Yes, he could have had that option, oppose it at first reading and then support it with the amendments.
edited to add...
But remember Corbyn wants Brexit to happen
- Status
Yes, he could have had that option, oppose it at first reading and then support it with the amendments.
edited to add...
But remember Corbyn wants Brexit to happen
He's hopeless then. If he had opposed the bill at the first reading, he would stand a chance of getting his amendments through.
What I find especially astonishing is that an imbecile like this managed to score a top job in a major party. I mean come on, I have no political experience to speak of, an I see it from Andromeda galaxy that he squandered the best chance he could ever have to see Brexit at something approaching his terms. Instead the only Brexit he can hope for is one on the terms of his political opponents.
It is almost as if he wanted Brexit more than he wants positive changes (from his POV) from Brexit.
McHrozni
It's what happens when:
- You relax the candidature rules so that only minimal support is required to stand
- You allow a strict "one member one vote" rule to apply and don't allow the PLP or unions to apply a "block vote" to preferred candidates
- You throw open the membership so that anyone can join for a nominal fee
- You allow electronic voting rather then requiring members to attend constituency meetings
In other words, when you allow democracy to have its head (rather like the Brexit vote)
He is fighting (IMO incompetently) on several fronts simultaneously.
The majority of Labour-held constituencies voted Brexit and so Corbyn believes that the Labour Party should not stand in the way of Brexit lest it loses those constituencies next time around.
He also wants to show that he is a "true democrat" and is "listening to the people" - unlike the Westminster elites.
He is also fighting a class-war and the EU is to him a symbol of globalised capitalism.
What he has failed to take account of is that even if a Labour-held constituency split 55-45 or even 60-40 in favour of Brexit, it doesn't hold that all of the 55% or 60% will necessarily vote for the same opposing party, that vote could still split between Conservative and UKIP and Labour is safe. It also (falsely) assumes that Brexit is the most important issue and that the Brexit vote signals a real desire to be out-out-out of the EU. In recent local elections people appear to care more about dog-fouling than they do Brexit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-39141350
He also hasn't accounted for the support he is likely to lose from long-term Labour supporters and voters like me who cannot stomach his pro-Brexit position. In trying to chase a small proportion of people who didn't vote Labour last time he stands to lose the support of a sizeable proportion of those who did vote - and more importantly were prepared to canvass and work on the election - for Labour last time.
Yes. In the past I've been accused of overthinking the situation when I suggested that Corbyn sees Brexit as the first step towards establishing a workers' paradise in the UK. I now reluctantly concede that those accusations
are likely true - Corbyn's thinking really isn't any more sophisticated than"EU Bad - Must Leave EU"
That's probably the most incompetent thing of them all. He assumes Brexit is the vote winner, even though it won less than 52% of votes. In reality he's competing with Tories and UKIP for the same 52% of votes while abandoning the remaining 48%, who form a solid portion of Labour base.
Labour is ripe for the taking, it's only a question of how this should be done - split, or maybe Liberal Democrats taking a step forward. They aren't' seen as a very credible party, I take it?
Yes. In the past I've been accused of overthinking the situation when I suggested that Corbyn sees Brexit as the first step towards establishing a workers' paradise in the UK. I now reluctantly concede that those accusations
are likely true - Corbyn's thinking really isn't any more sophisticated than"EU Bad - Must Leave EU"
That would be par for the course for Brexiteers. Beyond outright lies, bold declarations and cheap rhetoric, they haven't been able to offer any compelling reasons for Brexit or against EU.
McHrozni
Camillus
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 483
He had the option of whipping his party for individual amendments and the main bill. He may well have done so, I don't know the details.
However, regardless of Corbyn's view of Brexit, it would not have made any difference. The bill would have passed with or without Labour's support even if he whipped everyone to vote against it.
The only argument Labour had for voting against was that they would be on the right side of history, but they had to look at the numbers of Labour supporters in their traditional heartlands who voted for it.
Corbyn isn't a good leader but even a good one would struggle in the position that Labour is in at the moment, particular after Milliband's dubious decision to change the system for electing a leader.
The Liberal Democrats face a number of challenges IMO.
