Powell and McCarthy also cited the challenges created by the referendum result in deciding to resign.
Another prominent Labour MP, Chuka Umunna, tweeted his support for Benn, saying it was “crazy to sack him.”
He followed this with a tweet saying, “Either you look your flaws in the face and address them or you stick your head in the sand, destroy the Labour Party and the country suffers.”
Corbyn has canceled a speech scheduled to take place at the Glastonbury Festival in PIlton on Sunday, his spokesman told CNN.

Pressure mounts on Corbyn

Like Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, who announced his intention to resign Friday in the wake of the vote, the Labour Party campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU.
But Corbyn, who became leader of the Labour Party in September, has been criticized for his lackluster performance in campaigning for the “Remain” camp.
Pressure has been mounting for him to follow his rival Cameron and step down in the wake of the referendum result, which has fractured Britain’s political establishment.
Corbyn’s close ally and shadow Cabinet member Dianne Abbott tweeted Friday that the Labour leader’s “position on Brexit was closer to the national mood than any other leader of a major party.”

Divided kingdom

The EU referendum bitterly divided the nation, with 51.9% of voters casting their ballots to leave and 48.1% voting to remain.
The result was met with shock and anger in many quarters, sent the pound and markets plunging, and has left a leadership vacuum as the country faces an uncertain future.
Speaking to British media Sunday, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said that Britain losing access to the European single market following the Brexit vote would be “catastrophic.”
Some “Leave” voters have expressed regret about their choice, saying they did not realize the consequences would be so great, and an online petition calling on the government to hold a second, “do-over” referendum on the issue has gathered more than 3 million signatures.
The “Leave” vote could lead to the fracturing of the United Kingdom itself.
Scotland — the majority of whose voters wanted to stay in the EU — is likely to seek independence for a second time this decade as a result of the vote, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said. Speaking to BBC Scotland on Sunday, she outlined an alternative approach, saying that Scottish parliament members could try to veto the move to leave the EU.
Northern Ireland’s vote for continued EU membership has similarly prompted a call by Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness for a poll on a united Ireland.

CNN’s Diana Magnay, Hazel Pfeifer, Sebastian Shukla, Elizabeth Joseph, Livvy Doherty, Stephanie Halasz and Eliott C. McLaughlin contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

'Brexit' Vote Roils Opposition Labour Party – New York Times

By STEVEN ERLANGER
June 26, 2016

LONDON — Britain’s political crisis intensified on Sunday after its decision to leave the European Union, with the opposition Labour Party splitting into warring camps, Scotland’s leader suggesting that its local Parliament might try to block the departure and many Britons wondering if there was a plausible way for the nation to reconsider its drastic choice.

The hostilities in the Labour Party broke out as the battle lines became clearer among the governing Conservatives, left in turmoil by the vote on the European Union and the subsequent announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron that he would resign once his party chose a successor.

Michael Gove, the justice minister and one of the leaders of the “Leave” campaign, threw his support to the former London mayor Boris Johnson, the most prominent figure in the anti-Europe movement. Aides to Theresa May, the home secretary, who backed “Remain” in the referendum on Thursday, were calling legislators to seek their support to take on Mr. Johnson.

The British news media reported that close allies of Mr. Cameron were also working to stop Mr. Johnson, reflecting the sense of betrayal on Downing Street over Mr. Johnson’s decision to tie his political ambitions to the movement to leave Europe. Other cabinet ministers were considering whether to run, including Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, and Liam Fox, a former defense secretary.

Hanging over the jockeying for power was intensifying discussion of whether the British exit, or “Brexit,” might somehow be avoided or circumvented. Mr. Cameron has said he will leave to his successor the decision on whether and when to begin formal divorce proceedings, and neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Gove has been demanding such a step, leaving open at least the possibility that Britain could negotiate new terms of membership with Brussels and hold another referendum.

Mr. Johnson said from the start of the campaign that a vote to leave would push European Union nations into a new negotiation with Britain to keep it in the bloc. Leaders on the Continent have little appetite at the moment for such a deal, and circumventing the clear will of British voters would appear politically problematic for whoever succeeds Mr. Cameron.

