Jeremy Corbyn has now discovered the real problems of swapping rebellionness for the responsibility of leadership, don’t you think? Last night some third (66) of his Labour MPs including nearly half of his own selected Shadow cabinet, his front line troops no less, have defied his wishes and voted with the Tory Government to bomb ISIS in Syria. Perhaps they were right, but the circumstances whereby that came around were certainly wrong, surely?

He was forced to baulk at issuing a formal instruction to MPs through a Whip letter, as he was clearly warned that could cause mayhem and damaging resignations – so he cowardly chose to walk away from the problem, eh?
He may take some comfort though from the fact that the majority of Labour MPs (153) voted against air strikes in Syria. But that fact cannot mask the consequences of this major put-down and rejection of his authority by his MPs, can it? In light of the ongoing high level of support to stick with the airstrikes ban, though it failed, showed that Corbyn clearly should have had the guts of his convictions to enforce his views on the others and issue a three line whip. After all, his personal view is in accordance with the long established opinion of the Labour Party, and is not one of his strange unpopular beliefs that he wants to inflict on the Party.

His give way about this pretty insignificant issue on the scale of things, simply demonstrates his faltering leadership qualities, doesn’t it? Those in the Shadow Cabinet who voted for bombing in Syria are the ones who have changed their minds, so are out-of-step with the majority. Corbyn should have called their bluff and accepted a few resignations if necessary (after all he could hardly sack anybody given his 30 year record of defying the Party’s voting instructions, eh?). His problem was though that his anti-war, anti-conflict, appeasement attitude, has got in the way and allowed people to justify the rejection of his requests on this specific matter (one nothing to do with war really – despite the lurid media headlines), didn’t it?

He may be so called leader of the pack, but it has been shown that he is anything but in charge – and forevermore the members will simply ignore his instructions and run their own sweet way – why not?. This is going to make his future success problematical, don’t you think? Like Barack Obama of the Democrats in America, Labour now have a ‘nice man’ Leader, who can achieve none of his goals – whether they are right or wrong. Will he survive for very long? Will the Labour Party survive in its current form with him in charge?

The total majority for action in Syria of 174 MPs is a resounding victory for the Government, isn’t it? Certainly the Tories were on top of their game in bringing the matter to the floor of the House at this time and PM David Cameron definitely performed well – they clearly got their sums right as they could not afford to lose again, could they? On the other hand, Labour seems to have been shambolic and totally incompetent, not knowing at all how their MPs would vote, and their Leader was unfortunately utterly ineffective in both debate and leadership.

When something big comes up, and it surely will, Jeremy Corbyn’s authority over the Labour Party will be worthless – completely blown on an irrelevancy last night, don’t you think?

[The Tories are renowned past master disposer of failing leaders, while Labour is still in baby-land – so Jeremy Corbyn will be allowed to not lead until he gets fed-up and that is pretty unlikely in the near future (and he doesn’t have the balls to smash his opponents in the in-fighting battles, does he?].