UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One of the things this mess has taught is the astonishing level of constitutional and legal ignorance on the part of political journalists and many actual politicians in this country. No, it is not permitted for the government of the day to simply ignore the law. Yes, there will be consequences if that happens. No, the government of the day does not have the right or even the capacity to override any such consequences.

A common talking point has been that the problem at present is largely constitutional in nature; that it reflects a broken constitutional system. While there are a few issues there, that argument is nonsense: this is not, not yet, a constitutional crisis. It is a political crisis, caused primarily by reckless, stupid and stupidly reckless behaviour from politicians and their advisors.

[brucejoel99]

Johnson and Merkel discussed the proposed "deal" in a telephone call and it seems it was an utter disaster.

The Government appears to be pretending to want a deal still, but with the blame game having already started I have to wonder when they will formally announce they'll go with No Deal and whether the Opposition will get its act together to go with a VONC.

Simply not legally possible on Oct 31 at least, it is amazing how many still refuse to accept this. Without a deal they will now be forced to extend A50, the line will become "that was the fault of everybody else, not us".

Yeah, the Benn Act still very much requires the government to ask for an extension if no deal is agreed by October 19th. If BoJo wants to get around that without resigning, then he has to break the law. And if he does that, then not only will he end up in court, but there are still other legal means available to ask for an extension anyway.

[Silent Hunter]

if Boris asks for an extension, he'll claim Remainers forced him to do so.

[Middle-aged Europe]

if Boris asks for an extension, he'll claim Remainers forced him to do so.

Remainers ate Johnson's homework.

[Kingpoleon]

In the case of a caretaker government, would Labour ever discuss choosing someone besides Corbyn as the caretaker PM?

[Antonio the Sixth]

In the case of a caretaker government, would Labour ever discuss choosing someone besides Corbyn as the caretaker PM?

They should be open to that. It would be idiotic and suicidal not to (then again, it's the Labour Party we're talking about...).

[brucejoel99]

In the case of a caretaker government, would Labour ever discuss choosing someone besides Corbyn as the caretaker PM?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, now isn't it?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Does the question about a caretaker PM even matter any longer? Wasn't the entire point of a caretaker government that it would ask for an extension and then call new elections, which the Benn Act has solved anyway?

The problem is that even if Labour, LibDems, the expelled Tories, SNP, Greens and Plaid all manage to agree on a PM, it seems almost impossible that they would agree on a common Brexit line, so a government would have to have a very clear and easily implemented objective that can keep them together for a short while until a new election.

[Kingpoleon]

In the case of a caretaker government, would Labour ever discuss choosing someone besides Corbyn as the caretaker PM?

They should be open to that. It would be idiotic and suicidal not to (then again, it's the Labour Party we're talking about...).

The Lib Dems, SNP, the Conservative rebels, and basically every other non-Labour/Conservative group have repeatedly said they don’t care that the leader is necessarily from their own party, and Jo Swinson actually suggested Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman. But literally just last weekend, John McDonnell said, “We’ll never accept an interim government without Jeremy Corbyn as PM.”

So, I guess my question is, do you guys think Corbyn is going to force the party to stand by him? Or will he cave and let Swinson or Clarke or Harman become the caretaker PM once the government falls apart?

[Zinneke]

One of the things this mess has taught is the astonishing level of constitutional and legal ignorance on the part of political journalists and many actual politicians in this country. No, it is not permitted for the government of the day to simply ignore the law. Yes, there will be consequences if that happens. No, the government of the day does not have the right or even the capacity to override any such consequences.

A common talking point has been that the problem at present is largely constitutional in nature; that it reflects a broken constitutional system. While there are a few issues there, that argument is nonsense: this is not, not yet, a constitutional crisis. It is a political crisis, caused primarily by reckless, stupid and stupidly reckless behaviour from politicians and their advisors.

Next question is : can you blame the politicians and political journalists? Or do you really want a political class entirely populated by lawyers?
This also has to do with the fact that the constitutional fabric itself amounts to a bunch of post-its on key legislations and century year old rulings...still think the exit from the EU is a great opportunity for UK to modernise its constitution (including electoral system).

[CumbrianLefty]

The point re the "GNU" discussions is that Swinson is (not for the first time) arguing in pretty transparent bad faith - a major reason why Corbyn "doesn't have the numbers" is because she has vetoed the LibDems supporting him, whilst demanding that he "steps aside" for some still ill-defined "grandee" ignores that as the leader of easily the second biggest party in the Commons he is *constitutionally entitled* to have the next go at forming a government were PM Johnson to be VONCed. She is making that demand because she doesn't want her party put on the spot (backing JC likely won't help them in the Tory leaning seats they are targeting at the coming GE, but not doing so could quite possibly lose support elsewhere) and is maybe getting carried away with their present good poll ratings and forgetting the parliamentary party is (even after recent defections) a poor fourth in HoC terms, still well behind the SNP. There are actually limits to how much they can throw their weight around.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

One of the things this mess has taught is the astonishing level of constitutional and legal ignorance on the part of political journalists and many actual politicians in this country. No, it is not permitted for the government of the day to simply ignore the law. Yes, there will be consequences if that happens. No, the government of the day does not have the right or even the capacity to override any such consequences.