But both Britain and the European Union have a tradition of muddling through crises and finding compromises to avoid the worst outcomes.

Sunday’s developments underscored how the stunning vote to leave the European Union has upended politics and exacerbated ideological and regional strains in Britain, leaving the nation with no unifying figure, at risk of coming apart and facing jittery financial markets.

The turmoil spread on Sunday to the Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a leftist, now faces a challenge from members of Parliament who have never favored him.

Early Sunday, Mr. Corbyn abruptly fired his shadow foreign secretary — the party’s spokesman on foreign affairs — to try to head off a coup begun by some Labour members of Parliament disappointed with Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster campaign to keep Britain in Europe.

With the Conservatives in disarray and the possibility of another general election within the year, some Labour legislators see this as a good moment to try to dethrone Mr. Corbyn, 67, whom they think would lead the party to electoral disaster.

Over the course of Sunday, at least 11 of the Labour shadow cabinet’s 30 members, not counting the foreign secretary, resigned as a signal of their opposition to his leadership. Mr. Corbyn’s office insisted that he would remain party leader and would beat back any challenge by appealing to grass-roots Labour Party members who elected him overwhelmingly in the first place.

After newspaper reports about the planned coup against Mr. Corbyn, the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, telephoned him early Sunday to say he and other key legislators had lost confidence in Mr. Corbyn to lead the party to victory. Mr. Corbyn ended the call by firing him, Mr. Benn told The Press Association, a British news agency.

“Following the result of the E.U. referendum, we need strong and effective leadership of the Labour Party that is capable of winning public support,” Mr. Benn said. “In a phone call to Jeremy, I told him I had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party, and he dismissed me.”

Mr. Corbyn faces a vote of confidence called for on Friday, after the referendum, by two lower-ranking Labour legislators.

“If a general election is called later this year, which is a very real prospect, we believe that under Jeremy’s leadership we could be looking at political oblivion,” Margaret Hodge, who proposed the no-confidence motion, wrote in a letter to fellow Labour legislators.

Mr. Corbyn and his allies were reported to be organizing demonstrations in his support. On Sunday morning, his office issued a terse statement: “There will be no resignation of a democratically elected leader with a strong mandate from the membership.”

Adding to the confusion about how Britain would proceed, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Sunday that the Scottish Parliament might move to try to block the British exit from the European Union by withholding legislative consent.

“You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests,” she said in one of numerous television interviews.

It was not clear that the devolved Scottish Parliament had the power to veto a British exit, with constitutional scholars in this country, which famously lacks a formal constitution, differing on the question.

“I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be that requirement,” Ms. Sturgeon said of the need for Scotland’s approval. “I suspect that the U.K. government will take a very different view on that, and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up.”

Since the Scotland Act of 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in accordance with European Union law, some argue that the Parliament’s consent would be required to leave. The same might hold true for the devolved Parliaments of Wales, which supported Brexit, and Northern Ireland, which did not.

Further, said Christine Bell, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, a law that took effect in March stipulates that the British Parliament “will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.” That law was promised by Mr. Cameron to persuade Scots not to vote for independence in 2014.

A plausible argument could be made that withdrawing from the European Union over the objections of the Scottish Parliament would violate that law, Professor Bell said.

A fierce proponent of remaining within the European Union, Ms. Sturgeon said Scotland would insist on another independence referendum if Britain pulled out, and would try to negotiate with the Europeans to maintain Scottish membership in the bloc. She is “not going to be part of negotiations that accept the inevitability of Scotland exiting the E.U.,” she said.

Ms. Sturgeon’s remarks only fueled discussion of whether Britain might choose to seek a way to sidestep the results of the referendum. The formal process of unwinding Britain’s membership in the European Union begins only when the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing the bloc’s operations. Yet Mr. Cameron has declined to do so, and Mr. Johnson and other leaders of the “Leave” campaign have avoided being pinned down on the issue.

Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of politics at Princeton University, wrote in April that Brexit was “Kabuki” theater, arguing that “under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum.”

In the end, he suggested, Britain would do what other European Union members have done after negative referendums: “It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it,” with the agreement of a public that knows little about the European Union.

But the European Union may be in no mood to dicker while the European structure burns from other problems like Greece, migration, low growth and an aggressive Russia.

Some suggest that a newly elected British Parliament might block exit, if a new referendum were a stated commitment of the victorious party, or that somehow the Europeans will just bend to the British will and grant the nation privileges no other country has to block immigration of other European Union citizens.

But for the moment, with Mr. Cameron on his way out and Mr. Corbyn possibly joining him, thoughts of how to avoid Brexit seemed a parlor game next to the political battles the vote has unleashed.

Sewell Chan contributed reporting.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

5 stabbed at neo-nazi rally in Sacramento – Los Angeles Times

At least five people were stabbed, with some injured critically, during clashes between rallying neo-Nazis and counter-protesters at the Capitol in Sacramento on Sunday, fire officials said.

Five patients were transported to local hospitals with stab wounds, said Chris Harvey, public information officer for the Sacramento Fire Department. Several other people suffered cuts, scrapes and bruises but were not taken to the hospital, Harvey said.

“It was quite a bit of a melee,” Harvey said, mentioning that several different groups had descended on the Capitol, including counter-protesters.

Harvey said he did not know which groups the stabbing victims were from.

Emergency responders got the call at roughly 11:45 am. The victims were spread out over the Capitol grounds, which covers multiple blocks in downtown Sacramento, Harvey said. As of 12:45 p.m. the crowds had been dispersed and most protesters had left the area.

The Traditionalist Worker Party, a white nationalist group, was holding a march Sunday “to protest against globalization and in defense of the right to free expression,” according to the group’s website. The members appeared to be vastly outnumbered by counter-protesters, who held up signs that read “Nazi scum,” according to photos and videos posted on social media. 

An organizer of the rally who wasn’t at the Capitol, said on a web live stream that one person from his group had been stabbed and was being transported to the hospital.

“They got one of us but we got six of them,” he said.

Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), a former sheriff’s captain, said that Capitol employees were being sheltered on the building’s basement level, and that the building remains on lockdown.

Protesters shattered a window on the Capitol’s south ground level.

One observer estimated the initial crowd of anti-protesters at several hundred.

By early afternoon, law enforcement from the Sacramento Police Department and the California Highway Patrol appeared to be waiting for the counter-protest crowd to disperse on its own, the white supremacist group long since gone.

Some protesters came dressed for battle, several seen carrying wooden batons and some wearing plastic shields. “They came ready to fight,” said Cooper.

One local television crew was accosted by the protesters that showed up to confront the white supremacist group.

John Breedlove, a videographer for KCRA-TV, said the protester “took his skateboard and just slammed it into the reporter’s gut.”  Neither journalist was seriously injured.

Frances Wang, a local ABC10 reporter at the rally, wrote on Twitter that there were “blood spatters all over the ground. Police trying to control crowds.”

Video from ABC10 in Sacramento showed portions of the clash.

https://twitter.com/ABC10Frances/status/747144735442108416
https://twitter.com/ABC10Frances/status/747144187846373376

Matthew Heimbach, chairman of the Traditionalist Worker Party who did not attend the rally, said his group and the Golden State Skinheads had organized the Sunday rally. 

Vice Chairman Matt Parrott, who was not present at the Sacramento rally, said it was a peaceful march and blamed “leftist radicals” for instigating the violence. Heimbach said that in the clash, one of their marchers had been stabbed in the artery and six of the “anti-fascists” had also been stabbed.

“We knew we were outnumbered. We stood our ground. We will be back. This is a victory for us because more of them walked away injured,” Heimbach said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, categorizes the organization as a white nationalist group. Parrott said the Traditionalist Worker Party supports ethnic nationalism, but was not violent nor “a supremacist party.”

