Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Small minds and Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn’s latest gambit

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 15 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Small minds and Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn’s latest gambit

The real fight starts here. Jeremy Corbyn has written to other opposition party leaders suggesting that if he calls a vote of no confidence in the government, he stands ready to lead a temporary government to obtain an extension to the Article 50 notice and then call a general election.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    edited August 15
    First - unlike Corbyn... :D :D
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    Fermi's paradox...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    edited August 15
    Indeed, with the LDs probably closer to overtaking Labour as the main party of the centre left than at any time since 1983 when the SDP/Liberal Alliance were just 2% behind Foot's Labour why would Swinson prop up Corbyn Labour? Swinson wants to destroy Corbyn Labour. Hence she will only back a Tory Remainer like Clarke or a Labour moderate like Harman probably unacceptable to Corbynites
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,651
    Oh Jeremy Corbyn!

    Worth remembering that ATL Boris Johnson was never going to be PM. Don't rule out Jezza just yet.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,236
    Disagree with Meeks. For once Corbyn [ with bit of warming up by McDonnell ] has played a blinder. The Tories' Little Helpers have to decide: do they want to stop No Deal Brexit or not ? Maybe, it is not such a big deal to the LDs after all. They are dreaming of replacing Labour in the South. Who knows, the LDs may even secretly want a disastrous Brexit.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,004

    Fermi's paradox...

    Perhaps that should be Femi's paradox, in the circumstances.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293
    HYUFD said:

    Indeed, with the LDs probably closer to overtaking Labour as the main party of the centre left than at any time since 1983 when the SDP/Liberal Alliance were just 2% behind Foot's Labour why would Swinson prop up Corbyn Labour? Swinson wants to destroy Corbyn Labour

    Wouldn't she put stopping Brexit rather higher on her list of priorities? I would have thought "Corbyn Labour" suits her just fine. It is non-Corbyn Labour which would give her more trouble.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    tlg86 said:

    Oh Jeremy Corbyn!

    Worth remembering that ATL Boris Johnson was never going to be PM. Don't rule out Jezza just yet.

    I haven't.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,482

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    I think that Tom Watson is probably hated as much by the Corbyn establishment as Jo Swinson
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213
    It can all be summed up in five words:
    "Keep buying the baked beans."
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293
    edited August 15
    Maybe Alastair has this the wrong way round? Corbyn and his advisers know he can't lead an alternative government. His letter, and its rejection, makes clear to his fans, and, indeed, his implacable enemies, that it is a total non-starter.
    Therefore, the search for someone acceptable can begin in reasonable time.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,236
    Rather than analyzing who is saying what, just look at the arithmetic. Swinson, at the most, can be a spoiler, not a maker.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786
    edited August 15
    Leavers kept us in the EU because they could not agree on a unicorn Brexit.

    Now Remainers will force us out by not agreeing on a unicorn GNU.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,236
    dixiedean said:

    Maybe Alastair has this the wrong way round? Corbyn and his advisers know he can't lead an alternative government. His letter, and its rejection, makes clear to his fans that it is a total non-starter.
    Therefore, the search for someone acceptable can begin in reasonable time.

    If Corbyn wants a Brexit - possibly a disastrous Tory No Deal Brexit, what has he got to lose ?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    Disagree with Meeks. For once Corbyn [ with bit of warming up by McDonnell ] has played a blinder. The Tories' Little Helpers have to decide: do they want to stop No Deal Brexit or not ? Maybe, it is not such a big deal to the LDs after all. They are dreaming of replacing Labour in the South. Who knows, the LDs may even secretly want a disastrous Brexit.