A common talking point has been that the problem at present is largely constitutional in nature; that it reflects a broken constitutional system. While there are a few issues there, that argument is nonsense: this is not, not yet, a constitutional crisis. It is a political crisis, caused primarily by reckless, stupid and stupidly reckless behaviour from politicians and their advisors.

Quite frankly British politicians and even more so their 'Spads' seem to know very little about anything except hairbrained analogies to the United States which don't even make sense.

[brucejoel99]

The point re the "GNU" discussions is that Swinson is (not for the first time) arguing in pretty transparent bad faith - a major reason why Corbyn "doesn't have the numbers" is because she has vetoed the LibDems supporting him,

Even if every single Lib Dem backed Corbyn, the Tory rebels certainly wouldn't. That's been Swinson's argument from the start. It's not bad faith to recognize the reality that, even if he had Lib Dem support, Corbyn would still likely never command the support of a majority of the Commons as it stands.

whilst demanding that he "steps aside" for some still ill-defined "grandee" ignores that as the leader of easily the second biggest party in the Commons he is *constitutionally entitled* to have the next go at forming a government were PM Johnson to be VONCed.

There's no such constitutional precedent. After a VONC, anybody who can command the support of a majority of the Commons has the right to attempt to become PM, regardless of whether or not they're the LOTO.

She is making that demand because she doesn't want her party put on the spot (backing JC likely won't help them in the Tory leaning seats they are targeting at the coming GE, but not doing so could quite possibly lose support elsewhere) and is maybe getting carried away with their present good poll ratings

She is making that demand because she wants a GoNU plan that'll actually work. If anything, it's Corbyn's insistence that he should be PM which could very well end up enabling a no-deal Brexit in the end.

and forgetting the parliamentary party is (even after recent defections) a poor fourth in HoC terms, still well behind the SNP. There are actually limits to how much they can throw their weight around.

When you're fishing around the Commons for any vote you can get, a batch of 19 is very powerful. And in any event, it's not even as if she's suggesting that she herself should be the caretaker PM.

EDIT: 19, not 18.

[CumbrianLefty]

You are extremely trusting of Swinson - even gullibly so, some might say.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The point re the "GNU" discussions is that Swinson is (not for the first time) arguing in pretty transparent bad faith - a major reason why Corbyn "doesn't have the numbers" is because she has vetoed the LibDems supporting him, whilst demanding that he "steps aside" for some still ill-defined "grandee" ignores that as the leader of easily the second biggest party in the Commons he is *constitutionally entitled* to have the next go at forming a government were PM Johnson to be VONCed. She is making that demand because she doesn't want her party put on the spot (backing JC likely won't help them in the Tory leaning seats they are targeting at the coming GE, but not doing so could quite possibly lose support elsewhere) and is maybe getting carried away with their present good poll ratings and forgetting the parliamentary party is (even after recent defections) a poor fourth in HoC terms, still well behind the SNP. There are actually limits to how much they can throw their weight around.

It makes perfect sense, in a coalition of highly heterogeneous parties, not to have any of the party leaders take the top spot, but instead to find a different candidate that isn't too objectionable to any of the coalition members. This might not be familiar to you because the UK hasn't had many coalitions (and where it has it was always on the basis of a two-party agreement), but at this point it's really time to stop thinking of Westminster as working according to the Westminster system, because the reality is that it just doesn't anymore.

[Tintrlvr]

You are extremely trusting of Swinson - even gullibly so, some might say.

But apparently everyone should put their trust in Jeremy Corbyn.

[brucejoel99]

You are extremely trusting of Swinson - even gullibly so, some might say.

How is recognizing reality being "gullibly" trusting of Swinson?

With or without the Lib Dems, Corbyn doesn't have the numbers. 243 voting Labour MPs + 35 SNP + 4 PC + Caroline Lucas + Stephen Hepburn? puts him at 284. Even if you give him the Lib Dems' 19, that puts him at 303, & right now, you need at least 320 for a working majority, which means that even with Lib Dem support, he'd be 17 votes short. Swinson simply recognizes that Corbyn can't command a majority, so the parties need to find somebody who can.

And at this point, Corbyn should the decent thing & realize that too. Hell, help choose somebody from Labour (such as Margaret Beckett) if he wants. That could very well end up being the only way it'll work.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its a very partial interpretation of reality, which assumes only pure and good motives from her.

IMO it is actually a far more realistic reading of things to say she wants to avoid being put on the spot about making Corbyn a temporary PM (and, let's remember, for very likely just a matter of weeks) because *whatever* decision the LibDems make it will brown off some of their new found support.