- While forming a coalition with the Conservatives was probably the "grown up" thing to do - they got played badly (or well depending on your point of view) and suffered electorally very badly as a result in 2015
- As a consequence they are attempting to bounce back from a very low electoral base - They have 9 MPs, they need 200+, I'd have considered that kind of advance unprecedented were it not for the SNP's performane
- The SDP split from the Labour Party and went on to merge to form the LibDems. Many Labour supporters view them as "splitters" and couldn't vote for them under any circumstances - though that number is likely small and falling
- The LibDems don't seem to have the party infrastructure or sheer numbers to launch a successful national campaign - yet
- As MikeG pointed out, the LibDems have been moving leftwards from their Liberal centreist position (or IMO the UK as a whole has moved rightwards) so they're struggling to retain some of their traditional support
- Tim Farron is a nice chap but may lack the charisma to excite
I'd dearly like to see the LibDems mounting a significant challenge though
That's not so certain. He could whip his party to oppose the bill until amendments were made. There are 650 seats in the Commons, 330 of which are Tory (of whom one rebelled anyway), plus they could reliably count on the single UKIP MP and a few others, giving them maybe 340 seats. A rebellion by 15 Tory MPs could stop the bill from passing.
If not a narrow victory for the unamended bill would give the House of Lords ample ammunition to amend it, making it far more likely amendments would pass through eventually.
It's a battle that was worth fighting for, even if he wanted Brexit to happen - there was at least a very decent chance it would pass on something resembling his terms.
Furthermore, even if he was still defeated and the bill passed through a split parliament, Labour would still stand benefit down the line. Brexit is not the end of time, there will be elections yet to come. Elections in which Labour will now have to explain why it bend the knee to Tories so easily and why didn't it do more to ensure Brexit wasn't the failure it is shaping up to be, as opposed to a platform of "We told you so" or something to that effect.
The only options given to Tories in that case would be of what kind of victory they wanted to hand over to Labour, a likely long-term electoral victory or a short term of Brexit on somewhat Labour terms. Personally I'd just back most of the amendments and be done with it, it would be the lest damaging in the long run. Most of them weren't all that special to begin with anyway.
McHrozni
The Liberal Democrats face a number of challenges IMO.
- While forming a coalition with the Conservatives was probably the "grown up" thing to do - they got played badly (or well depending on your point of view) and suffered electorally very badly as a result in 2015
- As a consequence they are attempting to bounce back from a very low electoral base - They have 9 MPs, they need 200+, I'd have considered that kind of advance unprecedented were it not for the SNP's performane
- The SDP split from the Labour Party and went on to merge to form the LibDems. Many Labour supporters view them as "splitters" and couldn't vote for them under any circumstances - though that number is likely small and falling
- The LibDems don't seem to have the party infrastructure or sheer numbers to launch a successful national campaign - yet
- As MikeG pointed out, the LibDems have been moving leftwards from their Liberal centreist position (or IMO the UK as a whole has moved rightwards) so they're struggling to retain some of their traditional support
- Tim Farron is a nice chap but may lack the charisma to excite
I'd dearly like to see the LibDems mounting a significant challenge though
LibDems could well be a credible threat to Tories and Labour in 2020, if they play their cards right. I'd court Bremain vote if I were them, and establish those points of infrastructure and charismatic leadership. There is plenty of time to set all of that in motion, and major swings are entirely plausible if the time is right.
Half of the electorate feeling cheated out of their future and having no national recourse but you is about the most right time there is.
McHrozni
The trouble about the charismatic leader is that they either have to be an MP (of which there are 7 more to choose from - Nick Clegg is poison) or perhaps a member of the House of Lords - but that would carry its own risk if you want to appeal as a "party of the people".
Why does the party leader have to be an MP or a member of the House of Lords?
Second, given the circumstances they could get away if the party leader was the Prince of Wales and still claim to be the party of the people if they supported a strong Bremain/Soft Brexit position. Quite simply, the issue is so far reaching, so important and has such broad support it can drown out an occasional inconsistency if managed at least marginally well.
McHrozni
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
In reality what happens is Corbyn opposes the bill it gets passed anyway and then the press hound him for being anti democratic and ignoring the will of the people.
Then they lose the by elections and it's a clear sign that opposing Brdxit is a vote loser meaning that they fall in line and wave through everything the tories want.
Sure, Brexit press will do that. How many Bremainers do you think form their opinions based on and in line with Brexit press? Does one voter in the UK sound right? Two maybe, if you really stretch it, but if you'll claim three I'll want their written statements.
I honestly think over the top reporting on Corbyn as some sort of anti-democrat because he wants parliamentary accountability of the most important issue UK is facing since at least 1939 would do him more good than harm.
Giving in to demands of parties you're supposed to without protests isn't a vote winner in most circumstances. Brits are weird, but I doubt they're THAT weird.
McHrozni
Last edited:
It varies from party to party. In the case of the LibDems they have to be an MP. Of course that rule could be changed but it would take time.
If the leader isn't an MP then they miss most of the opportunities to engage politically and demonstrate their ability to lead.
