|
Aug 2019
10:08am, 19 Aug 2019
15,002 posts
|
Chrisull
But it isn't just a case of a few mps and advisors keeping him in power, he has won 2 leadership contests convincingly and would win another one if called now. The Labour party has over 500k members even currently. He can only be ousted by the ballot box. If you care, join Labour, and vote him out next time around. Personally, I wouldn't have a Tory of any ilk in charge, especially not Clark. My aim would be to see a UK properly integrated with Europe, Schengen, Euro et al (and Brown's supposed master stroke of staying out the Euro is now looking very flaky, once it's worth less than the Euro).
As for probablities if a confidence vote can be won - currently the first most likely is Corbyn as head of opposition, 2nd most likely (ie v unlikely) is that the opposition offer it to a fellow shadow cabinet member, although how they'd spin this as positive god alone knows. (So we're replacing Corbyn because half Parliament hate, but keeping him as leader because he can win an election? It doesn't fly. If Corbyn does that he might as well resign) Third is that a figure from another party or from the "Blairite" faction of Labour gets to lead a unity govt. So do you really think Barry Gardiner, Richard Burgon, John McDonnell are going to back Hilary Benn or Jo Swinson? Especially as some were soft Leavers themselves...
But really it's all stupid specualtion, win the confidence vote, then worry about what happens. Corbyn has to have first dibs, and if he is so divisive and hated, would anyone trust him to stand aside if he promised to after the confidence vote was lost by the government? You wouldn't trust Johnson to do the same...
You can't blame Corbyn here for this, you might not like his politics, but it's insanity to expect him to basically commit political suicide.
|
|
Aug 2019
10:43am, 19 Aug 2019
8,323 posts
|
larkim
I agree he's the democratically elected leader of the Labour party, but as we've debated with the Tory leadership position earlier in the summer any assumption that he has legitimacy from that is predicated on taking a view about whether you think that process is sufficient to allow 500k individuals to elect to a post representing 60m.
But that wasn't really my point. It was more about tactics - you've got to steer the politics into the direction you want, and it was his / his advisors route of saying "Put me in Downing Street to stop Brexit" that has got some of the arch remainer-Tories in the wrong camp at the moment.
Your point about having a shadow cabinet member in No 10 is exactly why I, as a Labour Party member, think that it has to fall to a Tory to hold the reins. It is untenable to have Labour notionally heading a national unity government, but the leader of the Party not being the most senior Labour figure in the Government. Clarke as caretaker PM, Corbyn as deputy PM (or some other honourary title), posts for the leaders of the Lib Dems, SNP, DUP (even), etc. Everyone feels they've got some stake in it, they all agree on the single policy of GE / referendum, no-one gets the jitters that Corbyn is about to announce an abolition of the Monarchy and renationalisation of British telecom etc etc etc
|
|
Aug 2019
11:01am, 19 Aug 2019
4,986 posts
|
jda
He didn't just get labour party members larkim, he got close on 40% (forget the actual number) of the national vote, I know that's not how our parliamentary system works in theory but that is the reality. I'm no fan of his and haven't voted labour since the early blair days but I don't see the arguments against him (in these circs) having much force.
However there are still a lot of options apart from some sort of GNU. And I'm not even including the unicorns 
|
|
Aug 2019
11:09am, 19 Aug 2019
8,325 posts
|
larkim
Yes, agree JDA of course. But equally many other Labour leaders would have got the same - accepting that he did campaign very well in that particular election. But he only holds that position because of the LP membership.
|
|
Aug 2019
2:43pm, 19 Aug 2019
4,988 posts
|
jda
I see the media are finally cottoning on to the small fly in the ointment in Labour's proposed brexit policy, namely that there is in fact no credible brexit plan to put to the people in a referendum.
|
|
Aug 2019
2:45pm, 19 Aug 2019
4,989 posts
|
jda
Which takes us back to early 2016, and the deliberate decision of the Leave campaign that they would not make any attempt to present a credible brexit plan during the referendum.
|
|
Aug 2019
4:15pm, 19 Aug 2019
9,028 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Which is why we've ended up with "no deal" because there is no genuine credible exit plan. Never was. Not on the terms that Brexit was sold on.
And there never will be.
We are still in the phase where Brexiters are deluding themselves that there is a credible plan and that the trade-offs are worth it.
Post-hoc emotional justification is we get.
|
|
Aug 2019
4:22pm, 19 Aug 2019
8,332 posts
|
larkim
Or are (we) remainers deluding ourselves that there is no credible plan? We exaggerate the perceived follies of the other side, and in doing so potentially lose the chance to argue, debate and convince the middle ground that we are correct - further entrenching views on both sides?
|
|
Aug 2019
4:31pm, 19 Aug 2019
4,990 posts
|
jda
I think the mere fact that 3 years down the line, no-one has presented such a plan, is fairly strong evidence that it does not exist.
Admittedly, counterexamples to this line of argument do exist. No-one had a proof of Fermat's last theorem for centuries, nevertheless such a proof was eventually found after 358 years of research. So I do acknowledge the possibility that a credible brexit plan may be found. It may not even take quite that long. Nevertheless, I'm not going to hold my breath in anticipation.
|
|
Aug 2019
4:31pm, 19 Aug 2019
2,903 posts
|
Goofee
Post-hoc rationalisation of emotional response isn’t confined to one side of the argument
|
