The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[peterms]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

is it ****! -  "A referendum on the terms of leaving including an option to remain"  - so is that a 3 option, 2 option, remain v hard leave or remain v May's deal or Remain v some imaginary future labour deal.

Clear as ****! 

 

 

Under the scenario outlined in the letter, what the referendum would ask is not in the sole command of Labour.  They can't dictate terms, though they can propose them.

The letter sets out what they would want to be included.  Other views will exist, and will have to be taken into account, with a view to finding something that can win enough support to be viable.

I don't see what is either confusing or hard to understand about that.  Still less do I see why anyone who wants to avoid a hard exit should find it objectionable.  It's a practical, pragmatic, potentially achievable way forward.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

It's a practical, pragmatic, potentially achievable way forward.

Except it's insisting Corbyn be leader of this unity government and whatever you think of him, it's a deal breaker for too many. The more I've thought about it, the LibDems are wrong to refuse to sit down and talk and Labour are equally as wrong to insist on Corbyn.

Swinson does have the right idea though in asking Clarke and Harman, they would unite the group for the short term required and prove that this wasn't about future agendas. Party Leaders shouldn't be involved in leading this, in fact it would make sense that they weren't, surely their job is to sort their own parties out for the General Election that this is designed to result in very quickly.

The fact that Labour are insisting on Corbyn shows that their offer isn't that genuine and the fact that the LibDems won't even discuss it with Corbyn on the table as leader shows them up for what they are too, they should at least talk.

Corbyn (and to a degree Swinson) would come out of this looking far more statesman-like by stepping aside (or talking for Swinson) than rigidly insisting on their positions.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Except it's insisting Corbyn be leader of this unity government and whatever you think of him, it's a deal breaker for too many. The more I've thought about it, the LibDems are wrong to refuse to sit down and talk and Labour are equally as wrong to insist on Corbyn.

Swinson does have the right idea though in asking Clarke and Harman, they would unite the group for the short term required and prove that this wasn't about future agendas. Party Leaders shouldn't be involved in leading this, in fact it would make sense that they weren't, surely their job is to sort their own parties out for the General Election that this is designed to result in very quickly.

The fact that Labour are insisting on Corbyn shows that their offer isn't that genuine and the fact that the LibDems won't even discuss it with Corbyn on the table as leader shows them up for what they are too, they should at least talk.

Corbyn (and to a degree Swinson) would come out of this looking far more statesman-like by stepping aside (or talking for Swinson) than rigidly insisting on their positions.

It is simple and obvious that the leader of the largest party should lead the arrangement.  It's just basic protocol.

The (claimed) objections to Corbyn are on the lines first that he would be divisive and second might seek to bring in policies which others in the arrangement don't like.

The second argument is obviously nonsense, as the proposal is for a limited and specific arrangement, as we all know, and could immediately be unwound if it was seen to be taking on more than that.

The first is hypocritical - the objections are made in order to be divisive, for the sake of party positioning.  Swinson is a fool, whose utterances are all about projecting her position and trying to shore up her party's position.  If she actually wanted to avoid a no deal, and that was her top priority, she wouldn't be playing this daft and transparent game.

The actual objections to the lead figure being Corbyn are more about fear that it would undermine the campaigns that have been waged against him for several years, and would enable him to be seen as someone who can compromise, work with opponents, bring together opposing views.  That is very much a perspective which many people don't want to be given airtime.  It's not at all about how best to avoid no deal.

In a situation where the players had been dropped on a desert island, game show style, and had to work out a group leader, these petulant little outbursts and suggestions for a cuddly mummy/daddy figure might be more understandable.

As it is, there is little time, there are few options, and tnose who claim to want to avoid a no deal are going to have to decide if they want that more than other things, like weakening an opponent, or making it harder for more radical policies to be considered.  Swinson's record on policies speaks for itself, of course - tory straight down the line.  Perhaps others will make her compromise.

[chrisp65]

I think the main problem with Corbyn is nobody quite knows or trusts what he stands for on the very issue he wants to be trusted to lead on.

.