Nobody has yet made a conclusive case that any of the other names banded around could actually win a majority of MPs if the actual leader of the opposition can't - its mere hand waving assertion and wishful thinking.

[Tintrlvr]

Nobody has yet made a conclusive case that any of the other names banded around could actually win a majority of MPs if the actual leader of the opposition can't - its mere hand waving assertion and wishful thinking.

Now this is utter nonsense and totally disingenuous. It's really obvious that all of the names thrown out (Clarke, Harman, Beckett, even the hilarious suggestion of Bercow) would be able to command a majority - unless, of course, Jeremy Corbyn chose his own ego over supporting them.

[CumbrianLefty]

Please explain how it is "obvious" given that a significant number of Labour MPs would be likely to oppose them?

Ah, didn't think of that did you. Its OK, we have long got used to centrist fantasists treating the left as non persons

[YL]

Please explain how it is "obvious" given that a significant number of Labour MPs would be likely to oppose them?

If Corbyn agreed to support them (which I think was the premise)?  In those circumstances would any Labour MPs oppose other than Hoey and perhaps Stringer?

[DaWN]

This is a completely pointless argument over a scenario which will never come to play.

It is politically untenable for Labour to accept anyone other than Corbyn as PM. They'd basically be admitting 'our man isn't good enough', and while everyone knows that he isn't good enough, they can't just come out and say it. It would be politically disastrous and basically inviting what remaining voters Labour has to find alternatives. Thus Labour won't accept an alternative.

It is politically untenable for the Liberal Democrats to accept Corbyn as PM. The two main groups of voters that are behind the Lib Dem surge are remainer former Labour voters who hate Corbyn and his Brexit stance, and former Tory voters who have been alienated by Boris but would never vote Labour in a million years. While supporting Corbyn for PM wouldn't be popular with either group, it would particularly alienate the latter who are far more important than the former in terms of getting the LDs more seats. Thus the Lib Dems won't accept Corbyn.

Both parties are making an exceptionally reasonable stance purely based on what is best for them electorally and neither of them are going to budge if the other shouts louder (or in the case of Corbynites, throw a tantrum on Twitter). Thus the 'caretaker PM' is never going to happen and the next change of PM will be after an election or when the Tory party loses confidence in Boris. Discussion otherwise is academic until the next big thing happens.

[brucejoel99]

Its a very partial interpretation of reality, which assumes only pure and good motives from her.

IMO it is actually a far more realistic reading of things to say she wants to avoid being put on the spot about making Corbyn a temporary PM (and, let's remember, for very likely just a matter of weeks) because *whatever* decision the LibDems make it will brown off some of their new found support.

Nobody has yet made a conclusive case that any of the other names banded around could actually win a majority of MPs if the actual leader of the opposition can't - its mere hand waving assertion and wishful thinking.

Numbers aren't partial. Numbers are numbers.

[Lord Halifax]

It is politically untenable for Labour to accept anyone other than Corbyn as PM. They'd basically be admitting 'our man isn't good enough', and while everyone knows that he isn't good enough, they can't just come out and say it. It would be politically disastrous and basically inviting what remaining voters Labour has to find alternatives. Thus Labour won't accept an alternative.

All they would be admitting is that Corbyn isn't acceptable to Tory defectors, which is a no brainer.

[vileplume]

The point re the "GNU" discussions is that Swinson is (not for the first time) arguing in pretty transparent bad faith - a major reason why Corbyn "doesn't have the numbers" is because she has vetoed the LibDems supporting him, whilst demanding that he "steps aside" for some still ill-defined "grandee" ignores that as the leader of easily the second biggest party in the Commons he is *constitutionally entitled* to have the next go at forming a government were PM Johnson to be VONCed. She is making that demand because she doesn't want her party put on the spot (backing JC likely won't help them in the Tory leaning seats they are targeting at the coming GE, but not doing so could quite possibly lose support elsewhere) and is maybe getting carried away with their present good poll ratings and forgetting the parliamentary party is (even after recent defections) a poor fourth in HoC terms, still well behind the SNP. There are actually limits to how much they can throw their weight around.

It would be political suicide for the Lib Dems to back Corbyn even in the slightest seen as most of their target seats are Tory held and broadly on the centre-right. If there's one thing that disillusioned Tory Remainers hate more than Brexit, it's Jeremy Corbyn. Plus Swinson herself is from the 'Orange Booker' (right leaning) wing of the Lib Dems so I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would expect her to facilitate a hard left PM. She's put forward alternatives, e.g. Clarke, Harman who would be more 'unifying' figures particularly given their length of service, and is genuinely trying to find a compromise but Labour is refusing to budge. Presumably this is because the masterminds behind the Corbyn project (e.g. the notoriously anti-EU Seumas Milne) have calculated that Labour won't get the blame if Britain crashes out of the EU so they have literally no incentive to compromise.