Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's now being reported that Johnson will request an extension if no deal is struck.

Clearly he has a cunning plan, but I'm wondering whether Cummings has told him yet exactly what that plan is.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Ken Clarke, for example, might. I think you're underestimating how much some people hate Corbyn.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps someone who is towards the centre of the GNU politically.

Ken Clark would be towards the right, Jeremy Corbyn towards the left, is there a centreist candidate (a moderate Labour MP or peer) who could fit the bill ?
 
Harriet Harman?
Isn't she one of the names that's popped up?

She has the advantage of being Labour...but the disadvantage of not being the right sort of Labour (I can't see Corbyn agreeing).
 
Tolls said:
Harriet Harman?
Isn't she one of the names that's popped up?

She has the advantage of being Labour...but the disadvantage of not being the right sort of Labour (I can't see Corbyn agreeing).
Click to expand...

Which speaks to the factionalism which has always been a part of the Labour Party (at least in my 35+ years of experience).

My personal view is that a GNU to prevent a damaging no-deal Brexit is something worth swallowing one's pride over. Jeremy Corbyn clearly differs which leads me to believe that his fantasy is to have a no-deal and ride to the rescue.
 
The Don said:
Or perhaps someone who is towards the centre of the GNU politically.

Ken Clark would be towards the right, Jeremy Corbyn towards the left, is there a centreist candidate (a moderate Labour MP or peer) who could fit the bill ?
Click to expand...
What about the LDP? Jo Swinson for PM.
 
The Don said:
Or perhaps someone who is towards the centre of the GNU politically.

Ken Clarke would be towards the right, Jeremy Corbyn towards the left, is there a centreist candidate (a moderate Labour MP or peer) who could fit the bill ?
Click to expand...

Clark is towards the right, but there's been a lot of buzz about him being someone who could be acceptable to most.

There are advantages to having someone from the right, too. The biggest one being that it takes the wind out of the sails of any right-wing narrative that it's the left trying to take over illegitimately. You can't really call it a "coup" if it's someone like Clarke. He could also bring in people from the right who wouldn't otherwise support a GNU.

I mean, I'm not suggesting he's the only candidate, or that he would necessarily be someone who could lead a caretaker government. But he's definitely a better choice who is more likely to succeed than Corbyn.

Because some people hold Corbyn's political views against him. But others hold his perceived inflexibility, incompetence, and lust for power at the expense of all else against him. Clarke doesn't have the perception of those last three things.

Also because Corbyn actually does want to be PM. Clarke doesn't. A caretaker PM shouldn't want to be PM for realsies, but just for while whatever needs to be sorted out is sorted out.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Ken Clarke, for example, might. I think you're underestimating how much some people hate Corbyn.
Click to expand...

I don't think Ken Clarke has the support of Labour does he? And not sure the SNP would back him as he wants to leave the EU.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...en-sack-boris-johnson-the-experts-are-divided
Click to expand...

I stuck an extra not in there. I think the FTPA DOES day how and official VONC works. I.e. the 14 day thing
 
catsmate said:
What about the LDP? Jo Swinson for PM.
Click to expand...

Not a hope. There is no way that the Labour Party (and probably SNP) would stomach her as PM. From their point of view she's a Yellow Tory and completely untrustworthy.

The Don said:
Possibly, but a case could be made for Labour providing the PM because it's the biggest party.
Click to expand...

Labour Party rules, as I'm sure you know, say that the Leader of Party is the PM when the party is in Government. That means that Corbyn would have to resign as leader and Tom Watson would be PM until a new leader could be chosen. I can't see that being acceptable to anyone and Corbyn, or his anointed, would win the subsequent election for the new leader easily.

The guff from the Lib Dem's about this all being Corbyn's fault is just that: at the end of the day any GNU is a Labour government, and the Lib Dems and the other independent remainers (and anti-hard Brexiteers) have to decide what is worse for the country: a Labour government, with a guaranteed second referendum or a no-deal Brexit.

If I was conspiracy theory minded I'd be starting to think Lib Dems have looked at the success of Farage and decided that emulating him is the way to power - let Brexit happen and then been seen as the only port for the dissatisfied Remainers to flock to to undo the damage. If they let Labour into power and a second referendum ends up with remain winning they go back to being a political irrelevance whose raison d'etre is electoral reform.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
For better or for worse, the Queen acts as a final balance of power. She very, very rarely exercises her power, but some people are envisioning a situation in which she might in the very near future.

