That Corbyn fella...

The most telling thing about this whole debacle is that ‘don’t know’ continues to polll higher than both May and Corbyn.

If we accept the premise that the vote for Brexit was a reaction to Whitehall no longer representing the people, it seems to me that the best outcome we could have from this is a fracturing of both the Tory and Labour parties and a reconfiguration around new political groupings. But sadly we’re too tribal for that.

Useless eh.

1 Attachment

I just don't think those things can be credited to Corbyn - each one was achieved because Tories rebelled against their own party / leader, and I don't see how it is Corbyn who made them do that.

E.g. Tuesday's vote - in what sense was the brexit vote defeated because of Corbyn's stance? The objectionable bit for Tories was the Irish backstop and their inability to reconcile what they can get out of the negotiation with what they think they should get. Corbyn has continued to peddle the myth that somehow a better deal is on offer but for reasons not explained only he could get it.

And yet May's failure to get a deal - Corbyn's fault.

Let's be honest. If Corbyn put forward an elaborate EU withdrawal plan (be it hard brexit, soft brexit, remain, referendum) he would have been attacked by voters, members of his own party, members of every other party. This very well could have strengthened internal cohesion within the tories ("it's better than crazy Marxist's plan"), as well as alienate support from the other opposition parties. As many people have said many times, this is the tory parties rope from which they need to hang themselves.

It's what happens now that Corbyn - and everyone else - will be judged on.

If Corbyn put forward an elaborate EU withdrawal plan...

Exactly, particularly in the case of second referendum. There would have been no better way to unite the Tories than by calling for another referendum. That's not even taking into account the fact that there isn't a parliamentary (or public) mandate for one, and that without a different government in power, I doubt whether remain would even be on the ballot paper...

All I know is that when I get to work today and talk to my more right wing colleagues, thanks to a failed vote of no confidence they can now say to me that "well she did win the vote of no confidence, she is in control". As opposed to the only story being her defeat on the brexit vote.

I also fundamentally disagree with the subsequent comments on Corbyn's stance to the second referendum, but anyway

the only thing she is in control of, is her DUP 'mates', without whom, she would have lost. the only reason she's still there is because no other fucker wants the job.

Will those same colleagues ackowledge the duplicity of the ERG
who recently forced a vote on May's continued leadership?

No love lost for them either, but how does that make Corbyn's strategy better?

Will those same colleagues ackowledge the duplicity of the ERG who recently forced a vote on May's continued leadership?

It's looking increasingly likely that the remaining signatories required to force that vote through were from some of May's supporters. At that point in time she was very unlikely to lose that vote, so by forcing it through there and then it guaranteed her immunity for a further 12 months according to party rules.

very hard to see how we'd be in quite the mess we are.

This I hear constantly. Mostly from those who voted to leave. But all of this was foreseeable.

Corbyn is torn between his union leaders instruction to honour the referendum and his membership who would like a people’s vote. As someone who’d rather leave the EU, this isn’t comfortable for him.

May’s way forward is to promise her promt departure and relinquish power to parliament who will back a people’s vote eventually. As someone who would rather remain in the EU, she’s maybe ok with this?

All I know is that when I get to work today and talk to my more right wing colleagues, thanks to a failed vote of no confidence they can now say to me that "well she did win the vote of no confidence, she is in control". As opposed to the only story being her defeat on the brexit vote.

Ok. But with all due respect that’s not actually at all important.

What would you have been saying about Corbyn if he hadn’t even bothered to call the no confidence vote - after that monumental defeat?

Like may’s deal. It is a stepping stone ... something that needs doing during a process.

What would you have been saying about Corbyn if he hadn’t even bothered to call the no confidence vote - after that monumental defeat?

Loads of people wouldn't even have realised it was an option or something that Corbyn had committed to. Most of those who did realise it was something he'd committed to are probably labour party members who are stuck with the party anyway.

Most people have just seen the headlines. Corbyn tried to depose May and failed. They were thinking she'd already been defeated and has now won something again.

But he was committed to it, as leader of the opposition. It’s due process.

I'm pretty certain when Corbyn's concerned, the headlines are always going to be negative. There is literally nothing he could do within this current shit show, that would ensure "most people" see a positive headline about him.

This is unfortunately true. See https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-of-the-2017-general-election-campaign-report-4/ and http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn for studies on press bias against labour.

True. But it's more the fact that he's given May an easy win (no-one expected the confidence vote to go any different to how it did).

If he was committed to it he should have done it a month ago when the vote was postponed rather than the weird confidence vote he did put forward.

When he still didn't have the votes and before parliament had even had the opportunity to reject the proposed plan and thus could be portrayed as attempting to fuck shit up?

.

1 Attachment

I knew he was going to lose this, and that is pretty obvious. Since it is Labour policy to try for a GE, he tried, he failed. I think the timing was right, but the Tories just have more MPs so...

Now he doesn't want to talk shop unless a No Deal is off the table. Perhaps...perhaps...that will draw some anti No Deal tories out of the woods and help them manoeuvre. Nobody seems to want that.

That still leaves the cakeism. Nobody wants the backstop. OK, stay in the CU and SM. Done. It is shite, but not so harmful you can't pretend it isn't a big deal if you spin it right.

[it sorta is, become a rule taker, lose more banking, lose other things...but ok...facts and the truth are the first victim in Brexit it seems]

Oh, but Labour wants "the benefits of the SM" with no freedom of movement. Well, maybe they can budge on this and they already suggested. But then why put that message out there. I think that wasn't really a good move.

Because informed Remainers are now rightly being able to say "CAKEISM", not all union members are very happy with this stance either, the TUC wants to stay in the SM too. I am not impressed with McCluskey at all.

So, again, we wait and see... tick.tock.

Oh, but Labour wants "the benefits of the SM" with no freedom of movement. Well, maybe they can budge on this and they already suggested. But then why put that message out there. I think that wasn't really a good move.

This for me is the biggest problem with Labour's Brexit policy. Firstly, as you say it has—justifiably—been denounced as 'cakeism'; secondly, and more importantly from a moral perspective, the left should be defending freedom of movement.

Regardless of when the confidence vote was, Corbyn wasn't going to win. The Tories or DUP aren't going to support labour until things are much more desperate.

As such, if the party really wanted to have a confidence vote (I don't think it was good tactics but if they'd committed to it then so be it) then they may as well have got it out of the way earlier so that:
a) It didn't detract from a heavy Commons defeat for the Tories,
b) When they hold the next one the time gap would be bigger.

If he was committed to it he should have done it a month ago when the vote was postponed rather than the weird confidence vote he did put forward.

This doesn't make any sense at all