    It's getting to be a safe bet that the Lib Dems don't mean what they say. But after all, they are politicians.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Indeed, with the LDs probably closer to overtaking Labour as the main party of the centre left than at any time since 1983 when the SDP/Liberal Alliance were just 2% behind Foot's Labour why would Swinson prop up Corbyn Labour? Swinson wants to destroy Corbyn Labour

    Wouldn't she put stopping Brexit rather higher on her list of priorities? I would have thought "Corbyn Labour" suits her just fine. It is non-Corbyn Labour which would give her more trouble.
    She wants to keep Corbyn Leader of the Opposition until she replaces him in that role (or Chuka) she does not want to make Corbyn PM
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,751
    No, Jezza's played a blinder. No one will remember this letter lark when we're in the grip of a catastrophic No Deal, which will destroy Boris's premiership, wreck the economy, shatter the Union and obliterate the Tory party. And if someone does happen to mention it to Jezza he can just shrug and say, 'I tried'.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    dixiedean said:

    Maybe Alastair has this the wrong way round? Corbyn and his advisers know he can't lead an alternative government. His letter, and its rejection, makes clear to his fans, and, indeed, his implacable enemies, that it is a total non-starter.
    Therefore, the search for someone acceptable can begin in reasonable time.

    Or, much more likely, there is no need for such a search - as none will be found able to replace the Great Leader.

    Corbyn wants a chaotic Brexit. Start from that point, and work backwards.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213
    dixiedean said:

    Maybe Alastair has this the wrong way round? Corbyn and his advisers know he can't lead an alternative government. His letter, and its rejection, makes clear to his fans, and, indeed, his implacable enemies, that it is a total non-starter.
    Therefore, the search for someone acceptable can begin in reasonable time.

    Your logic would be impeccable if the whole of the Labour Parliamentary Party had stopping No Deal as its first priority, but I don't think it does.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    edited August 15

    No, Jezza's played a blinder. No one will remember this letter lark when we're in the grip of a catastrophic No Deal, which will destroy Boris's premiership, wreck the economy, shatter the Union and obliterate the Tory party. And if someone does happen to mention it to Jezza he can just shrug and say, 'I tried'.

    They will if it is the LDs forming the next Government not 3rd or 4th placed Corbyn Labour after a few years of No Deal
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696

    Rather than analyzing who is saying what, just look at the arithmetic. Swinson, at the most, can be a spoiler, not a maker.

    The SNP have the spoiler role all sewn up....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387

    Rather than analyzing who is saying what, just look at the arithmetic. Swinson, at the most, can be a spoiler, not a maker.

    Not necessarily

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293

    dixiedean said:

    Maybe Alastair has this the wrong way round? Corbyn and his advisers know he can't lead an alternative government. His letter, and its rejection, makes clear to his fans that it is a total non-starter.
    Therefore, the search for someone acceptable can begin in reasonable time.

    If Corbyn wants a Brexit - possibly a disastrous Tory No Deal Brexit, what has he got to lose ?
    The key there is "if". That Corbyn wants a No Deal Brexit is repeated so often, that it has become Gospel. However, everything he has said, and all whipped votes against it suggest this is not so.
    We really don't know.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    No, Jezza's played a blinder. No one will remember this letter lark when we're in the grip of a catastrophic No Deal, which will destroy Boris's premiership, wreck the economy, shatter the Union and obliterate the Tory party. And if someone does happen to mention it to Jezza he can just shrug and say, 'I tried'.

    If someone mentions it to Swinson, what would she say?

    The truism still holds: Charles Kennedy drunk = better than any of his successors sober.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278
    Back to first principles - Corby's overriding priority is to remain leader of the Labour party. This letter will help him do that as he will be able to tell the most credulous selectorate in the world - the Labour party membership - that he did everything possible to stop No Deal.

    For the LibDems, the equation is this: Corbyn does not have the votes to win a vote of confidence and never will. So the LibDems should publicly back him on the condition that he undertakes to back their choice of candidate if he fails to win a vote of confidence. Corbyn will refuse.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    Back to first principles - Corby's overriding priority is to remain leader of the Labour party. This letter will help him do that as he will be able to tell the most credulous selectorate in the world - the Labour party membership - that he did everything possible to stop No Deal.

    For the LibDems, the equation is this: Corbyn does not have the votes to win a vote of confidence and never will. So the LibDems should publicly back him on the condition that he undertakes to back their choice of candidate if he fails to win a vote of confidence. Corbyn will refuse.