 

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think the main problem with Corbyn is nobody quite knows or trusts what he stands for on the very issue he wants to be trusted to lead on.

.

 

The process proposed is a coming together of various people with differing views to agree a common position and enact that.

What is the objection?  That people think he secretly favours brexit?  That he would agree to be bound by a common decision, but turn up to a meeting and commit us to the opposite in a way that would be binding?

This is fantasy stuff, that has no relation to what happens in the real world.

The role proposed is convenor, chair, for a specific and limited purpose, not supreme dictator of the universe for ever more.

Let's have a bit of reality and perspective here, please.

[bickster]

26 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's just basic protocol.

No it isn't, there is no protocol for this

 

26 minutes ago, peterms said:

The (claimed) objections to Corbyn are on the lines first that he would be divisive

This is more than obvious already

Any good leader would gladly step aside for few weeks, retaining their position in the party and gathering the troops together for the forthcoming election campaign that the unity Govt is set up to facilitate

Corbynistas if they had any brains wouldn't want him to lead this, they should be wanting him to lead the party in the election campaign, they aren't going to get the election campaign before avoiding the No Deal scenario if he insists on doing this. The left have rarely had much tactical acumen have they

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

It is simple and obvious that the leader of the largest party should lead the arrangement.  It's just basic protocol.

It isn't. Quite simply, it isn't.

 

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, peterms said:

It is simple and obvious that the leader of the largest party should lead the arrangement.  It's just basic protocol.

I suppose it all depends on where we stand. There is no "protocol" for this (potential) situation.It's a new thing, but I read that if Johnson's Govt loses a VONC, there's 14 days for HIM to recommend to her Queenship a new bod to lead a new Govt that does have the confidence of Parliament. Johnson gets to choose.

It seems therefore, that assuming he adheres to the truth, basically it could be anyone demonstrating they have the numbers. So while Corbyn supporters or sympathetic others might well feel their man deserves a go, by dint of him being LoTO, there's nothing laid down that dictates it has to be him, and if he can't command the numbers, then clearly if there's another who could, then that person would be the better choice.

Corbyn struggles,as we've seen to command a good level of support either in his party, or nationally in polls, where he is essentially felt to be effing useless as a leader. Those sympathetic to him citing his loveliness, or whatever, fine. But it doesn't wash with most people. His stance on Brexit is another example as to why - remainers, leavers, "just get on with it-ers" - all view him poorly. And this is parliament and nationally.

It's a muddle - some are (as the article said, above, somewhere) Meatloaf because anything but Corbyn to stop hard Brexit, Corbyn is anything but "me not having a go at being PM to...er...do a Labour fantasy Brexit".

They're all still stuck in party blinkers mode, bar a few.

[ml1dch]

39 minutes ago, bickster said:

Except it's insisting Corbyn be leader of this unity government and whatever you think of him, it's a deal breaker for too many.

Then maybe a bit of today's opprobrium (and there has been a depressing amount thrown around today by a bunch of MPs who need to get along a bit if this doesn't die on its arse) should be directed at the people who are saying "I accept this will be a disaster but I'm prepared to let the disaster happen rather than let that particular MP be the one to sign a letter to Donald Tusk".

Rather than the one saying "I'll do the one thing you've been banging on about saying that you want, then I'll resign and we'll have an election".

[chrisp65]

Just now, peterms said:

Let's have a bit of reality and perspective here, please.

I think that's a really good idea.

He's not trusted. He's waffled and double talked for too long to suddenly be the leader by obvious automatic choice. He's not the messiah, it's just his disciples that think he is.

He has started from a position of presuming he is the leader. That in itself, from a flip flop double talker, speaks absolute volumes about what is wrong with the Labour position and why they are not 30 points ahead in the polls.

Reality and perspective. Couldn't have put it any better myself.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Then maybe a bit of today's opprobrium (and there has been a depressing amount thrown around today by a bunch of MPs who need to get along a bit if this doesn't die on its arse) should be directed at the people who are saying "I accept this will be a disaster but I'm prepared to let the disaster happen rather than let that particular MP be the one to sign a letter to Donald Tusk".

Rather than the one saying "I'll do the one thing you've been banging on about saying that you want, then I'll resign and we'll have an election".

I agree with you on that but at the same time it is possible to dismiss the argument as made above and as put forward by, for example, Tony Lloyd earlier on C4 that this is THE option on the table, i.e. that it's the only runner.

If Spelman et al. won't bend then it doesn't amtter how receptive Swinson might be to the idea as a last resort then it isn't going to fly.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

No it isn't, there is no protocol for this

In any position of national significance like this, the party leader would play the lead role.  Is that seriously contested?  In previous negitiations with the EU, for example, was it Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair etc who turned up, or some numpty who was at a loose end that evening?

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Any leader would gladly step aside for few weeks,

I simply don't believe you believe that.

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It isn't. Quite simply, it isn't.

 

I suppose you mean there is no established protocol for the very specific situation, rather than the obvious fact that the leader leads on issues of national importance unless they decide to delegate?

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

He has started from a position of presuming he is the leader

Well, he is.  It's a simple fact.  Leader of his party, leader of the largest opposition party in parliament.

I gather the leaders of other parties appear to recognise this simple fact, and are prepared to act accordingly.  Apart from Ms Swinson.

[chrisp65]

I know it's late. I know the show is nearly over. I know I said I wasn't bothered about coming to this party and wouldn't tell anyone if I was coming to the party or not and I know I actually voted to enable the end of parties. I know I still haven't actually made it clear whether I like parties or not, all subject to certain confusing conditions and entry criteria. I may or may not dance.

But hey, I'm here now, right at the last dance, so clearly obviously I can be the DJ, yeah?

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

Is that seriously contested?

Ramsay McDonald would have a damn good go as would Winston Churchill. McDonald resigned as party leader to remain PM in a National Government and Churchill was PM whilst not being Party Leader, he only became leader when Chamberlain snuffed it. So thats both the PMs in unity governments in the last century of British politics not being the party leader when they were made PM in said unity governments. There's your protocol and your precedent. 

[peterms]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

But hey, I'm here now, right at the last dance, so clearly obviously I can be the DJ, yeah?

Well, only if you recognise the anniversary of Woodstock.

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

If Spelman et al. won't bend then it doesn't amtter how receptive Swinson might be to the idea as a last resort then it isn't going to fly.

Fine, so put that pressure on them. Release a statement saying that you will meet and discuss a way forward with any MP or party who shares their aim of stopping the current course of action. Would that cost them a single vote?

Test the limits of Grieve et al, and see who will do what. Don't give every side the easy exit of "well if they're not prepared to move then there's no point us moving".

[bickster]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Fine, so put that pressure on them. Release a statement saying that you will meet and discuss a way forward with any MP or party who shares their aim of stopping the current course of action. Would that cost them a single vote?

Test the limits of Grieve et al, and see who will do what. Don't give every side the easy exit of "well if they're not prepared to move then there's no point us moving".

This is exactly what Labour should have done, with no pre-conditions

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

I suppose you mean there is no established protocol for the very specific situation, rather than the obvious fact that the leader leads on issues of national importance unless they decide to delegate?

Yes to the first part and no to the bizarre idea in the second part that the Leader of the Opposition would automatically become 'The Leader' if they can't actually lead, i.e. have the confidence of the House of Commons.

The point being that, if the current PM ceases to have the confidence of the House of Commons (I accept that this current one hasn't had it properly tested yet) the alternative is not necessarily the leader of the next biggest party, even under FTPA.

If we were to go with protocol or convention (and thus ignore the FTPA) then a PM losing a confidence vote could quite reasonably ask for a dissolution and a subsequent election (whilst remaining PM).

Even allowing for the intervention of the FTPA in to constitutional convention, it is not some 'pass the parcel' party at which the Leader of the Opposition necessarily finds themself next in line.

Sure, the nominated 'leader of the country', i.e. the PM, is the person who leads on issues of national importance. The Leader of the Opposition is not, and never has been, the de facto deputy 'leader' of the UK or even the automatic 'next cab on the rank'.