On its website, the group describes itself this way: “The Traditionalist Worker Party is America’s first political party created by and for working families. Our mission is defending faith, family, and folk against the politicians and oligarchs who are running America into the ground. We intend to achieve that goal by building a nationwide network of grassroots local leaders who will lead Americans toward a peaceful and prosperous future free from economic exploitation, federal tyranny, and anti-Christian degeneracy.”

The rally at the capitol had been planned for some time.

The anti-fascist organization Antifa Sacramento, which had been promoting a “Shut Down Nazi Rally” event today on its website, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The violence came several months after another violent confrontation between members of a Klu Klux Klan group and counter-protesters at an Anaheim park.

747163252832907266
747165062834487296
747139452825305089

Ulloa and Myers reported from Sacramento; Reyes and Kim from Los Angeles.

ALSO

Kern County fire evacuees struggle with another trauma — uncertainty

Drones force firefighters to temporarily halt air assault on wildfire

Bear injures man in Angeles National Forest; officials order campground closed


UPDATES:

2:40 p.m.: This article was updated with information about a lockdown at the Capitol.

1:46 p.m.: This article was updated with information on counter-protesters.

1:35 p.m.: This article was updated with interviews from group members.

1:15 p.m.: This post was updated with new details. 

1 p.m.: This post was updated with more information on injuries, and additional background.

This post was originally published at 12:35 p.m.

Copyright © 2016, Los Angeles Times

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

At least five people stabbed at neo-Nazi event outside Capitol in Sacramento – Los Angeles Times

At least five people were stabbed, with some injured critically, during clashes between rallying neo-Nazis and counter-protesters at the Capitol in Sacramento on Sunday, fire officials said.

Five patients were transported to local hospitals with stab wounds, said Chris Harvey, public information officer for the Sacramento Fire Department. Several other people suffered cuts, scrapes and bruises but were not taken to the hospital, Harvey said.

“It was quite a bit of a melee,” Harvey said, mentioning that several different groups had descended on the Capitol, including counter-protesters.

Harvey said he did not know which groups the stabbing victims were from.

Emergency responders got the call at roughly 11:45 am. The victims were spread out over the Capitol grounds, which covers multiple blocks in downtown Sacramento, Harvey said. As of 12:45 p.m. the crowds had been dispersed and most protesters had left the area.

The Traditionalist Worker Party, a white supremacist, anti-immigration group, was holding a march Sunday “to protest against globalization and in defense of the right to free expression,” according to the group’s website. The members appeared to be vastly outnumbered by counter-protesters, who held up signs that read “Nazi scum,” according to photos and videos posted on social media. 

An organizer of the rally who wasn’t at the Capitol, said on a web live stream that one person from his group had been stabbed and was being transported to the hospital.

“They got one of us but we got six of them,” he said.

Frances Wang, a local ABC10 reporter at the rally, wrote on Twitter that there were “blood spatters all over the ground. Police trying to control crowds.”

Video from ABC10 in Sacramento showed portions of the clash.

https://twitter.com/ABC10Frances/status/747144735442108416
https://twitter.com/ABC10Frances/status/747144187846373376

Matthew Heiman, chairman of the Traditionalist Worker Party who did not attend the rally, said his group and the Golden State Skinheads had organized the Sunday rally. 

Vice Chairman Matt Parrott, who was not present at the Sacramento rally, said it was a peaceful march and blamed “leftist radicals” for instigating the violence. Heiman said that in the clash, one of their marchers had been stabbed in the artery and six of the “anti-fascists” had also been stabbed.

“We knew we were outnumbered. We stood our ground. We will be back. This is a victory for us because more of them walked away injured,” Heiman said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, categorizes the organization as a white nationalist group. Parrott said the Traditionalist Worker Party supports ethnic nationalism, but was not violent nor “a supremacist party.”

On its website, the group describes itself this way: “The Traditionalist Worker Party is America’s first political party created by and for working families. Our mission is defending faith, family, and folk against the politicians and oligarchs who are running America into the ground. We intend to achieve that goal by building a nationwide network of grassroots local leaders who will lead Americans toward a peaceful and prosperous future free from economic exploitation, federal tyranny, and anti-Christian degeneracy.”

