The country needs a leader on at least one of the front benches

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 Crucial matters of the UK constitution have been withdrawn from consideration by Parliament because Government no longer commands a majority.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.