ATM, there is no actual law requiring a PM who has lost a vote of no confidence to resign. It's just been tradition and the "gentleman's agreement" of UK politics to date that has meant that every one who has lost such a vote did resign. If Johnson were to refuse to leave after losing a vote of no confidence, then the only way for him to be removed would be for the Queen to fire him and appoint a new PM.

It was reported a little while ago (last week, maybe?) that the Queen had indeed been seeking legal advice about her powers to remove the PM in an extraordinary circumstance like that.

This isn't to say that there can't be better systems, but she does have a purpose. As does the also-unelected-by-the-public House of Lords.

UK politics is set up with a series of built-in checks and balances. How effective they all are, and how democratic and fair they all are is a matter for debate. But the idea that we should just "move on" is simplistic.

It's also worth noting the difference between how it is on paper and how it is in reality. From my observations people in the US tend to be far more deferential towards and worshipful of their politicians than people in the UK are of theirs - or even the Queen.

Similarly, the UK has a state religion with the Queen as the head of it, and a law requiring an act of collective worship for schoolchildren in schools, every single day. Separation of Church and state is absolutely not a thing here (as the fact that the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords are 26 Bishops).

But in practice it seems that US politics is more influenced by religion, and people in the US seem more accepting of religion in politics. There was a survey a while back which indicated that a politician who was openly atheist had very little chance of being elected in the US. OTOH, an overtly religious politician would be seen as strange and suspicious over here. I can't imagine a politician mentioning God in a speech, Tony Blair avoided converting to Catholicism until he was out of office and when asked about his religious beliefs a spokesperson famously said "we don't do God".

And as for the daily act of collective worship in schools? The majority of headteachers just ignore it and break the law, with zero consequence. I have, in fact, had debates with people who had been teachers in the UK for decades who had no idea that that law even existed.

A lot of how these things work are based on tradition and convention, and aren't quite how they seem. This is, in fact, why Johnson and Cummings are having the impact they're having and are quite as dangerous at they are - they're undermining the traditions and conventions. Perhaps that means that steps should be taken to mitigate the possibility of that kind of thing in the future, but these are extraordinary times and such protections simply haven't been needed before. Similarly, if the Queen were to try to overstep the limits of her power, that would almost certainly lead to her losing her power altogether.
Click to expand...

There is no question in my mind that both countries need a rewrite of their foundational laws. You need to dump the farce of royalties and birth rite titles not to mention the religious requirements. I'm all for checks and balances, but not one that is hereditary.

Yes, the US seems to be more influenced by religion despite the prohibitions against it in the Constitution. The whack a doodles are a major coalition in the Republican party particularly in the Deep South.
 
acbytesla said:
There is no question in my mind that both countries need a rewrite of their foundational laws. You need to dump the farce of royalties and birth rite titles not to mention the religious requirements. I'm all for checks and balances, but not one that is hereditary.

Yes, the US seems to be more influenced by religion despite the prohibitions against it in the Constitution. The whack a doodles are a major coalition in the Republican party particularly in the Deep South.
Click to expand...

It's not Whackadoodles though, is it?

It's clever people who tell whackadoodles what they want to hear in order to gain power.

If they were honest whackadoodles that would somehow be less annoying
 
3point14 said:
It's not Whack-a-doodles though, is it?

It's clever people who tell whackadoodles what they want to hear in order to gain power.
Click to expand...

Not anymore. Back in the 1980’s and 1990’s there were clever people coming up with talking points that could get the whackadoodles to vote the way they wanted. The idea back then was that once they were elected they could take a more moderate, reasonable position with the policy they followed.

The problem is that the “clever people” were among those who were swayed by those talking points so now the whack-a-doodles are running the show.
3point14 said:
If they were honest whackadoodles that would somehow be less annoying
Click to expand...

I think the honest whack-a-doodles are a bigger problem as they actually try to follow through on their whack-a-doodle ideas, while the people to just pretend to be whack-a-doodles do gain power would quietly shelved the worst ideas once they were in power.
 
Camillus said:
Not a hope. There is no way that the Labour Party (and probably SNP) would stomach her as PM
Click to expand...
Not very national or unifying of them is it?.

Labour Party rules, as I'm sure you know, say that the Leader of Party is the PM when the party is in Government.
Click to expand...
Oh. So Corbyn's hands are tied. It has to be him. Nothing to do with weapons-grade pig-headedness and being hell-bent on getting his way. Got it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom