Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[SP]

I cannot ignore this inaccurate post to go without giving this topic some degree of context so I will respond this final time - and it IS the final time.
 
The suffering scourge of austerity is a Tory reality and one which their policies were deliberately and specifically formulated to achieve. I'd really like to believe that they expected it to be an interminably difficult one to impose and perhaps had other contingency "policies" up their sleeve should that prove to be the case. Astonishingly, that anticipated level of outrage never materialised sufficient for them to introduce their up-the-sleeve contingency policies. I can hear Central Office gloating now - "Good lord above! No anticipated major unrest on the streets, little interest from those slightly above the poverty line. How relatively simple THAT one was!! Perhaps we ought to have gone even further with our policies d'yer think?"

The answer to such assaults on our people cannot ever be redressed by the adoption of watered-down, less punitive policies i.e. a bit less severe than the Tories before by any incoming opposition party - if you like, an outfit akin to a pseudo-appeasing party. A majority of you in this thread focus on your perceived shortcomings of the Leader - as an individual - yet you totally ignore the message of Labour's alternative policies. If any Government policy is a bad policy and has been demonstrated to be so, why has there never been on here ANY reference to the alternative policies advanced by JC and JMcD?

Policies are the vehicle that gives the "industry" that politics has become its name!  Policies first and foremost that bring the possibility of improvement in the lot of the people who are suffering the most  must never be trivialised into the personality politicking a la US of A!

So all this focus on JC and not Labour's policies is a major detraction from focussing on the main event. If the majority of our people do not want to see more food banks, more street-sleepers, more of austerity or more of anything else the Tories might just have up their sleeve, then how about those same dissatisfied people start listening to and evaluating the alternative policies that Labour would introduce? If the majority of our people couldn't give a toss about those who are worse off than they are and can't be arsed ousting the Tories, then we all of us as a nation as well as our nation itself are fucked.

Ave Atque Vale.

And where did I deny the suffering caused by Tory Policies? The suffering caused by Tory cuts is exactly why Labour has to win the next election. If they don't the suffering continues. Winning the next election is critical. The only way to stop the impact of the Tory Policies is to beat the Tories at the ballot box.

And how are Corbyn's policies so radically different? By and large the implementable stuff are not hugely different to Miliband's. Sure there is a huge about of vague aspirational stuff. But the policies agreed at conference are fairly indistinguishable from the previous parliament.

Policies are key, but that assumes a base level of competence to be able to master the basics of being a political leader. The Labour party is dysfunctional. The damning criticism comes not from the backbench awkward squad, but from the people who tried to work within his team, but found it untenable. If you cannot get your press briefings out on time, cannot score open goals in PMQs, cannot get the confidence of your parliamentary party, have catastrophic personal poll ratings, have alienated the majority of Labour voters by waving through a Tory hard Brexit and have decades of embarrassing baggage that the media have barely bothered muck raking through yet, then maybe Labour Leader is not the job for him. Corbyn could have a plan that guaranteed World Peace and prosperity for all, but he still could not get elected on it. He is incompetent and has too much baggage that makes him an easy target for smears.   

Corbyn is a fucking disaster that will let the Tories win by default at the next election and the poorest will suffer. So kindly stop lecturing me about Tory Policies. Your blind support for a man patently not up to the job is enabling Tory policy, and inflicting immeasurable suffering, probably for decades to come.

[Cliff Bastin]

Presuppose for a minute that Johnno is completely correct in his analysis. I don't agree with him, but his is not changing his mind, and we have been down that rabbit hole before. So for the sake of discussion I will concede, for the length of this post at least, that he is right.

How does Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party change a single thing? People are suffering from the Tory vandalism of social protections. The only way to protect those people is to remove the Tories from power. Now you may think that Corbyn has been dealt an impossible hand, and is being treated horribly unfairly. But until the Tories are removed, that is the way the deck is stacked and there is nothing that can be done about it without winning power first.

