-
What do you think Corbyn could/should have done?
Well what he promised to do would be a good start: oppose article 50 if Labour's demands (common market access, worker's rights etc.) weren't met. He has broken that promise and I believe it will be at the expense of the British people.
What I think he/Labour should have done is oppose Brexit tooth and nail. Their popularity is already at rock bottom, so worrying about upsetting leave voters was a red herring. But it's a bigger issue than the Labour party's popularity - they should have done what's right for the country. If they then lost - which the numbers do probably make inevitable - at least they would have tried. It's better to fight and fall than live without hope, as the Völsunga saga says.
He tweeted yesterday to say the fight starts now - what, in the Lords? It's too late. As someone said on the Today programme he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.
Down the line I think the Brexiteers will be judged to have been on the wrong side of history. If so Corbyn's lack of leadership and ineffective opposition means he'll be lumped in with them.
Fox-
Well what he promised to do would be a good start: oppose article 50 if Labour's demands (common market access, worker's rights etc.) weren't met. He has broken that promise and I believe it will be at the expense of the British people.
I strongly suspect that line of action became impossible with Tristram Hunt's timely resignation.
What I think he/Labour should have done is oppose Brexit tooth and nail. Their popularity is already at rock bottom, so worrying about upsetting leave voters was a red herring. But it's a bigger issue than the Labour party's popularity - they should have done what's right for the country. If they then lost - which the numbers do probably make inevitable - at least they would have tried. It's better to fight and fall than live without hope, as the Völsunga saga says.
Oh dear. I hope you don't mind me saying that's utter bollocks. :)
I think that really would have destroyed Labour.
He tweeted yesterday to say the fight starts now - what, in the Lords? It's too late. As someone said on the Today programme he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.
I could also ask: What, in the Commons? How exactly?
I really don't think there was any way he could have assembled a majority in the Commons (neither could any other Labour leader).
Down the line I think the Brexiteers will be judged to have been on the wrong side of history. If so Corbyn's lack of leadership and ineffective opposition means he'll be lumped in with them.
Let's see what happens with the byelections. If Labour tanks it in those, Corbyn will probably have to go.
Oliver Schick
So what was Corbyn supposed to do? Opposing the bill outright would have been political poison and wouldn't have worked, anyway--because they knew full well that the usual Tory loyalism would have prevented a rebellion. Labour tried and moved a number of amendments, all of which were voted down, and that's the only thing they could do. (You may well say that you thought them feeble and not going far enough towards preventing a 'hard' Brexit, but it doesn't matter--they wouldn't have got through under any scenario.)
I personally don't like the three-line whip because I don't think any vote should be whipped, and of course with Corbyn's history it always leaves a funny taste, but it was the best of a lot of worse options, as if the vote hadn't been whipped, the hostile press would have had a field day, damaging Labour, and Corbyn's leadership would have been weakened. In a nutshell: They couldn't have won this one because they don't have a parliamentary majority.
The whole thing is obviously a shambles but it's simply Labour being caught between a rock and a hard place. That there wasn't a bigger rebellion signals that.
No, there's no scope for pinning the blame on Corbyn this time. This was at worst a gambit, resulting in a small number of soft resignations (because of 'Remain' constituencies), very amicable statements in Clive Lewis' case, and no great waves created. We'll see if it worked--of course it may not, and Labour may still do badly in Stoke and Copeland, but if they do well, it will mark a transition for Corbyn.
What do you think Corbyn could/should have done?
(Just to be clear--I remain quite clearly opposed to Brexit and I think Theresa May is doing an appalling job, not that I have a say, anyway. :) )