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

[snowychap]

4 minutes 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".

Again, I don't really disagree.

I read Swinson's letter (well, skimmed through it) and it didn't seem unreasonable. Then I caught some of her on C4 and I thought the opposite.

It merely reinforced the idea that we're ****, frankly.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

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. 

Ramsay MacDonald and Churchill?

Perhaps not great examples.  Could you comment on  my more recent examples (the list could continue, I got bored and guessed you all would too).

[bickster]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

or even the automatic 'next cab on the rank'.

To continue the cab analogy, this is what used to be called a bell job. At airports and the like with massive ranks, if a passenger came to the rank who was only going a short distance, the marshall would ring a bell and the cab at the back of the rank (who'd waited the least time) gets the short distance job so the cab at the front is better rewarded for his waiting time in the rank.

In political terms this is definitely a bell job

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

In political terms this is definitely a bell job

I'm assuming 'bell' doubled up as an abbreviation.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

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.

It is clear that the PM must have the confidence of the House.  I don't dispute that, and don't follow what in my post leads you to think I do.

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

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

Yes.  But it's the first port of call, unless the arithmetic somehow points in another direction (unlikely).

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

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'.

See above.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

Could you comment on  my more recent examples

Are they written in invisible ink mentioning governments of unity from a parallel universe?

You said there was protocol

You asked if anyone could dispute your claim

I did so using the only governments of National Unity in the last 100 years.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm assuming 'bell' doubled up as an abbreviation.

Well I'm assuming so too

[peterms]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Are they written in invisible ink mentioning governments of unity from a parallel universe?

You said there was protocol

You asked if anyone could dispute your claim

I did so using the only governments of National Unity in the last 100 years.

A "Government of National Unity" is not what is proposed here,  obviously.  It's a designedly shortlived arrangement to get one specific measure agreed.

You must see that?

[chrisp65]

Just now, bickster said:

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

Yep, first stop, a meeting of interested parties, not a presumption of leadership.

It's either a fatal lack of self awareness, or a deliberate attempt to scupper the chances of unified opposition, to make sure we do crash out, on the presumption the electorate will then punish the tories. 

I genuinely think it could be either of those.

 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

A "Government of National Unity" is not what is proposed here,  obviously.  It's a designedly shortlived arrangement to get one specific measure agreed.

You must see that?

You can call it what you want. It's exactly the same thing no matter how shortlived the measure is designed to be. We also have no idea how shortlived it will be either. In theory yes, in practice no, there's plenty of shit going on in the world that a government (of whatever intent) may need to deal with before we can get to an election, there's the whole talking to the EU to get an extension first, sod knows how long that might take and what they may need us to do to get to a point where an extension of meaning can be agreed. We all think it'll be a short discussion, that may not turn out to be the case (especially if Corbyn is allowed to waffle on about his allotment)

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, first stop, a meeting of interested parties, not a presumption of leadership.

It's either a fatal lack of self awareness, or a deliberate attempt to scupper the chances of unified opposition, to make sure we do crash out, on the presumption the electorate will then punish the tories. 

I genuinely think it could be either of those.

 

agreed

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Yes.  But it's the first port of call, unless the arithmetic somehow points in another direction (unlikely).

We might be arguing semantics but, as per our previous discussion on the subject, I don't think we are.

If, by 'first port of call', you mean the first potential replacement a PM who lost a confidence vote may look to then you may be right (though I think this is wrong also as that person may well look to someone else in their own party).

If, as I think you do mean, the person to whom the baton is given for them to 'have a go' then you are wrong. That's not to say that it might not happen that way but in terms of convention, the FTPA and all else, that you might see this as the only right possible first step is, simply, wrong.

Going back to incumbent PMs, it is their duty to remain in post until a replacement who is likely to command a majority of the House of Commons comes forth.

 

[bickster]

The world is turning on its head though, whilst we've all been shooting the breeze here, Guto Bebb has stated he'll back Corbyn as PM

I've seen many strange things in my time...

[peterms]

20 minutes ago, bickster said:

We also have no idea how shortlived it will be either

Given the arithmetic, it would depend day to day on continued support, so that shouldn't be a concern.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Given the arithmetic, it would depend day to day on continued support, so that shouldn't be a concern.

In the middle of all this, Iran captures a number of British oil tankers in the Gulf, the government of the day is required to respond...

Can you see possibly why Corbyn cannot be the leader of this?

[peterms]

19 minutes ago, snowychap said:

We might be arguing semantics but, as per our previous discussion on the subject, I don't think we are.

If, by 'first port of call', you mean the first potential replacement a PM who lost a confidence vote may look to then you may be right (though I think this is wrong also as that person may well look to someone else in their own party).

If, as I think you do mean, the person to whom the baton is given for them to 'have a go' then you are wrong. That's not to say that it might not happen that way but in terms of convention, the FTPA and all else, that you might see this as the only right possible first step is, simply, wrong.

Going back to incumbent PMs, it is their duty to remain in post until a replacement who is likely to command a majority of the House of Commons comes forth.

 

I think you may be discussing constitutional issues, while I am not.

I mean that in practical terms, the first shot at forming a government is given to the leadwr of the largest party - I don't mean this sequentially,  there's no bar on others discussing arrangements at the same time - but it's what would happen.

With regard to constititional arrangements, they would presumably fit fhe arithmetic, somehow.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

In the middle of all this, Iran captures a number of British oil tankers in the Gulf, the government of the day is required to respond...

Can you see possibly why Corbyn cannot be the leader of this?

In that situation, he'd be perfect.

[Seat68]

This is turning into the Bannan thread. 

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

In that situation, he'd be already compromised

FTFY

[ml1dch]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

In the middle of all this, Iran captures a number of British oil tankers in the Gulf, the government of the day is required to respond...

Can you see possibly why Corbyn cannot be the leader of this?

Probably for the best that his administration would last for days then. Hours, if it really needed to.

Edited August 15, 2019 by ml1dch