    That would be a much more intelligent response from the LDs than the knee-jerk "No" we have just heard.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Maybe Alastair has this the wrong way round? Corbyn and his advisers know he can't lead an alternative government. His letter, and its rejection, makes clear to his fans that it is a total non-starter.
    Therefore, the search for someone acceptable can begin in reasonable time.

    If Corbyn wants a Brexit - possibly a disastrous Tory No Deal Brexit, what has he got to lose ?
    The key there is "if". That Corbyn wants a No Deal Brexit is repeated so often, that it has become Gospel. However, everything he has said, and all whipped votes against it suggest this is not so.
    We really don't know.

    It is certainly the case that a bad No Deal Brexit is Labour's best route to electoral victory and that the far left has always seen individuals as collateral in its attempts to reach the socialist society it wants.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,378
    Ed M could be a future rival, doubt Corbyn would want to go there. Likewise for anyone seen as Blairite (glad no one suggested Tony!).

    Prescott? Brown? Harman handed over power to Corbyn once before...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    HYUFD said:

    Rather than analyzing who is saying what, just look at the arithmetic. Swinson, at the most, can be a spoiler, not a maker.

    Not necessarily

    No way does that 19% stick with Brexit Party if it results in Swinson PM dsimantling Brexit. Just, no way. You'd end up with Brexit Party candidates saying "don't vote for me - vote Tory". At least half would peel off.

    I'd like to see some polling of that 19% on the question "If voting for the Brexit Party would result in a Prime Minister who would prevent Brexit, would you change your vote? If so, to which Party?"

    I suspect that the Tories already have that polling in their back pocket.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743

    Back to first principles - Corby's overriding priority is to remain leader of the Labour party. This letter will help him do that as he will be able to tell the most credulous selectorate in the world - the Labour party membership - that he did everything possible to stop No Deal.

    For the LibDems, the equation is this: Corbyn does not have the votes to win a vote of confidence and never will. So the LibDems should publicly back him on the condition that he undertakes to back their choice of candidate if he fails to win a vote of confidence. Corbyn will refuse.

    Yes, everyone is still in ‘getting their excuses in early’ mode.

    The sad reality of all of our politicians is that they are only willing to put self interest aside when the clock is at five minutes to midnight. Hopefully.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    edited August 15

    HYUFD said:

    Rather than analyzing who is saying what, just look at the arithmetic. Swinson, at the most, can be a spoiler, not a maker.

    Not necessarily

    No way does that 19% stick with Brexit Party if it results in Swinson PM dsimantling Brexit. Just, no way. You'd end up with Brexit Party candidates saying "don't vote for me - vote Tory". At least half would peel off.

    I'd like to see some polling of that 19% on the question "If voting for the Brexit Party would result in a Prime Minister who would prevent Brexit, would you change your vote? If so, to which Party?"

    I suspect that the Tories already have that polling in their back pocket.
    Probably but Corbyn Labour would still likely be overtaken by the Liberals for the first time since 1918
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,705

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    Watson is toxic after the noncing stuff. Not sure he's the man to rally round.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,091
    Guido reporting a stabbing at the Home Office. Police and paramedics in attendance, building in lockdown
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370
    FPT, but more appropriate to this thread and Alastair's perccecptive take on things:



    Stodge has it bang on and I don't think it will impact on LAB-LD switchers. They hate the antisemitic-stained LAB leader as much as anyone. The Tories would have a field day if Swinson did anything to empower Corbyn.

    We obviously talk to different people (and I know you're one of the tactical voting group yourself), but I've talked to literally thousands. There is a large pool of Lab/LD floating voters who are not driven by their views on Corbyn or Swinson but simply want to stop Brexit and get rid of the Tories. Swinson is playing it for tactical advantage and is IMO alienating a large chunk of those.

    All six of the voters I mentioned voted LibDem in the local elections (I'm being discreet about the two members who admitted it!). None of them will now vote LibDem in this LibDem target seat, unless Swinson moderates her stance - she doesn't need to say she likes Corbyn, merely that she will do whatever turns out to be necessary to stop No Deal. I've obviously not spoken to thousands of people this week, but I really doubt if they're unusual.

