EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

You are reading a single comment by @Fox and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

Oliver Schick in reply to @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.

•

Fox in reply to @Oliver Schick

I think you're overestimating the importance of Tristram Hunt there...

I think that really would have destroyed Labour.

I hope you don't mind me saying that's utter bollocks. :)

That opposing Brexit would destroy the party is a tired fallacy. It's not opposing Brexit that is destroying the party, right now, not in some theoretical past or future.

Yes, the numbers don't add up but to impose a three line whip on voting through May's hard Brexit means Labour has totally failed to differentiate itself from the Tories. On a matter of critical national importance.

You can keep waiting for by-elections if you like but Corbyn had to go long ago. Unfortunately he's still here.

•

Oliver Schick in reply to @Fox

I think you're overestimating the importance of Tristram Hunt there...

I don't consider him important in the slightest, but he did trigger a crucial byelection by which Labour will be measured.

What would have destroyed Labour would have been to be caught between UKIP and Lib Dems. The combined effect of these two helping the Tories take Labour seats, or taking Labour seats themselves, would have caused Labour to lose a lot of seats at the next general election.

Anyway, we'll see how the political climate develops when the byelection votes are in.

Trust me, I'm not an expert. :)

EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

About

LFGSS