The anti-fascist organization Antifa Sacramento, which had been promoting a “Shut Down Nazi Rally” event today on its website, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

747163252832907266
747165062834487296
747139452825305089

Ulloa reported from Sacramento; Reyes and Kim from Los Angeles.

ALSO

Kern County fire evacuees struggle with another trauma — uncertainty

Drones force firefighters to temporarily halt air assault on wildfire

Bear injures man in Angeles National Forest; officials order campground closed


UPDATES:

1:46 p.m.: This article was updated with information on counter-protesters.

1:35 p.m.: This article was updated with interviews from group members.

1:15 p.m.: This post was updated with new details. 

1 p.m.: This post was updated with more information on injuries, and additional background.

This post was originally published at 12:35 p.m.

Copyright © 2016, Los Angeles Times

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Hillary Clinton leads, but Donald Trump supporters are more certain they'll vote – Washington Post


Hillary Clinton, right, hugs Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland, on Feb. 17, 2016, in Chicago. Bland was found dead in a jail cell in Texas after she was arrested during a traffic stop. (Joshua Lott/The Washington Post)

There’s a very good reason that political hacks and the hacks who love them like to insist that elections all come down to turnout: Elections all come down to turnout.

For a salient recent example, we can peek over the Atlantic at the results of the British referendum on leaving the European Union. Young Brits overwhelmingly preferred to stay in the E.U., but older ones wanted to leave — and those voters turned out more heavily. If more younger voters had gotten to the polls, the narrow result would probably have flipped to the other side. It all came down to turnout.

Younger voters voting less heavily is not unique to the U.K. We’ve noted before how age and turnout correlate here, as well. Younger voters — who are more likely to move frequently, have jobs that demand odd hours and may not be in the habit of voting — turn out out less than older voters, across the board.

But there are differences among other groups, too. And when we consider the new Washington Post/ABC News poll of the 2016 general-election campaign, Hillary Clinton’s large lead looks a bit shakier when we consider who is firmly committed to getting to the polls in November.

We asked that question explicitly in the poll. Different demographic groups had different rates at which they said, yes, I’m absolutely certain to vote in the general election — and by comparing those figures to similar Post/ABC polling in the past two presidential elections, we can get a sense for what the electorate might look like.

By race. Seventy-three percent of white men said they were certain to vote, compared with 70 percent of whites overall. Among non-whites, the rates were much lower, with 55 percent saying the same. That’s a much lower rate than in 2012 for non-white voters, which was itself down from 2008. Bear in mind, there are more non-white people eligible to vote now than there were eight years ago. As we’ve pointed out before, the electorate in 2014 was as diverse as it was in 2008.

Most alarming to Clinton supporters may be that only 44 percent of Hispanics said they were certain to vote in November. (Without data for that group from 2008 and 2012, it isn’t shown on the chart above.)

By age. Here we can see the pattern above. Voters ages 30 to 39 have become much less likely to say they’re certain to vote, while only half of those younger than 30 said in the most recent poll that they were certain to do so. Older voters are more likely to be committed to turning out in November.

By education and income. These two groups overlap to some extent (which is to say that income and education levels are correlated). Those who earn more and are more educated are much more likely to be committed to voting in November.

But let’s dive into why this is a problem for Clinton, in case it wasn’t already obvious: The groups that are less likely to say they’re certain to vote are also groups among which Clinton does better.

Overall, slightly more Donald Trump supporters say they’re certain to vote than are backers of Clinton. Seventy-six percent of Clinton backers say they’re certainly or probably going to vote in November; 84 percent of Trump backers say the same.

Consider the race/gender split. We don’t yet know how white and non-white voters will cast their ballots, but we know whom they prefer in our most recent poll. If we compare those margins to the exit poll results from 2008 and 2012, the concern becomes apparent: same support from non-white voters, but less certainty of actually voting.

