|
|
|
|
|
by jfengel
1316 days ago
|
|
The problem wasn't just the referendum itself, but again in 2019. Corbyn said he had "a neutral stance on Brexit". https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50530163 The actual referendum was very close, and there was a lot of room for Labour to argue that it wasn't intended to be binding, or at least a Brexit In Name Only. The result was that Labour was creamed and the Tories got a real majority, whereas previously they'd been saddled with UKIP. Corbyn also failed at the referendum, arriving at a belated and wishy-washy stance, and without compelling Labour to follow it. Had he resigned then, things might have been very different. Instead, he continued to lead Labour in a way that left people confused about where they stood on Brexit when put in the form of a Parliamentary election. Nobody could read the results as anything but "The nation voted strongly for Brexit." I don't believe that really reflects what voters wanted, but elections are poor tools for sending messages. What they do is put people in office, and the people in office were people strongly for Brexit. |
|