A year or so ago, it
wasn't uncommon to hear the opinion that while Corbyn's Labour may be valuable
in opposition, it was not a party for governing. In recent days, Corbyn and his
team have confirmed that diagnosis.
For the first time in
British history, Government has been found in contempt of Parliament. Crucial
matters of the UK constitution have been withdrawn from consideration by
Parliament because Government no longer commands a majority. All other parties
in Parliament have called for a vote of no confidence in the government, and
have been hoping that Corbyn would show leadership in this regard. Here was the
opportunity to seize control of both Government and of the Brexit process, and
end this ridiculous impasse by asking the UK what vision they have for their
future. Were Corbyn to announce he was seeking a vote of no confidence in the
government , it seems incredibly likely that such a move would have
commanded enough support to pursue this course.
But he did not. The
party line has been that they intend to wait until the right moment, when a no
confidence vote would be most likely to succeed. It is not clear what signal
the party leadership is waiting for. If the time is not right when the minority
Government's party is publicly eviscerating itself; when it makes history by
antagonising Parliament; when all parties are clamoring for the ejection of the
Prime Minister; when the world is looking at our state of affairs with
confusion, and no clear idea of how we intend to resolve our logjam, then the
time will never be right. What else could the Labour leadership possibly
be waiting for?
There will never
be a better opportunity to seize Government than last week, so it's hard
to believe that patience is the true motivation of the Labour leadership's
total lack of action and leadership. Rather, it seems that the party is scared
of the possibility that they could have genuine responsibility. Labour's Brexit
policy until now has been vague, in an attempt to please everybody, and they do
not seem eager to actually be in the position of making decisions. Corbyn is
reluctant to project any sort of fondness for the EU, due to both his natural
euroscepticism and his fear of antagonising Labour leave voters, despite
the members of the supposedly member-led party supporting a second referendum
by a massive margin. He has repeatedly asserted that he and a Labour government
would negotiate a better deal, but he must surely be aware that this is a
fantasy (and not a particularly believable one at that), and that the
parliamentary arithmetic would be little changed by a general election given
the impressively diverse range of views in every party and across the country.
Corbyn doesn't want to be in the position where he's responsible for a second
referendum; nor does he want the alternative, which inevitably involves
dragging some substantial portion of the UK - most likely the vast majority of
his supporters - kicking and screaming into an unsatisfactory future.
This weakness has
been compounded by the party's embarrassing attempt to pretend that they are in
fact taking action. Late on Monday, Corbyn announced he was finally declaring a
vote of no confidence. This, however, was not a vote of no confidence in the
Government, but in Theresa May personally. It is not at all clear why this was
done. To be clear, this has no constitutional significance. This is not an
established procedure in the same way a vote of no confidence in the Government
is: unlike a vote of no confidence in the Government, even if it was won, it
would have no constitutional significance. No general election would be called,
no power would shift, no laws would change. Corbyn has for months now been
shouting that his party is ready to take over the role of governing at the drop
of a hat, to magically renegotiate a deal, but despite the support of nearly
every party in the House and deep discontent across the Hall, he is unwilling
to seize it. Either he's expecting Santa to gift it to him for Christmas, or
his is a party of opposition only.
This move has been
embarrassing for the party. Despite the infighting, the constant U-turns from
May, and the total lack of leadership, the Tories have came out of this move
looking like the adults in the room. Downing Street's response to Corbyn's
announcement - which, to be clear, is simply a suggestion that on an opposition
day in Parliament they agree that May isn't doing so great a job - was well
judged. By describing the move as a "political game" for which the
country doesn't have the time, and telling Her Majesty's opposition that they
are free and able to put forward a genuine motion of no confidence in the Government
but otherwise should let them get on, they have exposed Labour's gimmick for
what it is.
Not only is this
gimmick laughable, it has also had a very poor political effect. The Tories had
their fight, and May found herself protected for a year, as per party rules
which prevent a leadership challenge until a year after the most recent. She
only won by a majority of 87, leading to a number of conservatives to call for
her resignation. The party had exposed its own fault lines. It's unlikely that there'd
be many Tory votes in a genuine no confidence vote, but in a vote essentially
stating "I agree with Corbyn," it’s exceptionally unlikely that even
the most disgruntled Tory rebels will present themselves. Rather, it seems that
the entire Tory party is likely to back the Prime Minister, with even Jacob
Rees-Mogg reversing his hostility to May, and the DUP openly backing her.
Corbyn has succeeded in uniting a Conservative party that not one week ago
voted about whether they should spend their time finding a new leader and found
that less than two thirds think that this might not be in either the party or
the country's best interest.
It's hard to predict
what will happen after the meaningful Brexit vote (which is currently planned
to occur on the 14th of January). It is likely that if the vote goes as
planned, the Government will lose by a significant margin. If Corbyn has not
totally unified the party, there is a chance that the Government might seek to
mitigate its failure by pre-emptively supporting a second referendum. While May
has ruled this out, we have seen that May's strategy (charitably described) is
to mull over all options while claiming to have ruled them out in order to
present some kind of stability. It is almost certain that a second referendum
is the only way out of the blockage the parliamentary arithmetic has thrown up,
and the government will only be able to pretend it is still in control if it
pretends that it's taking charge on the matter. This would all be more likely
if the threat of a genuine vote of no confidence following a crushing defeat on
the meaningful vote was on the cards. Now, with the Tories publicly defending
their party leader, it is not at all clear that a vote of no confidence would
go Labour's way.
How likely is it,
then, that Corbyn would in fact call a vote of no confidence? Perhaps more
likely than it was before this failed gambit, given that the risk he may have
to make a decision is more muted than before. Losing such a vote would however
prove embarrassing to the party, and they have since rescinded their threat of
a vote of no confidence in the Government should they not allow time to debate
the no confidence vote in the PM. As much as one can't expect May to stick to
their red lines, one can't expect Corbyn to make genuine stabs at Downing
Street.
The party members
support a second referendum. Whatever the result - a people's’ vote is
the only way to rescue the country from a crisis whereinby whatever course is
taken by the government, a large sector of the country will question the
legitimacy of the decision and resent both the electorate and the government in
coming years. Where are the Labour MPs who are willing to declare the party
leadership to be failing in both representing its members and in opposing this
disaster of a government? Where are the MPs standing up to tell the country
that their party made mistakes, ignoring the problems faced by those in society
who have lost out due to freer trade with Europe, but these problems are one of
the government's own making? Where are the MPs standing up to argue that this
is not a fundamental aspect of the EU, and we need to decide what exactly it is
that we want? These MPs need to make themselves known, and if the current
leadership is unwilling to lead the opposition, it should stand aside so that
politicians genuinely interested in governing can. And failing that, MPs
willing to lead Labour into a position to serve the country in both opposition
and government should not replicate the same mistakes, and should seize the
party as is necessary.
Comments
Post a Comment