Clinton gets the same support from non-white voters in our current poll as Barack Obama got in 2008 and 2012. But at this point, those voters are much less likely to say they’re certain to vote than they were four and eight years ago. Meanwhile, Trump does about as well with white men as did Mitt Romney four years ago — and white men are just as likely to say they’re going to vote as they were then. White women are much less supportive of Trump than Romney, but they are also less likely to say they’re certain to turn out to vote.

Part of this probably overlaps with the general dissatisfaction with both candidates. White women are less likely to support Trump than they were Romney and less certain to vote — perhaps because neither option was palatable. That may also be the case with younger voters. They prefer Clinton to Trump but heavily backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. They, too, may be more indifferent to voting in November as a result.

It’s worth noting that the figures above include data from people who aren’t necessarily registered to vote. Just among those who are registered, though, the graph above doesn’t change much. Registered voters are more likely to say they’re certain to vote (again, in part, because voting tends to be a habitual act). The most noticeable change here is that the drop among non-white voters is much smaller than in past polling.

But then we loop back to those figures among Hispanic voters. The Democrats will and are putting a huge emphasis on registering and turning out Hispanic voters, a group that heavily prefers Clinton. In fact, the graphs above tell the story of the most recent elections: When the electorate is younger and more diverse, Democrats often do better.

This election, like every other, will come down to the voters who make it to the polls in November. There may be a more succinct way to say that, which we will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Hillary Clinton leads, but Donald Trump supporters are more certain they'll vote – Washington Post


Hillary Clinton, right, hugs Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland, on Feb. 17, 2016, in Chicago. Bland was found dead in a jail cell in Texas after she was arrested during a traffic stop. (Joshua Lott/The Washington Post)

There’s a very good reason that political hacks and the hacks who love them like to insist that elections all come down to turnout: Elections all come down to turnout.

For a salient recent example, we can peek over the Atlantic at the results of the British referendum on leaving the European Union. Young Brits overwhelmingly preferred to stay in the E.U., but older ones wanted to leave — and those voters turned out more heavily. If more younger voters had gotten to the polls, the narrow result would probably have flipped to the other side. It all came down to turnout.

Younger voters voting less heavily is not unique to the U.K. We’ve noted before how age and turnout correlate here, as well. Younger voters — who are more likely to move frequently, have jobs that demand odd hours and may not be in the habit of voting — turn out out less than older voters, across the board.

But there are differences among other groups, too. And when we consider the new Washington Post/ABC News poll of the 2016 general-election campaign, Hillary Clinton’s large lead looks a bit shakier when we consider who is firmly committed to getting to the polls in November.

We asked that question explicitly in the poll. Different demographic groups had different rates at which they said, yes, I’m absolutely certain to vote in the general election — and by comparing those figures to similar Post/ABC polling in the past two presidential elections, we can get a sense for what the electorate might look like.

By race. Seventy-three percent of white men said they were certain to vote, compared with 70 percent of whites overall. Among non-whites, the rates were much lower, with 55 percent saying the same. That’s a much lower rate than in 2012 for non-white voters, which was itself down from 2008. Bear in mind, there are more non-white people eligible to vote now than there were eight years ago. As we’ve pointed out before, the electorate in 2014 was as diverse as it was in 2008.

Most alarming to Clinton supporters may be that only 44 percent of Hispanics said they were certain to vote in November. (Without data for that group from 2008 and 2012, it isn’t shown on the chart above.)

By age. Here we can see the pattern above. Voters ages 30 to 39 have become much less likely to say they’re certain to vote, while only half of those younger than 30 said in the most recent poll that they were certain to do so. Older voters are more likely to be committed to turning out in November.

By education and income. These two groups overlap to some extent (which is to say that income and education levels are correlated). Those who earn more and are more educated are much more likely to be committed to voting in November.

But let’s dive into why this is a problem for Clinton, in case it wasn’t already obvious: The groups that are less likely to say they’re certain to vote are also groups among which Clinton does better.