The simple question is "Is Corbyn capable of overcoming the hostile media environment and delivering an election win for Labour?"

Now you have repeatedly cited the suffering of the most vulnerable in the names of austerity. Your determination to keep someone obviously ill-equipped to lead a modern party at the helm of the only potential alternative government is going to guarantee another 5 year term of Tory rule. It is grossly offensive grandstanding on the moral high ground, when the price of your principles is going to be borne by those very vulnerable that you are using to justify Corbyn.

Without power the Labour party is nought, and at a time when the Tories should be being hammered, Corbyn's leadership are actually losing ground.

The only way to get want you want is to win. Corbyn cannot deliver that.

Maybe Peter Hitchens was right about Labour not being able to win regardless of who is leader.

[SP]

Maybe Peter Hitchens was right about Labour not being able to win regardless of who is leader.

It needs someone who is comfortable talking to the media who comes across as trustworthy.

Ed has roboticised, suppressed his inner geek, and lost his sincerity. And yet, if they had run a proper campaign, they should have won in '15. Corbyn cannot hide his contempt for the media when he deigns to speak to them. Unless you are already a supporter it comes across really badly.

Against May, who is pretty bloody shit at media (but still an awful lot better than Corbyn), a decent performer should be crucifying her.  The landscape is such that Labour probably do not even need a great communicator like Blair, merely competent is probably enough given the bonfire of services, reckless hard Brexit, and the unlikeable bunch of shits actually in Government.

[Sangria]

Yes I should have clarified - their policies as in their manifesto prior to the last general election. 

I can't believe the stance being taken re Brexit.

His fans argue that he took that position after consideration of how Labour constituencies voted, and a meeting with an analyst that showed that Labour would be under sever pressure in the north. However, he's on record as having taken this stance on 24th June 2016, the day after the referendum. The quotes are there from that day, the video is there for anyone to see. Yet his fans tell us the truth is actually counter to the evidence of our eyes and ears.

[TepidT2O]

We seem to have slipped back into a world of black and white.  The world is instead a sliding scale of greys....

There is no 'good' and bad policy...

Take getting rid of university tuition fees... good policy, right?

In theory yes.  But then you look at the details.  Removing tuition fees would mean fewer poorer students going to university.  It would take £4bn (more?) a year from another cause.  What's more important, £4bn more to the NGS or abolishing tuition fees?


Just one example of the murky waters of politics and why these issues are so seldom the black and white they seem.  Some Tory policies aren't all bad, some have had great intentions.  We need to accept that and real use that we aren't ina situation of saints and sinners, it's far more complex than that.

[cissesbeard]

Tony Blair's comments are spot on. Sadly, the Iraq issue will never not be an issue.

its a shame, he speaks sense and gets his point across really well - but whatever good he did whilst in power is pretty much forgotten because of Iraq (probably rightfully so - it was an awful episode but selfishly we could do with him and his 97 team now)

[oldfordie]

His fans argue that he took that position after consideration of how Labour constituencies voted, and a meeting with an analyst that showed that Labour would be under sever pressure in the north. However, he's on record as having taken this stance on 24th June 2016, the day after the referendum. The quotes are there from that day, the video is there for anyone to see. Yet his fans tell us the truth is actually counter to the evidence of our eyes and ears.

Corbyn should have asked himself what those Labour voters voted for, did they vote for a hard Brexit.
He only had to fight the Tory propaganda of everyone voting to leave the single market, he didn't have to find the answers to Brexit.
He should have knocked that on the head straight away. the Torys were allowed to change the mindset of the country unopposed.
He should of looked at the stats that prove the majority of people dont want this hard Brexit and forced May to justify how she knows they all voted to leave the single market.
The atmosphere changed completely once Corbyns Labour agreed to the triggering of art 50.
The weight was lifted from all those lying Tory leave MPs shoulders. they didn't have to deliver those impossible lies anymore.
Labours only job was to force the Torys to keep us in the single market.
The impossible job of doing this without FOM etc was the Torys nightmare, their ministers  convinced millions to vote leave on this argument not Corbyn.

