Corbyn tables no-confidence after May’s crushing, humiliating, historic defeat

Theresa May’s dismal ‘deal’ with the EU has not been merely defeated but crushed, losing by 432 votes to 202, dwarfing even the disasters of Ramsay MacDonald in the 1920s.

Jeremy Corbyn has responded immediately, decisively and dramatically by calling a formal vote of no confidence in the government.

How can any MPs dare to say he or she has confidence in this disaster of a government and the Prime Minister who fails to lead it?

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

28 responses to “Corbyn tables no-confidence after May’s crushing, humiliating, historic defeat

  1. Pingback: Corbyn tables no-confidence after May’s crushing, humiliating, historic defeat | The SKWAWKBOX | sdbast·

  2. Pingback: Corbyn tables no-confidence after May’s crushing, humiliating, historic defeat | The SKWAWKBOX | Britain Isn't Eating!·

  3. Pingback: Corbyn tables no-confidence after May’s crushing, humiliating, historic defeat | The SKWAWKBOX – Site Title·

  4. Tomorrow will be interesting in Parliament it seems. Which MPs will rush to save the chaotic, incompetent, vicious May regime I wonder.

    Could the (k)clingon PM suddenly develop political conscience and resign in the meantime and what would that mean for the vote of no confidence in Gov? Somehow I doubt May will resign after this historic defeat, just interested in what effect that might have in the current scenario.

  5. Time for a No Deal Brexit and a far more interventionist, dynamic economic programme from Labour based on sweeping state intervention, massive programmes of house building and other public works, and the bold extension of public ownership of whole sectors of the economy starting with the public utilities. Let’s throw out the neoliberal rubbish, both domestic and supranational.

    https://www.thefullbrexit.com/no-deal

    • What you’re suggesting is as much of a chimera as the WTO-rules gibberish of the hard-right Thatcher-fundamentalists in the Tory party. And if you think it’s radical, you are very sorely mistaken.

      Capitalism is a global system of economic exchange and social relations. You can’t just cut yourself loose from it. Not only that, but every effort to build a socialist society based on and around nation states has more than failed – it has resulted in repression, corruption, economic decay and working-class suffering. It’s not coincidental that the first person that comes to mind when you mention “socialism in one country” is Josef Stalin.

      The struggle against capitalism has to be international because the system itself is international. Marx recognised that 150 years ago and it is 10 times as true today as it was then. None of which, by the way, means supporting the EU or its ancillary institutions. Merely that efforts to build socialism based on nation-state borders are foredoomed to failure by the global nature of capitalism and, equally bad, have been shown over and over to empower corrupt layers of petit-bourgeois bureaucracy while doing capitalism’s work for it by forcing workers from one country into competition with those from elsewhere. The way may be longer, but it’s only by struggling for the international realisation of socialist economic change that those changes can be built on solid foundations.

      • There’s at least 120,000 vulnerable UK citizens who can’t read your ode to neoliberalism because they’ve died from Tory austerity. That’s what you’re defending.

        Socialism will save lives. Obviously you only care about yourself.

  6. She’s too stubborn to resign. We won’t win the vote of no confidence

  7. shout it from the rooftops. there’s no limit to how may VoNCs corbyn can call. Thatcher tried 6 times before she won the one that toppled the then Lab gov. PV will try to force him to move to a 2nd ref immediately after this first VoNC fails. which it surely will. they are petrified of a corbyn gov. but he must hold firm and as things continue to unravel there WILL come a point where the dup will abandon May.

    • Sadly under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act there is a limit. The limit is one.

      • That’s entirely incorrect. There is nothing in the FTPA that limits how many, or how often

    • “PV will try to force him to move to a 2nd ref immediately after this first VoNC fails.”

      I suspect Corbyn/Labour leadership is in danger of being boxed in following almost certain defeat of no confidence motion. I expect and hope they have planned for that though…

  8. Boris and the rest of the Tories are saying that they will support May tomorrow because they don’t want Jeremy Corbyn to be PM.
    Well well they seem to be pretty resigned to the fact that given the opportunity Labour would win a General Election..

    • I noticed that, too. Their behaviour gives the lie to their attempts to claim that Corbyn is unelectable.

  9. What is absolutely clear is that the Tories by backing this government are denying the people of this country a real vote on our futures, and admitting that they can’t win the next election.

    Which also means they know they don’t have the confidence of the country.