Overall, slightly more Donald Trump supporters say they’re certain to vote than are backers of Clinton. Seventy-six percent of Clinton backers say they’re certainly or probably going to vote in November; 84 percent of Trump backers say the same.

Consider the race/gender split. We don’t yet know how white and non-white voters will cast their ballots, but we know whom they prefer in our most recent poll. If we compare those margins to the exit poll results from 2008 and 2012, the concern becomes apparent: same support from non-white voters, but less certainty of actually voting.

Clinton gets the same support from non-white voters in our current poll as Barack Obama got in 2008 and 2012. But at this point, those voters are much less likely to say they’re certain to vote than they were four and eight years ago. Meanwhile, Trump does about as well with white men as did Mitt Romney four years ago — and white men are just as likely to say they’re going to vote as they were then. White women are much less supportive of Trump than Romney, but they are also less likely to say they’re certain to turn out to vote.

Part of this probably overlaps with the general dissatisfaction with both candidates. White women are less likely to support Trump than they were Romney and less certain to vote — perhaps because neither option was palatable. That may also be the case with younger voters. They prefer Clinton to Trump but heavily backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. They, too, may be more indifferent to voting in November as a result.

It’s worth noting that the figures above include data from people who aren’t necessarily registered to vote. Just among those who are registered, though, the graph above doesn’t change much. Registered voters are more likely to say they’re certain to vote (again, in part, because voting tends to be a habitual act). The most noticeable change here is that the drop among non-white voters is much smaller than in past polling.

But then we loop back to those figures among Hispanic voters. The Democrats will and are putting a huge emphasis on registering and turning out Hispanic voters, a group that heavily prefers Clinton. In fact, the graphs above tell the story of the most recent elections: When the electorate is younger and more diverse, Democrats often do better.

This election, like every other, will come down to the voters who make it to the polls in November. There may be a more succinct way to say that, which we will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Brexit: Jeremy Corbyn under pressure amid top team revolt – BBC News

A string of Labour shadow cabinet members have quit, with more walkouts expected, in protest at Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership over the EU referendum.

Heidi Alexander, Ian Murray, Gloria de Piero, Lillian Greenwood, Lucy Powell, Kerry McCarthy and Seema Malhotra quit.

It comes after Mr Corbyn sacked shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn.

Mr Corbyn faces a vote of no confidence following a “lacklustre” EU campaign but shadow chancellor John McDonnell said he “wasn’t going anywhere”.

Mr McDonnell and shadow cabinet members Andy Burnham, Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry have given Mr Corbyn their support despite the resignations.

Shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker has said he is considering his position.

The Labour Party campaigned for Remain during the referendum, which saw the UK voting to leave the EU by 52% to 48% on Thursday.

But Mr Corbyn – who has been a long-standing critic of the EU and who is regarded as the most Eurosceptic Labour leader in years – was accused by some in his party of not making the case for the EU forcefully enough.

As a result, a motion of no confidence against Mr Corbyn has been submitted by Labour MPs Dame Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey – and it is expected to considered at the next meet of Labour MPs on Monday. A secret ballot could be held the following day.

Sources close to Mr Corbyn have said he would stand again in the event of any leadership election – and Mr McDonnell said he would chair his campaign again.

Meanwhile, union members on Labour’s National Executive are to call for unity and will support Mr Corbyn’s leadership.

And more than 175,000 people have signed an online petition backing the Labour leader, who was elected last September in a landslide victory.

But one shadow cabinet member told the BBC: “I imagine that there’ll be a leadership election and Jeremy will win. But this is a total distraction.”

Mr Benn was sacked by Mr Corbyn overnight after he told him he had “lost confidence” in his leadership.

Speaking on Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Benn – who has ruled out any Labour leadership bid – said Mr Corbyn “is a good and decent man but he is not a leader”.

“At this absolutely critical time for our country following the EU referendum result, the Labour Party needs strong and effective leadership to hold the government to account.

“We don’t currently have that and there is also no confidence we would be able to win a general election as long as Jeremy remains leader. And I felt it was important to say that,” he added.