[Alan_X]

Alan, if it's no longer acceptable to respond to a post that was itself slightly acerbic in its content (a little bit of a "this'll show him" kind of response) by enquiring what the poster learned in a non-academic, real life way and benefitted from that fine academic achievement - remember, I didn't mention Marx or anyone else anywhere, then we really have entered some weird and censorial Brave New World-like place !

I don't need any reply to my PM - you've already replied here and with such admonishing clarity to indicate that we have little left to say to each other.

From now on, I'll stay in the good old arl arse thread - where shirts don't seem so readily to disappear up jaxies - and leave the cognoscenti to administer both the dissection of and the Last Rites to the Labour Party.

My final words to all who consider themselves socialists - never ever lose sight of who are the real enemies of our people and always remember and reflect upon those inspiring words of the Party anthem.
The people's flag is deepest red - it's shrouded oft our martyred dead.

I'm sorry you feel that way Johnno, I really am. I can honestly say that I have never ever lost sight of who the real enemies are. I don't think that's true of the leader you choose to follow.

[Wabaloolah]

Can this nonsense stop regarding posters on this thread wanting a watered down version of Tory policies.  It just is not true.

In the real world Labour must appeal to more than staunch Labour voters.  I have voted labour all my adult life.  I don't need convincing re labour policies. 

Sorry but with Corbyn in charge Labour do not, and will not, appeal to those floating voters it needs to attract to rid us of the current government.

No one on this thread is happy with the Tory party and its abhorrent policies. 

Why can't you see that?

Absolutely, Momentum and Corbyn appear to be under the misguided impression that they do not need to appeal to people who voted Tory last time as they can galvanise people who didn't vote last time or never vote to come out and support Corbyn and his Labour Party.  The one great flaw in that plan, however is (and I quote Mr Edmund Blackadder), it is bollocks!

These individuals who never vote are all of a sudden going to change the habit of a lifetime and come out in their droves to support Corbyn not just in Labour strongholds but in key marginal seats to enable him to sweep to power is so far wide of the mark it is so unbelievable that anyone with half a brain cell can see it for what it is.  These same people also fail to point out that it is quite likely that even if this were true that many centre voters who fluctuate between Labour and the Tories who did vote Labour last time, will not vote for Labour under this man.

Labour cannot win with Corbyn, the sooner Corbyn accepts it, the sooner we can put this ridiculous experiment behind us and get back to winning elections.

Its no surprise that the only elections we have won in the last 40 years was under a leader from the centre of the party

[killer-heels]

We seem to have slipped back into a world of black and white.  The world is instead a sliding scale of greys....

There is no 'good' and bad policy...

Take getting rid of university tuition fees... good policy, right?

In theory yes.  But then you look at the details.  Removing tuition fees would mean fewer poorer students going to university.  It would take £4bn (more?) a year from another cause.  What's more important, £4bn more to the NGS or abolishing tuition fees?

Its never that simple though is it? Does it ever go from one department to another?

The Tories hardly ever do stuff with good intentions. If they would then they would be more for means tested solutions. But anything that hampers the rich is torpedoed at the first yard.

[TepidT2O]

Its never that simple though is it? Does it ever go from one department to another?

The Tories hardly ever do stuff with good intentions. If they would then they would be more for means tested solutions. But anything that hampers the rich is torpedoed at the first yard.

I don't agree.

Now, mostly they just do stuff to line their own pockets, I agree....  but not always.  Whilst Gove is an absolute twat of the highest order, I am in no doubt that the reason for his education reforms was that he wanted the best possible education especially for less advantaged students.  Now, he did it without the proper money, he went about telling people they were wrong in an awful way, it was rushed... but it was well intentioned...

Ok, there are many more examples when they just don't give a fuck, I do accept that, but it's not black and white...

[SP]

Its no surprise that the only elections we have won in the last 40 years was under a leader from the centre of the party

This is the wrong lesson to draw from it.

