You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Or maybe he's still a politican and isn't stupid enough to try and impose dictate how his MPs should vote when there is a very good chance that it will cause division. Even more so when it's over an unpartisan issue the public is undecided on.
A cynic may even say that he ends up with the best of both worlds which ever way the vote goes. Pacifists, Corbinites and others opposed will say, "well really what could he do"? People who aren't directly opposed to him who are pro or imparcial will recognise that he didn't dictate. Those who are anti are left to try and get some milage out of any difference between his vote and others in his party.
hugo7
Yes, it obviously started when journalists eavesdropped on Corbyn's shadow cabinet discussions.
The thing is that he is very far from being dictatorial. I personally don't think he's going to impose a three-line whip on anything. This is not only because I think he believes that's not right, but also because the press would then constantly go on about how he himself used to vote against his own party and blah.
I think he might say that he could well impose a three-line whip but not worry too much about people defying it, in his style, but then it's unclear what the point would be--reducing the number of dissenters?