Again, there is no referendum position that would have worked well for Labour in 2019, but not coming out for a 2nd referendum would *almost certainly* have been more disataerous. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/12/starmer-should-apologise-for-labours-brexit-position-say-ex-shadow-ministers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

In order for this not to be true you have to assume that the massive chunk of Labour 2017 voters, who said they have left the party over its Brexit position, and who said they wouldn't return to the party if they didn't change their Brexit position, would gone back anyway.

Don't get me wrong, some of them might.

But it was very unlikely to be enough, and the consequences would have been even more devastating for the Labour party, potentially dropping below 100 seats, and questions about whether the party has a future.

People see Labour doing well in 17 and badly in 19 and assume it must be related to the Brexit position, but this just confuses causation.

The problem was that Labour was forced into taking a Brexit position because the future of Brexit became an issue.

If a load of Remainers hadn't become hard supporters of a 2nd referendum then Labour might have been able to get away with fudging it twice.

But they did, and you make decisions in politics based on the world as it is, not the way you want it to be.

There has probably been more high-quality polling data collected on this issue than almost any other decision facing any political party ever, a large chunk of it by me.

But sure, if you want to contradict that based on some "virtual events", go ahead.