  10. May and her team knew weeks ago that her Deal would be voted down and so, at the last minute, postponed the vote for several weeks until after the Christmas break, NOT to seek reassurances from the EU (that was just a Blind), but to give HER and her team time to work out a strategy for what she would do when she/they lost the vote.

    Given what May said just after the result of the vote was announced this evening – which I suspect was another Blind – I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she/they are planning to call another GE in the next month or two. And if THAT turns out to be the case, you can be sure that during the past few weeks, the Establishment’s propagandists in the MSM – and those who work with them – have been woking overtime to concoct smears to attack JC with, and his team, and the left in general.

    And – if that IS the case – they no doubt have at least ONE particularly ultra Big Smear lined up. And these people can invent and concoct something out of nothing, as they did a few weeks prior to the GE in 1992 with the Sunday Times front-page headline/story ‘Kinnock’s Kremlin Connection’ (when Andrew Neil was the editor), which the right-wing press of course played along with. In a Daily Mirror editorial the next day – under the headline ‘In the gutter’ – they summed it up as follows:

    It is The Dirty Election. There has been theft, smear and innuendo, and the campaign hasn’t really started….. Sunday Times reports about Neil Kinnock’s relationship with the Soviet embassey in the early 1980’s turned out to say nothing to his discredit. But advanced publicity about them provoked concoctions, exaggerations and smears in Tory papers designed to assist one particular party. Guess which?

  11. Aksherly – in the great scheme of things, as a stupid Tory idea produces further Tory cat fights and the shitfest of Brexit continues – nothing much of substance has happened – even if it keeps the Westminster journos in a job.

    Tomorrow, even less will happen (although I will happily eat my words if something significant does).

    (DUP confirming it will back the government. Quelle surprise!)

  12. One thing’s for sure, if such a defeat had happened to Jeremy, the MSM – and the right-wing papers in particular – would have been screaming for him to resign or call another GE. The latter probably!

  13. In an interview on Channel 4 News earlier this evening, Andrea Leadsom – The Leader of the House – said that the Tories were six points ahead of Labour – which was news to me! – and so I did a search to find anything that confirmed it. The only thing I found in the results that came up – although I only scrolled down the first few results – was Guido Fawkes, which was the first one in the list. Anyway, I checked it out and it was a yougov poll. So I then checked out some of the comments (not a particularly pleasant experience, as I know from having done so a couple of times before), and about the fourteenth one down started by saying the following:

    ‘The YouGov poll is 6-7 January. Two subsequent polls by Survation and BMG have Labour 3% ahead and level, respectively.’

    I don’t know if there is a website somewhere that keeps a record of ALL surveys re voting intentions, but the six point lead in the yougov poll seems to have come out of no-where, and is certainly at odds with any polls I’ve come across in I don’t know how long. Would be interesting – not to say very suspicious – if someone could confirm THAT is the case.

    I am, of course, not for one moment suggesting that yougov and the Tories conspired in any way. Perish the thought!

    • Right. I found what I was looking for, and it’s more than a little interesting. If you scroll down just past the graph, there is a detailed list of polling results from all the different polling organisations. And if you scroll down through the results looking at the section on the far right which gives the percentage lead in either red or blue (depending on whether Labour or the Tories led in that particular poll), when you encounter the highest leads the Tories had in a poll, check to the left and you will see that every time, it just happens to be a yougov poll for The Times (as was the one – as I’ve just learnt – that Leadsom was citing). Hmm:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

      • The following is from an article about Political Polling on the howstuffworks website, and there’s a reason why I cite it, as you will see further on in my post:

        As a rule, the larger the sample group, the smaller the margin of error. For example, a sample size of 100 respondents has a MOSE (margin of sampling error) of +/- 10 percentage points, which is pretty huge. A sample of 1,000 respondents, however, has a MOSE of +/- 3 percentage points. To achieve a MOSE of +/- 1 percentage point, you need a sample of at least 5,000 respondents.

        Anyway, the reason I cite the above is because in the wikipedia list of polling results, the first two in 2019 – both by yougov – have the Tories 6 points ahead of Labour, and yet the First one – for People’s Vote – had a sample size of 25,537, and the Second one – for The Times – had a sample size of 1,656, and yet they both came up with a 6 point lead for the Tories. What are the odds on that happening in reality! And BOTH are out of kilter with the two polls conducted since (at the time of writing), and the polls conducted in the several weeks beforehand.

    • I’m not sure if you were responding to ME steve, but if you WERE, then you obviously completely missed the point.

Leave a Reply