If Brexit/Bremain was the only factor then conceivably you could be right but - important as it is to the like of me - for many people it's one of many concerns (and possibly not the most important).
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Not a hope in hell of a credible threat from Lib Dems to form a government ever. Hoping on them to stand up to the Tories would be laughable given their track record. The best they could hope for is winning some disgruntled Brendon voters from the left of the Tories and disenchanted labour supporters. Even 50 seats would be a huge stretch for them thanks to FPTP.
The SNP block in Scotland makes it a much higher challenge for anyone other than the Tories to gain a U.K. majority
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Do you know who the Bremain vs Brexit press is in the UK? The mainstream press will happily have a field day beating up on corbyn regardless and yes more than three people will listen to them.
You seem to think that Brexit is the only thing voters care about. It's far more complex. Even traditional labour press have it in for Corbyn so whatever he does will be wrong.
Doesn't UK have mayors and business people and such?
Brexit/Bremain is one factor, but Bremain/Soft Brexit/Somewhat hard Brexit/Hard Brexit/Ultra hard Brexit are not. This is hands down the single most important issue UK is currently facing, and the issue that will determine the future of the UK, maybe even until the end of this century.
That is not to say any party that wishes to capitalize on it should make Brexit the single point issue. No, it should make it the most important issue, expose as many failings in the approach to Brexit as possible, denounce failings of all Brexiteers and claim they're incapable of handling the job and claim they could do better - Brexit or no. This isn't hard to do: open a debate on what kind of Brexit does UK want, have an open parliament session running for a few weeks, followed by a secret vote (if British system allows for that) on what kind of Brexit is desired, then execute that.
EU is not keen on punishing Britain, who is an important trade partner and ally, but the British approach to it is giving EU a hard choice: punish UK or risk falling apart, triggering much worse results than any punishment of UK could ever bring. In light of that, an Ultra-hard Brexit with WTO terms and more is a distinct possibility. Seeing that having your hands tied down a bit by a parliamentary vote is more of a lever than a hindrance.
McHrozni
Yes, up to 52% of people will listen to them. The question was how many Bremain voters formed their opinions based on and in line with Brexit press?
Presumably that number is indistinguishable from zero, voters either don't listen to Brexit press or are in favor of Brexit. It should be readily apparent why I can state that with a substantial degree of certainty, I think.
Corbyn doesn't have to oppose Brexit to reap the benefits of opposing Brexit on terms of Theresa May. He can state loudly, clearly and often that he is all for Brexit, but not for Brexit as led by a bunch of people whose 9 months of intense efforts brought about an 77-page letter to Santa and called it a 'strategy'. Brexit is not the only thing voters care about, but neither are his only options to oppose Brexit with all his might, or support Theresa May in anything she decrees. There is a whole range of other approaches he had, each of them better than acting as an extension of the Tory party - for himself, Labour and for UK.
McHrozni
Last edited:
Yes, and ?
The only mayor with a national profile is the mayor of London - previously Tory, now Labour. UK politics is already perceived to be too London-centric by the kinds of people the LibDems are courting so even if the London mayor was a LibDem IMO they would be a poor choice for leader.
AFAIK, business leaders have a very reputation as politicians in the UK - Trump in the US has merely reinforced that reputation.
A party running on a Bremain message may not do as well as you expect because for many (most ? nearly all ?) people the party position on Brexit is not a major deciding factor.
Many will continue to vote along party lines as always.
Others will be concerned about other specific single issues or the party's entire platform.
Which is not to say that a well-run Bremain party couldn't pick up seats here and there but it's not necessarily a path to victory.
Camillus
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 483
You're forgetting that a number of sitting Labour MP's actively campaigned for Brexit so they would have rebelled. If Corbyn had whipped his MP's to vote against the bill he could have probably got 224 Labour votes (maybe less).
If every party then voted as they did on the day the bill would have passed by 336 to 297. If every opposition party (except UKIP and five Labour rebels) had switched their vote with it would still have passed by 335 to 302. Even if you dragged in the Lib Dems and others who abstained (imagine Sinn Fein turning up and swearing allegiance to the Queen
) only a Tory rebellion could have stopped the bill and that was not going to happen.What about university professors, deans and the like? None will be perfect of course, but I'm sure you could get someone who would approach the rating acceptable.
Name one issue that is a path to victory. There isn't one.
Brexit, by virtue of having next to no competition on the issue if you support Bremain - or even better, Soft Brexit if Bremain is not possible - is certainly a way to win votes. Again, I don't advocate a party of this having as a single issue, but mixing it in with a sensible policy has the potential to significantly lift a party in polls.
McHrozni
- Status