UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[CumbrianLefty]

But my point is that whilst centrist "grandees" might be more "acceptable" to LibDems, that doesn't mean they are more acceptable to EVERYBODY. As too many on here seem to assume.

I can actually see the reasoning why Swinson and her supporters don't want to back Corbyn. My point is that others have different perspectives, which are no less valid because centrists don't agree with them.

Indeed, given that there is a strong argument that Corbyn/Brexit/Trump are ultimately all down to the failure of "third way" centrism, a bit more humility and understanding from them on occasion might not go amiss

[Silent Hunter]

"Third way centrism" only failed because of a conservative instigated recession.

[DaWN]

"Third way centrism" only failed because of a conservative instigated recession.

And also because Tony Blair wasn't a quarter as clever as he thought he was

[Antonio the Sixth]

These arguments for Corbyn to be PM just don't make any sense. Look, you know I'm far from reflexively anti-Corbyn (although I despise his antisemitism, as any morally serious leftist should). But this is just not how coalitions work. Just because you're the biggest party in the coalition, you don't get to dictate who gets to be PM, especially when that person is toxic for your partner. I have no sympathy for Jo Swinson but she has every right to say no to Corbyn, and if Corbyn refuses a compromise name, then it will be his fault if BoJo finds a way to crash out.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But my point is that whilst centrist "grandees" might be more "acceptable" to LibDems, that doesn't mean they are more acceptable to EVERYBODY. As too many on here seem to assume.

A center-left Labourite can't be as objectionable to Labour as a hard-left Labourite would be to the LibDems. Come on now.

[brucejoel99]

But my point is that whilst centrist "grandees" might be more "acceptable" to LibDems, that doesn't mean they are more acceptable to EVERYBODY. As too many on here seem to assume.

A center-left Labourite can't be as objectionable to Labour as a hard-left Labourite would be to the LibDems. Come on now.

mArGaReT bEcKeTt Is A wAr CrImInAl

[vileplume]

But my point is that whilst centrist "grandees" might be more "acceptable" to LibDems, that doesn't mean they are more acceptable to EVERYBODY. As too many on here seem to assume.

I can actually see the reasoning why Swinson and her supporters don't want to back Corbyn. My point is that others have different perspectives, which are no less valid because centrists don't agree with them.

Indeed, given that there is a strong argument that Corbyn/Brexit/Trump are ultimately all down to the failure of "third way" centrism, a bit more humility and understanding from them on occasion might not go amiss

Yes but Swinson and the Lib Dems are trying to compromise, Corbyn is not. You could literally pull the name of a Labour MP out of a hat and chances are that person would be perfectly acceptable to the Lib Dems as an interim PM (only the small number of Labour Brexiteers or Corbyn and his clique wouldn't be). If Corbyn was interested in stopping Johnson he'd put the name of a Labour MP forward to be interim PM, presumably one whose career is virtually over and has no future ambitions, and end this whole farce of a government now. As it is he is stubbornly refusing to budge from the 'Lib Dems and rebel Tories must make me and only me PM' despite knowing they are never going to do this as they fundamentally oppose everything he stands for and with his atrocious approval ratings it would be utterly toxic for them to associate with him. Thus I must come to the conclusion that the Labour leadership are less interested in stopping No Deal than they are in prematurely deflecting the blame from themselves should it happen, presumably under the assumption that the fallout from a No Deal crash out would win them the ensuing election.

As for the last point, I would generally agree with that. However that's not an argument to make Corbyn PM. Imagine if America had a parliamentary system and Clinton was PM and, I don't know, was on the verge of invading Syria, horrifying sections of the Democratic Party. I'm sure you wouldn't expect Democratic Party rebels to agree to put opposition leader Trump in charge to stop the invasion (assuming he'd take the anti-Hillary position) now would you?

[CumbrianLefty]

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

[Pericles]

It may be unfair, but Corbyn having to make way for a caretaker PM would likely be damaging to him in a general election, which is much more important. If Boris Johnson wins a majority in the general election, all this maneuvering is pointless, and he can only be denied a majority if the Labour Party is competitive and a viable alternative government.

[brucejoel99]

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

Considering the left governing by themselves isn't an option, yes.

[CumbrianLefty]

But my point is that whilst centrist "grandees" might be more "acceptable" to LibDems, that doesn't mean they are more acceptable to EVERYBODY. As too many on here seem to assume.

A center-left Labourite can't be as objectionable to Labour as a hard-left Labourite would be to the LibDems. Come on now.

mArGaReT bEcKeTt Is A wAr CrImInAl

Like straw men, do we?

[brucejoel99]

But my point is that whilst centrist "grandees" might be more "acceptable" to LibDems, that doesn't mean they are more acceptable to EVERYBODY. As too many on here seem to assume.

A center-left Labourite can't be as objectionable to Labour as a hard-left Labourite would be to the LibDems. Come on now.

mArGaReT bEcKeTt Is A wAr CrImInAl

Like straw men, do we?

No. A straw-man argument is when somebody creates an argument that you didn't make in order to defeat it. This represents, & is just, a freaking joke. God forbid some funny commentary isn't allowed on Atlas.

[CumbrianLefty]

Should have put a smiley on the end of it, then

[vileplume]

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

She is under no obligation to put a Labour PM in at all but nevertheless she has basically offered to throw the Tories out of power and put in a Labour PM and a presumably a Labour dominated cabinet with the one minor caveat that the leader of said government is not the extremely unpopular, hard left Corbyn. Any Labour party genuinely motivated by stopping No Deal would be biting her hand off.

And as brucejoel99 correctly says the left don't have anywhere near a majority of MPs in this parliament, so yes, they do indeed have to make concessions to the centre if they want to get anywhere. It's basic arithmetic I'm afraid.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

If Labour had a majority, Corbyn would be PM.

If the LibDems had a majority, Swinson would be PM.

Neither has a majority, so neither will be PM. Who does become PM will require a negotiation (one where Labour obviously has more bargaining power). It's really not that hard to understand if you stop being a hack for five minutes.

[Pericles]

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

If Labour had a majority, Corbyn would be PM.

If the LibDems had a majority, Swinson would be PM.

Neither has a majority, so neither will be PM. Who does become PM will require a negotiation (one where Labour obviously has more bargaining power). It's really not that hard to understand if you stop being a hack for five minutes.

David Cameron didn't have a majority and he became PM. Theresa May didn't have a majority and she became PM. And furthermore, every election in my country since 1996 has been a hung parliament, and never once did one party get to dictate to another who its leader and who the Prime Minister was.

[CumbrianLefty]

Cameron got a small majority in 2015 - how easily we forget

But your wider point remains valid. It was said upthread that Swinson has "no obligation" to support Corbyn as PM - of course not. But the point is, nobody else is "obliged" to give her what she wants either.

[vileplume]

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

If Labour had a majority, Corbyn would be PM.

If the LibDems had a majority, Swinson would be PM.

Neither has a majority, so neither will be PM. Who does become PM will require a negotiation (one where Labour obviously has more bargaining power). It's really not that hard to understand if you stop being a hack for five minutes.

David Cameron didn't have a majority and he became PM. Theresa May didn't have a majority and she became PM. And furthermore, every election in my country since 1996 has been a hung parliament, and never once did one party get to dictate to another who its leader and who the Prime Minister was.

Well that's because Cameron and May could control the confidence of the commons by being acceptable enough to third parties (the Lib Dems and the DUP respectively). Corbyn on the other hand is totally unacceptable to everyone from the centre or centre-right and thus cannot control the confidence of the commons and therefore cannot be PM with this parliament. Swinson has put forward workable alternatives which Labour has pigheadedly chosen to turn down.

Also whilst it is true the Lib Dems, or any other party for that matter, has no business in dictating who the Labour leader is, they are, like it or not, at present in a strong position to influence who gets to become PM. Third parties exerting influence in this way is not an unheard of concept either. If Labour had won enough seats in 2010 that a Lab-Lib coalition was possible the Lib Dem's price for any deal would've been Gordon Brown's resignation as PM, whether he stayed Labour leader or not would've been irrelevant as that is internal Labour Party business.

There is nothing saying the leader of the ruling party has to be PM, it can be anyone that control the confidence of the commons. Whilst it is true that having a Labour government led by someone other than the Labour leader would be very dysfunctional long term, the particular arrangement that the Lib Dems are suggesting would be for a matter of weeks and only to achieve one specific goal so this wouldn't be an issue at all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, Clegg and Foster were obviously more pliable coalition partners than Swinson. I'm not sure if a Labourite wants to defend them as exemplary coalition partners, though.

No one is "obliged" to do anything here, but if Labour actually cared about stopping Bojo's shenanigans, it would accept to indicate someone else, from within its own ranks who could be an acceptable PM for all potential partners in the rebel alliance.

[brucejoel99]

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

If Labour had a majority, Corbyn would be PM.

If the LibDems had a majority, Swinson would be PM.

Neither has a majority, so neither will be PM. Who does become PM will require a negotiation (one where Labour obviously has more bargaining power). It's really not that hard to understand if you stop being a hack for five minutes.

David Cameron didn't have a majority and he became PM. Theresa May didn't have a majority and she became PM. And furthermore, every election in my country since 1996 has been a hung parliament, and never once did one party get to dictate to another who its leader and who the Prime Minister was.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what happens in Italy much of the time. Conte being PM but not being the leader of Five Star, Lega, or the Democrats; Gentilioni being PM but not being the leader of the Democrats; ditto for Letta; Monti not being PM whilst not being the leader of any party; etc.

[Omega21]

Just something to lighten up the mood a bit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaA-rBjFidM

[Blair]

Very surprised to see people miss the key point; the only thing that matters in terms of a caretaker is who has a majority. Doesn't matter if they're party leader, universally popular or the only way to stop no deal.... you still need Philip Hammond, John Woodcock and Sylvia Hermon to vote for a confidence motion.

It's a quirk of our system that we've yet to have a constitutional struggle with two people trying to get into No.10 in a hung parliament- in this situation the only thing that matters is getting a majority of MPs. We're the first parliament in a long time to have so many independents- a large chunk of who actively despise their leadership. Add in the number of retiring MPs, the ideological divisions, the culture war quality of Brexit & the ability of previously unknown MPs (Francois, Burt, Baker, Rees-Mogg, Grieve) toforge much larger profiles because of Brexit... makes this much more complex.

I've had to explain to politically aware people that yes, the commons could wake up declare a motion of no-confidence and install anyone if they wanted

But the LibDems are "compromising" on *what*, exactly? An alternate universe in which Swinson with all of 18 MPs (at time of posting) actually becomes prime minister??

As usual, it is the left that is expected to concede to the centre.

If Labour had a majority, Corbyn would be PM.

If the LibDems had a majority, Swinson would be PM.

Neither has a majority, so neither will be PM. Who does become PM will require a negotiation (one where Labour obviously has more bargaining power). It's really not that hard to understand if you stop being a hack for five minutes.

David Cameron didn't have a majority and he became PM. Theresa May didn't have a majority and she became PM. And furthermore, every election in my country since 1996 has been a hung parliament, and never once did one party get to dictate to another who its leader and who the Prime Minister was.

But the UK system has numerous examples of one party dictating- Jeremy Thorpe wanted to support Heath after '74 but his party blocked it, Clegg demanded that Gordon Brown stand down as PM in the brief Lab-Lib '10 discussions (a move Brown & Labour accepted) and it was widely accepted that Miliband would demand Clegg quit in a 2015 hung parliament.

And DC and TM did both have majorities; they just were reliant on other parties for said majority. If say Anne Widdecombe had won 290 odd seats in 2010 the Liberal Democrats would have been a lot less likely to put her into office, and the DUP were prepared to put May into No.10 because she offered a sh**t ton of money & the alternative was the risk of Jeremy Corbyn.

[DaWN]

In the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50013578

The SNP, you may not be entirely surprised to learn, are being opportunistic, nationalistic crooks and deciding to blackmail the Leader of the Opposition, who no doubt will have the strength and integrity to refuse them hahaha oh dear

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/12/voters-will-have-show-casting-ballot-prevent-electoral-fraud/ (yeah I know it's the bloody Telegraph but can you believe it, the BBC aren't reporting on it? Shocking I know)

The Tories, deciding that winning the next election by conventional means is too much effort, have decided that it's going to be much easier to simply disenfranchise millions of people who have committed the heinous crime of not having enough money to buy an ID. I'm no legal expert so whether this stands up in the courts or not is beyond me, but it is unsurprising.

[brucejoel99]

In the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50013578

The SNP, you may not be entirely surprised to learn, are being opportunistic, nationalistic crooks and deciding to blackmail the Leader of the Opposition, who no doubt will have the strength and integrity to refuse them hahaha oh dear

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/12/voters-will-have-show-casting-ballot-prevent-electoral-fraud/ (yeah I know it's the bloody Telegraph but can you believe it, the BBC aren't reporting on it? Shocking I know)

The Tories, deciding that winning the next election by conventional means is too much effort, have decided that it's going to be much easier to simply disenfranchise millions of people who have committed the heinous crime of not having enough money to buy an ID. I'm no legal expert so whether this stands up in the courts or not is beyond me, but it is unsurprising.

Perhaps I'm misreading but this seems as if she's still in favor of forming an opposition-based GoNU so as to oust BoJo, prevent no-deal, & secure an election, & is referring to the formation of a potential post-election government with regards to her demand.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[DaWN]

In the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50013578

The SNP, you may not be entirely surprised to learn, are being opportunistic, nationalistic crooks and deciding to blackmail the Leader of the Opposition, who no doubt will have the strength and integrity to refuse them hahaha oh dear

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/12/voters-will-have-show-casting-ballot-prevent-electoral-fraud/ (yeah I know it's the bloody Telegraph but can you believe it, the BBC aren't reporting on it? Shocking I know)

The Tories, deciding that winning the next election by conventional means is too much effort, have decided that it's going to be much easier to simply disenfranchise millions of people who have committed the heinous crime of not having enough money to buy an ID. I'm no legal expert so whether this stands up in the courts or not is beyond me, but it is unsurprising.

Perhaps I'm misreading but this seems as if she's still in favor of forming an opposition-based GoNU so as to oust BoJo, prevent no-deal, & secure an election, & is referring to the formation of a potential post-election government with regards to her demand.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Certainly possible, but either way, playing on Corbyn's uselessness to get what she wants is probably a good move for her