    Swinson saying it can't be Corbyn because apart from anything else he's toxic to Tories, but it could be someone like Harman or Clarke = 'playing it for tactical advantage'

    Corbyn saying it has to be, err, Corbyn, and absolutely no-one else, isn't 'playing it for tactical advantage', no, of course not. Whatever could have made a brief suspicion that it might be flit across my mind?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293
    edited August 15

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Maybe Alastair has this the wrong way round? Corbyn and his advisers know he can't lead an alternative government. His letter, and its rejection, makes clear to his fans that it is a total non-starter.
    Therefore, the search for someone acceptable can begin in reasonable time.

    If Corbyn wants a Brexit - possibly a disastrous Tory No Deal Brexit, what has he got to lose ?
    The key there is "if". That Corbyn wants a No Deal Brexit is repeated so often, that it has become Gospel. However, everything he has said, and all whipped votes against it suggest this is not so.
    We really don't know.

    It is certainly the case that a bad No Deal Brexit is Labour's best route to electoral victory and that the far left has always seen individuals as collateral in its attempts to reach the socialist society it wants.

    Which is true. However, my point is that that being the goal remains supposition, not incontrovertible fact, as regularly presented. Corbyn has said nothing at all to support that premise. Indeed, he has repeatedly said he is implacably opposed to No Deal.
    What's more, the recent shift on Indyref 2 suggest he is willing to move to get SNP onside.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,520
    edited August 15
    ..
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,063
    HYUFD said:

    No, Jezza's played a blinder. No one will remember this letter lark when we're in the grip of a catastrophic No Deal, which will destroy Boris's premiership, wreck the economy, shatter the Union and obliterate the Tory party. And if someone does happen to mention it to Jezza he can just shrug and say, 'I tried'.

    They will if it is the LDs forming the next Government not 3rd or 4th placed Corbyn Labour after a few years of No Deal
    It looks as though something has gone wrong with the machine. Mr HY keeps posting comments which are mildly well-disposed towards the Lib Dems.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,601
    I don't think it works under any leader. An election on the back of blocking Brexit and removing the sitting Prime Minister would see the parties involved (except the SNP) heavily punished, you could probably add 10% onto the Tory vote from current Brexit Party voters.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370
    Having said that, it is also true that Jo Swinson's response was a bit inept in its wording.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,335
    I'm not so sure Corbyn is making an error here actually. Swinson may have done so today... time will tell.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    @AlistairM, I must take issue with one of your comments:

    'Corbyn has shown all the leadership of a damp dishcloth.'

    What on earth possessed you to make such a dreadful parallel? And a grossly unfair one.

    I demand you apologise to any damp dishcloths that have been offended by being compared to the Jezaster.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    edited August 15
    Brom said:

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    Watson is toxic after the noncing stuff.
    That could have been better phrased.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    I think that Tom Watson is probably hated as much by the Corbyn establishment as Jo Swinson
    I am sure you are correct Mike, but if the other parties offered Labour the chance of govt with Tom Watson as a temporary care-taker PM, would they really turn that down?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743

    Having said that, it is also true that Jo Swinson's response was a bit inept in its wording.

    Certainly Swinson and the LibDems should be up for talks with anyone about any way to stop a no deal Brexit.

    The key - as you have eloquently explained downthread - is to focus on the need for a caretaker PM to be genuinely just that.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,021
    Is there any union associated with the LibDems?

    Is there any prospect of them attracting one? Would they want to? A large union, frustrated with JC and the threat to its members from No Deal, moving allegiance would be a game-changer, IMHO.