The lesson is that Labour requires a charismatic leader who is capable enough to overcome the tilted media landscape. Short of suicidal policies that repel voters, the presentation and professionalism has been far more critical than the actual policies themselves. 

[killer-heels]

I don't agree.

Now, mostly they just do stuff to line their own pockets, I agree....  but not always.  Whilst Gove is an absolute twat of the highest order, I am in no doubt that the reason for his education reforms was that he wanted the best possible education especially for less advantaged students.  Now, he did it without the proper money, he went about telling people they were wrong in an awful way, it was rushed... but it was well intentioned...

Ok, there are many more examples when they just don't give a fuck, I do accept that, but it's not black and white...

So sometimes they take a break from their poor bashing. It hardly makes up for the sheer volume of shite proposals.

[killer-heels]

This is the wrong lesson to draw from it.

The lesson is that Labour requires a charismatic leader who is capable enough to overcome the tilted media landscape. Short of suicidal policies that repel voters, the presentation and professionalism has been far more critical than the actual policies themselves. 

Its quite clear that Labour is waiting for a messiah to take them into power. You see that when you hear the likes of Kendall, Cooper and others from that wing speak. Unfortunately for them, one doesnt exist.

[SP]

Its quite clear that Labour is waiting for a messiah to take them into power. You see that when you hear the likes of Kendall, Cooper and others from that wing speak. Unfortunately for them, one doesnt exist.

It does not require a messiah, just someone who has not been a very naughty boy.

[killer-heels]

It does not require a messiah, just someone who has not been a very naughty boy.

Its as bad as its been for ages if you look at the level of exposure of some of the MP's. Very few have stepped forward and the public hardly know most of them. Compare that to the Tory leadership race where there were several household names.

I know its a common theme but the party does appear very out of touch and not just the Corbyn posse either.

[TepidT2O]

So sometimes they take a break from their poor bashing. It hardly makes up for the sheer volume of shite proposals.

True, but people are so entrenched in black and white, good and bad positions, that it's important to note that things are a bit more complex than that and a lot more nuanced.

I mean this mostly with Labour Party internal politics, but the same rules appply to the Torres too..

[killer-heels]

True, but people are so entrenched in black and white, good and bad positions, that it's important to note that things are a bit more complex than that and a lot more nuanced.

I mean this mostly with Labour Party internal politics, but the same rules appply to the Torres too..

I personally dont put a left wing hat on everytime i see a policy because to be honest i am pretty much I guess a centrist. Left on some things but certainly right on others. I have agreed with some Tory policies but they definitely are against the poor.

[SP]

Its as bad as its been for ages if you look at the level of exposure of some of the MP's. Very few have stepped forward and the public hardly know most of them. Compare that to the Tory leadership race where there were several household names.

It was a run off between May and Leadsom. Neither had a stellar profile. Profile now does not matter. The position confers its own exposure, if the occupant chooses to take advantage of their opportunities.

They do not need to be known now, but need to have the skillset to be known for the right reasons. 

[Sangria]

Its as bad as its been for ages if you look at the level of exposure of some of the MP's. Very few have stepped forward and the public hardly know most of them. Compare that to the Tory leadership race where there were several household names.

I know its a common theme but the party does appear very out of touch and not just the Corbyn posse either.

See what happened last year, or the year before for that matter, where experience in government was actually deemed a negative, in comparison with the pristine Jeremy who's been unburdened by responsibility throughout his life. Any heavyweight who's proved themselves in government is unacceptably tainted by having been involved in the governments of Blair and Brown. Of course, these heavyweights would probably be more recognisable by the general public. But the general public don't elect Labour leaders. Labour members do.

[Crumble]

Maybe Peter Hitchens was right about Labour not being able to win regardless of who is leader.

This whole thread has been intensely depressing. I am at a loss to see how the Labour Party can climb out of the hole it has dug for itself.

I remember when the New Labour project began. The democratic socialist wing of the party was by and large prepared to allow the project to go ahead, recognising that it had the best chance of forming a Labour government. Any Labour government was going to be better than the Tories, after all. And indeed the Blair years did a lot of really good things (alongside a few disastrous ones like the embracing of PFI and some military excursions...). Anyway, the point is that the left didn't really interfere with things, preferring to sit it out on the back benches.

When I voted for Mr Corbyn, I naively assumed that if the democratic socialists ever gained the upper hand, the right wing of the party would similarly get on with supporting the policies wherever they could. When they didn't, I naively assumed that the second leadership election would settle it. But no, it is evident that a fair chunk of the party would much prefer a Tory government than one with democratic socialist policies.

The party has degenerated into a squabbling rabble.

Contrast with the Tories. The chancellor breaks a manifesto pledge, many of the party go out to bat for him explaining how it was absolutely the fair thing to do. A few days later there's a U-turn and the same people go out to bat for him explaining how that U-turn was absolutely the right thing to do, showing strength and a willingness to listen.

Can anyone here seriously see anyone in the current Labour leadership team getting that level of support?

Anyway, I can't see a solution. The New Labour project is long dead but too many of the party won't dismount. Mr Corbyn has been painted as an extremist loony lefty by all parties including his own, his credibility seems fatally undermined but I can see no-one capable of carrying forward his centre-left policies that won't suffer the same fate.

Peter Hitchens was right.

I guess we just carry on arguing for what is right and hope something turns up.

[zero zero]

When I voted for Mr Corbyn, I naively assumed that if the democratic socialists ever gained the upper hand, the right wing of the party would similarly get on with supporting the policies wherever they could. When they didn't, I naively assumed that the second leadership election would settle it. But no, it is evident that a fair chunk of the party would much prefer a Tory government than one with democratic socialist policies.

Let me commend you for coming forward and admitting that so long as Jeremy remains at the helm we can only look forward to Tory governments. However, you've thrown a red herring in there. It's never been about policies, but basic competence, lack of strategy and communication and the fact that Jeremy is toxic to the wider electorate.

[Crumble]

Let me commend you for coming forward and admitting that so long as Jeremy remains at the helm we can only look forward to Tory governments. However, you've thrown a red herring in there. It's never been about policies, but basic competence, lack of strategy and communication and the fact that Jeremy is toxic to the wider electorate.

Unfortunately the S word appears to be toxic to a proportion of the Labour Party, despite it being the seventh word on the back of the membership card.

[Sangria]

This whole thread has been intensely depressing. I am at a loss to see how the Labour Party can climb out of the hole it has dug for itself.

I remember when the New Labour project began. The democratic socialist wing of the party was by and large prepared to allow the project to go ahead, recognising that it had the best chance of forming a Labour government. Any Labour government was going to be better than the Tories, after all. And indeed the Blair years did a lot of really good things (alongside a few disastrous ones like the embracing of PFI and some military excursions...). Anyway, the point is that the left didn't really interfere with things, preferring to sit it out on the back benches.

When I voted for Mr Corbyn, I naively assumed that if the democratic socialists ever gained the upper hand, the right wing of the party would similarly get on with supporting the policies wherever they could. When they didn't, I naively assumed that the second leadership election would settle it. But no, it is evident that a fair chunk of the party would much prefer a Tory government than one with democratic socialist policies.

The party has degenerated into a squabbling rabble.

The Labour party continued to have my vote until 24th June 2016, when Corbyn set out Labour's position on Europe, which was close to that of the Tory right, and the opposite of what I voted for in the 2015 GE. The Labour members re-elected him after they knew this to be his position, thus affirming their support for his Europhobic position. His whipping the Labour MPs to support the Tories on article 50 confirmed that this was no mere rhetoric, but the Labour party's position on this subject.

This was entirely Corbyn's doing. Yet you blame everyone but Corbyn.

[killer-heels]

It was a run off between May and Leadsom. Neither had a stellar profile. Profile now does not matter. The position confers its own exposure, if the occupant chooses to take advantage of their opportunities.

They do not need to be known now, but need to have the skillset to be known for the right reasons. 

The public never got to choose the Tory leader. Even the members didnt get a go. If the public got to choose then there would have been a strong spread throughout the field.

[zero zero]

Unfortunately the S word appears to be toxic to a proportion of the Labour Party...

Is that the 60% that voted Remain?

[Crumble]

The Labour party continued to have my vote until 24th June 2016, when Corbyn set out Labour's position on Europe, which was close to that of the Tory right.

You lost me there. Labour's position was very different from that of the Tories. The 70% of the EU that Mr Corbyn is OK with includes all the bits that the Tories hate, the bits that they will shed rapidly once Brexit becomes reality. The 30% that needs fixing is the part that the Tory right loves. But it is yet another fundamental Labour problem that a fair number of working people voted Brexit precisely so that EU immigrants working here could be sent away. Maybe I should wade into the Brexit thread, now where did I leave my kevlon armour...

[B0151?]

This whole thread has been intensely depressing. I am at a loss to see how the Labour Party can climb out of the hole it has dug for itself.

The biggest reason Corbyn faces so much opposition is because there's been a very real fear from the start that not only is he incompetent, but that he will lead Labour into electoral disaster. (And I say biggest - yes there are other reasons)

There were constant murmurings over Miliband for similar reasons. Only in them glory days it was just over whether he was going to win or not... Not potentially destroy the whole party.

[youll never walk alone it]

The only thing depressing is the greedy country/world we live in, socialism is long dead while we have the media we have...and i believe in socialism greatly.

[Sangria]

You lost me there. Labour's position was very different from that of the Tories. The 70% of the EU that Mr Corbyn is OK with includes all the bits that the Tories hate, the bits that they will shed rapidly once Brexit becomes reality. The 30% that needs fixing is the part that the Tory right loves. But it is yet another fundamental Labour problem that a fair number of working people voted Brexit precisely so that EU immigrants working here could be sent away. Maybe I should wade into the Brexit thread, now where did I leave my kevlon armour...

Article 50 needs to be invoked ASAP. That was Corbyn's stated position on 24th June 2016.

[Crumble]

Article 50 needs to be invoked ASAP. That was Corbyn's stated position on 24th June 2016.

"Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result. Corbyn thought he should keep his promise to the people, however much he didn't like it.

[oldfordie]

This whole thread has been intensely depressing. I am at a loss to see how the Labour Party can climb out of the hole it has dug for itself.

I remember when the New Labour project began. The democratic socialist wing of the party was by and large prepared to allow the project to go ahead, recognising that it had the best chance of forming a Labour government. Any Labour government was going to be better than the Tories, after all. And indeed the Blair years did a lot of really good things (alongside a few disastrous ones like the embracing of PFI and some military excursions...). Anyway, the point is that the left didn't really interfere with things, preferring to sit it out on the back benches.

When I voted for Mr Corbyn, I naively assumed that if the democratic socialists ever gained the upper hand, the right wing of the party would similarly get on with supporting the policies wherever they could. When they didn't, I naively assumed that the second leadership election would settle it. But no, it is evident that a fair chunk of the party would much prefer a Tory government than one with democratic socialist policies.

The party has degenerated into a squabbling rabble.

Contrast with the Tories. The chancellor breaks a manifesto pledge, many of the party go out to bat for him explaining how it was absolutely the fair thing to do. A few days later there's a U-turn and the same people go out to bat for him explaining how that U-turn was absolutely the right thing to do, showing strength and a willingness to listen.

Can anyone here seriously see anyone in the current Labour leadership team getting that level of support?

Anyway, I can't see a solution. The New Labour project is long dead but too many of the party won't dismount. Mr Corbyn has been painted as an extremist loony lefty by all parties including his own, his credibility seems fatally undermined but I can see no-one capable of carrying forward his centre-left policies that won't suffer the same fate.

Peter Hitchens was right.

I guess we just carry on arguing for what is right and hope something turns up.

New Labour project. sounds like some experiment that went terribly wrong. New Labour under a competent leader would piss the next GE.
A competent Labour leader arguing Corbyn policys would piss the next GE.
Maybe the people who got Corbyn into power should learn from the mistakes of Corbyn, next time get a competent leader with no baggage who supports Corbyns policys. it will be a joy to watch them tear the Torys to pieces. all we've seen for the last 18 months is Corbyn self destructing every week.
He's been loosing the respect of millions and he will never win that respect back.

[SP]

Corbyn is getting more support from the party than he has offered any previous leader.

[ShakaHislop]

The Labour party continued to have my vote until 24th June 2016, when Corbyn set out Labour's position on Europe, which was close to that of the Tory right, and the opposite of what I voted for in the 2015 GE. The Labour members re-elected him after they knew this to be his position, thus affirming their support for his Europhobic position. His whipping the Labour MPs to support the Tories on article 50 confirmed that this was no mere rhetoric, but the Labour party's position on this subject.

This was entirely Corbyn's doing. Yet you blame everyone but Corbyn.

I feel the same, although I went off Corbyn slightly later during the first parliamentary meeting after the referendum (for the same reasons)

Brexit is the only issue on which I am strongly against Corbyn. His stances on nuclear energy and Trident don't bother me personally (although they, or at least the way he presents them, are evidently a problem for other Labour voters) Unfortunately, Brexit is such a big issue that the party's official position being so different to mine is not something I can look past.

To be fair to Corbyn, I have very little hope that any of the realistic contenders for the leadership now (the likes of Cooper, Kendall, Jarvis and even Lewis from the left) would change the current position of the party. Furthermore, although I believe Corbyn was privately hoping for a Leave vote and that is why he was happy to whip his MPs, and give May a blank cheque on the bill; I don't feel his genuinely Remain-supporting critics within the party would have taken radically different steps to the one he's taken thus far, for pure political reasons. Their statements on immigration, which read incompatable with even a soft Brexit, let alone a continued push to Remain are why I believe this to be the case. Therefore, the two sides on Brexit within Labour are naive Lexit vs those with a lack of backbone. Not a great choice and not all the fault of Corbyn.

[zero zero]

Corbyn thought he should keep his promise to the people, however much he didn't like it.

Where are you pulling this out from? Do the words "Three Line Whip" mean anything to you?

[Sangria]

"Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result. Corbyn thought he should keep his promise to the people, however much he didn't like it.

Never mind how mainstream media twists one's words. Now Corbyn's fans are prepared to bend his words in all dimensions in order to excuse him of what he's on record as saying.

Very, very few politicians were that ardent to invoke article 50, that soon after the referendum. IIRC not even the Tory leaders of the Leave campaign were that up front. Only Frottage and Corbyn were. Far right and far left, hand in hand.

[Sangria]

Where are you pulling this out from? Do the words "Three Line Whip" mean anything to you?

Corbyn was so eager to hold Cameron to account, that he whipped his Labour MPs to support May.

It reminds me of when Cameron asked Corbyn why the latter was hanging on when the former was prepared to resign his position.

[Alan_X]

"Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result. Corbyn thought he should keep his promise to the people, however much he didn't like it.

Am I missing something here? Cameron (Tory Prime MInister) said something so Corbyn (Leader of the Opposition) felt he had to keep Cameron's promise?

[Sangria]

Am I missing something here? Cameron (Tory Prime MInister) said something so Corbyn (Leader of the Opposition) felt he had to keep Cameron's promise?

Cameron made a promise, so Corbyn felt the Labour party needed to help May keep Cameron's promise.

[Haemoglobin]

Am I missing something here? Cameron (Tory Prime MInister) said something so Corbyn (Leader of the Opposition) felt he had to keep Cameron's promise?

He really didn't like doing it though.