Then on Brexit, he went against the wishes of the members and supported Tory policy.
Needless to say I'm no longer a supporter. Of course, it's easy to forget that all the other leadership candidates and challengers would have done the same.
I'd love to see the scenario in your final paragraph. I think May knows it's all or nothing, and if anything gets in the way of her timetable, it's game over for her and for Brexit.
I don't honestly expect that to happen, because I'm fairly sure that Corbyn is either delusional or compromised - and also willing to use a three-line whip to make sure the election goes ahead.
So what would you have done if you were him? Go with your members and get booted out of any sensible position, or go with your voting base and disregard your members? Brexit was a hot button topic for many reasons and arguably the fact that someone is either a Tory supporter or betraying their voter base is an example of politics becoming more about principle than doing what's right.
The only party which voted against having the referendum, and who aren't similarly bound, were the SNP.
May was campaigning to remain before she was appointed leader. And said categorically she would not call a snap election. The lack of conviction is equal parts depressing and hilarious
(I'm not in the UK, apologies if this is a common question.)
[edit] Thanks for the answers!
Some legal opinions have been proferred that it could be reversible, even though if you read the text of A50 there's no mention of such a mechanism.
Personally I would have thought that was something you would want to exclude - article 50 could be used as a tool to extract concessions "We're leavingg unless...".
There's apparently a court case in Ireland to try to establish this.
Also there's the possibility it could be reversed with unanimous consent from the other 27 members because, when it comes down to it, the members make the rules.
It's entirely possible that the UK could be made to leave and reapply though, which would make for many more years of turmoil.
I don't personally think this is a very useful distinction. By this definition, a soft Brexit is what for example the Lib Dems are advocating at the moment. However, I think it is also highly unlikely to happen, because to a first approximation it is leaving-in-name-only and thus probably an untenable position for the government to adopt politically. The entire spectrum of other possibilities, from retaining relatively close ties in some respects up to completely walking away with no deal at all, then fall under the single banner of hard Brexit, but treating such widely different possible outcomes as equivalent doesn't seem to be very useful (unless for political reasons you want to try to equate them anyway, I suppose).
"Tea?"
"OK, go on."
"There's no kettle so I'm burning the house down to heat water."
"Now wait a…"
"Shut up, I've a clear mandate for tea."
https://twitter.com/louisejjohnson/status/829617043582369792
I suppose to be balanced we should also acknowledge the other side's similarly daft argument that they accept that people voted for tea and yet propose a scheme in which you can't buy any of tea bags, tea leaves, a kettle, an urn, or an instant hot water tap, though it's possible that milk or lemon will still be negotiable. :-)
This is slightly simplistic, since the Tory party was split on the issue of Brexit.
Presumably the general public don't like him because the media have been telling them he's unelectable, even though he's been voted leader twice and his policies are popular with the electorate even if he isn't.
I suspect he's considering his own position and the general dissatisfaction he faces among his current crop of MPs, and he's probably figuring this is a chance to clean house a bit. I also suspect the extremely short notice given by May is designed to frustrate that effort.
It's almost as if they'd rather have the Tories in government.
I imagine some current Labour MPs with Blairite leanings really might prefer having the Tories in government if a Corbyn-led administration is the alternative. The Tory position on a lot of issues is probably closer to their own.
Presumably the general public don't like him because the media have been telling them he's unelectable, even though he's been voted leader twice and his policies are popular with the electorate even if he isn't.
But being voted leader by a party who like him is far different from getting votes from anyone else, and almost everyone's policies are popular until you start asking the hard questions like how you're going to pay for it or who else is going to lose out as a result. I don't think either the general public's view of him or any resulting electability problems are entirely down to the media.
Theresa May's just taking advantage of her huge poll lead, which is mostly down to a divided official opposition.
When they were elected, Corbyn wasn't leader. The platform they were elected on wasn't Corbyn's, and the people who elected them were their local constituents, not just Corbyn-supporting members of the Labour party.
On the other hand, they ran under a Labour banner, which will be why quite a lot of them are MPs today, and it wasn't the New Labour of Tony Blair, it was the Labour of Ed Miliband, which now belongs to Jeremy Corbyn.
I daresay that it's them who are making the party a liability. They've made the Labour Party seem completely ridiculous - and that's not Corbyn's fault.
There are straight forward routes through for both of them.
May :- repeal the fixed term parliaments act (which would be an entertaining kick in the teeth to the Lib Dems)
Corbyn :- accuse Labour rebels of not respecting democracy and even question their motives w/regard to Brexit.
On that basis I can't see enough Labour rebels actually turning out to block it. They're more likely to walk away from politics completely (their heart was never really in the business of fighting for something).
No wonder - I suspect a lot of them will be out of a job soon.
He's an odd case. He commands a lot of influence among Labour members and to some extent the unions (who have significant ties to and influence on the Labour Party here). This makes him more-or-less untouchable as party leader.
However, he's loathed by most of the party's current MPs, who are politicians and know he's going to be a liability at election time. And he's not particularly popular among the general public outside the traditional Labour voters, which is why he's going to be a liability.
The irony of the snap election, if it does happen, is that it will be an opportunity for Corbyn to clear out the disloyal backstabbers in the Commons and replace them with more traditional Labour MPs, which is probably why he seems to have said previously that he'd support calls for a snap election. On the other hand, he would probably lose so many MPs altogether that his party would become almost irrelevant in the next Parliament, much as the Lib Dems did last time.
A somewhat ironic but apparently quite plausible outcome to all the political manoeuvres is that Corbyn says Labour will support the snap election, almost all of his MPs openly rebel, the election consequently doesn't achieve the 2/3 support needed in the Commons and so doesn't happen, May is weakened and probably steps down as a result, and Corbyn is also so weakened that he finally goes, thus making the two party leaders who were playing the political games the major victims of those games.
We live in interesting times, literally and perhaps euphemistically as well.
[Edit: Added a missing bit. Thanks, gpvos.]