Asked if he thought Mr Corbyn should resign, he said he did but added “that is a matter for him”.

Analysis

By Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor

The prime minister’s resigned. No one knows who the next occupant of Number 10 will be. And today, some of the most senior figures in the Labour Party are trying to push their leader out, too.

There have been concerns about Jeremy Corbyn’s performance for months and months. But it was his role, or lack of role, in the campaign to keep the UK in the EU, and his sacking of Hilary Benn in the middle of the night, that has given members of the shadow cabinet the final reasons to quit.

Several have already gone, as many as half will be gone by the end of the day, I understand.

And documents passed to the BBC suggest how Jeremy Corbyn’s office sought to delay and water down the Labour Remain campaign. Sources suggest that they are evidence of “deliberate sabotage”.

Read more from Laura here.

Hours after Mr Benn’s sacking, shadow health secretary Ms Alexander, who joined Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet last year, tweeted: “It is with a heavy heart that I have this morning resigned from the shadow cabinet.”

In a letter to the Labour leader, she wrote: “As much as I respect you as a man of principle, I do not believe you have the capacity to shape the answers our country is demanding and I believe that if we are to form the next government, a change of leadership is essential.”

Further walkouts followed throughout the morning, including:

  • Ian Murray, shadow Scottish secretary – and Labour’s only Scottish MP
  • Kerry McCarthy, shadow environment secretary
  • Lucy Powell, shadow education secretary
  • Gloria de Piero, shadow minister for young people and voter registration
  • Lillian Greenwood, shadow transport secretary
  • Seema Malhotra, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury

But Mr McDonnell, speaking on Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics, was defiant, saying: “Jeremy is not going anywhere and will continue on.”

He said the party members were “sovereign” and added: “It’s the members who elected Jeremy and he’ll remain.”

Mr McDonnell said he was “disappointed” at the turn of events but he insisted the party would “come together”.

“I don’t think people had an awful lot of sleep since Friday. I think if we all had a day off and a good night’s kip we’ll be alright,” he said.

But shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott played down the prospect of a no confidence vote.

She said there was a “group” of Labour MPs who had never accepted Mr Corbyn’s election and accused them of “labouring under the illusion that Jeremy serves at their will and pleasure”.

“If they want a new leader of the opposition we must either have a proper leadership election – and this vote of confidence has no status in the (Labour Party) rule book – or they set up a new party,” she told the BBC’s Sunday Politics.

‘It’s extraordinary’

Shadow defence secretary Emily Thornberry also stood by Mr Corbyn, saying she would not be stepping down – and that she was “bewildered” by those who were.

“We should be thinking about the nation first,” she told the BBC’s Sunday Politics, saying this was a time for Labour to “show some leadership” and be a “centre of calm”.

“Now, of all times, people think it is a good time to go for a leadership contest? I think it is extraordinary,” she said.

But others in the party calling for a change of leadership include Labour MP Ivan Lewis – who is running to be Labour’s candidate for the Greater Manchester mayoralty – who has written to Mr Corbyn calling on him to resign.

“Unfortunately, it is clear Jeremy Corbyn cannot lead us back to government and there is a real risk we will suffer a worse election result than in 2015,” Mr Lewis said.

Other MPs have spoken out against Mr Corbyn’s input in Labour’s EU referendum campaign, with MP Stephen Kinnock saying it “was not Labour’s finest hour”. Meanwhile, former Labour cabinet member Ben Bradshaw said Labour faced being “wiped out” at the next general election under Mr Corbyn.

Meanwhile, former shadow chancellor Ed Balls – who lost his seat as an MP at the 2015 general election – also backed calls for a change of leader.

“The reality is, at a time when you have a big divide between urban Britain, which wanted In and heartlands and rural Britain, which wanted Out, Jeremy Corbyn has managed to alienate both sides,” he told ITV’s Peston on Sunday.


Did you vote for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn? How do you feel now? Do you still support him or you want to see a change in leadership? Let us know.

Email us haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk

Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:

Let’s block ads! (Why?)