|
Aug 2019
4:44pm, 18 Aug 2019
2,188 posts
|
J2R
BanjoBax, I don't think I'm being ridiculous. My point is not about who has the right to do what, it's simple pragmatism. I think the Tory rebels who will not get behind Corbyn for a short, limited function are being twats, they absolutely should - but they won't. Corbyn is in a position to do something about this, which would have a real effect. He could show a little humility here and accept that this is the situation, even though it shouldn't be, and step aside temporarily for someone more acceptable to the rebel Tories. If everyone sticks to their guns, we are doomed.
|
|
Aug 2019
4:49pm, 18 Aug 2019
6,098 posts
|
postieboy
If all Corbyn proposes to do is extend Article 50 and call a general election, I don't see what the problem is. I'll reiterate what I said a few days ago, Corbyn must be truly reviled in Westminster by remain politicians for them not to give him his five minutes. He'd be busted down in an instant if he tried any funny business.
|
|
Aug 2019
5:06pm, 18 Aug 2019
4,981 posts
|
jda
It's not necessarily quite that simple and I can understand some reticence. After all, we've seen often enough that politicians promise that their intent is quite benign, only to change tune when they got into power. Eg what happens if the EU refuse an extension or attach some other conditions?
However his power wouldn't last long if he went bad and I think on balance it's the best option. There are a number of other legislative options too short of a change of govt. And of course Johnson doesn't really want to crash out with no deal.
|
|
Aug 2019
5:30pm, 18 Aug 2019
6,099 posts
|
postieboy
Johnson is supposed to be meeting Merkel and Macron this week. I think we'll get a better idea of where things are heading after that.
|
|
Aug 2019
7:34am, 19 Aug 2019
2,280 posts
|
Fellrunning
Things have reached a whole new level of insanity when the government starts to dismiss it's own research as scare mongering and project fear.
I mean Michael - exactly what is the absolutely worst case scenario if it's not this....
|
|
Aug 2019
8:36am, 19 Aug 2019
18,780 posts
|
DeeGee
I'm trying to find a similar precedent to the current talk of a Government of National Unity in UK political history. I don't want to evoke Churchill, although he was not a party leader, was detested by the majority of the Conservative party but was able to command the majority of the house at the time. That would imply, not unreasonably, that a moderate Tory in the Grieve/Clark mould might be an appropriate option.
Likewise, Macdonald, who had to preside over a similar situation during the Great Depression, had actually been expelled from the Labour Party at the time he oversaw a grand coalition from both sides of the house, although derived mostly from the opposition Tory benches. However, he was PM at the time (tried to resign, but was told to stay on by George V - evidently in those days the monarch could intervene in the national interest). At that time the entire "plural left" had fractured into a number of different fractions, some of whom became involved in government and others who didn't.
I can understand the rhetoric behind Corbyn not becoming PM leading a national government, but the house now needs to decide exactly what it wants. I've gone beyond Brexit now, and I don't want any flavour of this current hard-right Tory mob. Nobody in the world works to the age of 75!
|
|
Aug 2019
8:49am, 19 Aug 2019
8,321 posts
|
larkim
I find it odd that in my brain, despite me being a Labour party member, I would prefer Corbyn to get behind a govt of national unity which expressly doesn't put him in charge. Ken Clarke would be my ideal choice; someone the reluctant Tories could support, from the party that has the most electoral support, and yet sufficiently old / statesmenlike to be trusted to handle caretaking in a benign manner.
|
|
Aug 2019
8:50am, 19 Aug 2019
4,983 posts
|
jda
I'd put the over-75s back to work. They voted for this shitshow, they can deal with the consequences.
(ok, I'm not wholly serious...)
|
|
Aug 2019
8:58am, 19 Aug 2019
8,322 posts
|
larkim
What Corbyn should have done (IMHO) was to engineer a simple majority in favour of establishing a government of national unity via a no confidence route, without self-appointing himself as prime minister. Gather a head of steam behind that, show that that was a real, achievable outcome in a short period of time (even say "I would be happy to lead such a government, if parliamentary colleagues wish that") and remove the toxicity of his personal leadership. It again shows utter naivety on his advisors' part that they don't understand how he can be seen as anyone other than the true messiah, when we know he's not - he's just a very naughty boy.
|
|
Aug 2019
9:00am, 19 Aug 2019
2,189 posts
|
J2R
Exactly, larkim.
|
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024