    I await a slew of responses explaining why this is a non-starter!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489
    I’m worried this may be wishful thinking @AlastairMeeks. Labour will just simply put their hands up now and say “we tried but the Tories little helpers chose not to stop a no deal Brexit”.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    I think that Tom Watson is probably hated as much by the Corbyn establishment as Jo Swinson
    I am sure you are correct Mike, but if the other parties offered Labour the chance of govt with Tom Watson as a temporary care-taker PM, would they really turn that down?
    Yes. Bear in mind Corbyn doesn't care about a Labour government, he wants a Socialist government. He was a more assiduous opponent of Tony Blair than David Cameron was.

    The idea of stepping aside for another leader when he believes he's very close to power would be anathema to both him and his supporters.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,158
    edited August 15
    Disagree with the header entirely. From the previous thread:



    We obviously talk to different people (and I know you're one of the tactical voting group yourself), but I've talked to literally thousands. There is a large pool of Lab/LD floating voters who are not driven by their views on Corbyn or Swinson but simply want to stop Brexit and get rid of the Tories. Swinson is playing it for tactical advantage and is IMO alienating a large chunk of those.

    All six of the voters I mentioned voted LibDem in the local elections (I'm being discreet about the two members who admitted it!). None of them will now vote LibDem in this LibDem target seat, unless Swinson moderates her stance - she doesn't need to say she likes Corbyn, merely that she will do whatever turns out to be necessary to stop No Deal. I've obviously not spoken to thousands of people this week, but I really doubt if they're unusual.

    Swinson saying it can't be Corbyn because apart from anything else he's toxic to Tories, but it could be someone like Harman or Clarke = 'playing it for tactical advantage'

    Corbyn saying it has to be, err, Corbyn, and absolutely no-one else, isn't 'playing it for tactical advantage', no, of course not. Whatever could have made a brief suspicion that it might be flit across my mind?
    Because if Corbyn enables Harman/Clarke being appointed PM, he loses out massively. He's the Leader or the Opposition, and is the obvious choice to lead the fight against No Deal.

    Whereas Swinson should, in theory, be indifferent between a Corbyn-led GoNU, and one led by anyone else, if it's on a temporary basis to stop No Deal. She's trying to get the latter, out of the belief that she can gain by not allowing Corbyn to be seen as PM and leading the Remain cause. Hence "playing it for tactical advantage".

    There's a lot of people who should know better who seem to think Corbyn should just randomly stand aside, because it would really help them if he did. He's doing exactly what he should be doing.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,021
    edited August 15

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    I think that Tom Watson is probably hated as much by the Corbyn establishment as Jo Swinson
    I am sure you are correct Mike, but if the other parties offered Labour the chance of govt with Tom Watson as a temporary care-taker PM, would they really turn that down?
    In a heartbeat. He's second only to Blair in the Labour Pantheon of Hate (TM).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,377
    Let us float above the trees and survey the wood.

    Yes, we could get a GNU with Not Corbyn as PM. This is unlikely but possible. But that GNU could not deliver Ref2. All it could do is extend Art 50 to allow a GE.

    And for Brexit to be stopped (via Ref2) that GE must put the only feasible alternative to Boris Johnson into Number 10. A chap by the name of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Stopping Brexit means PM Jezza. There is no way around this.

    Again - sorry.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    ydoethur said:

    Brom said:

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    Watson is toxic after the noncing stuff.
    That could have been better phrased.
    Has Watson now hung up his Nonce-finder General cape?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,358
    Anorak said:

    Is there any union associated with the LibDems?

    Is there any prospect of them attracting one? Would they want to? A large union, frustrated with JC and the threat to its members from No Deal, moving allegiance would be a game-changer, IMHO.

    I await a slew of responses explaining why this is a non-starter!

    Do the lib dems show any sign of caring about organised labour?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    kinabalu said:

    Let us float above the trees and survey the wood.

    Yes, we could get a GNU with Not Corbyn as PM. This is unlikely but possible. But that GNU could not deliver Ref2. All it could do is extend Art 50 to allow a GE.

    And for Brexit to be stopped (via Ref2) that GE must put the only feasible alternative to Boris Johnson into Number 10. A chap by the name of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Stopping Brexit means PM Jezza. There is no way around this.

    Again - sorry.

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696

    I’m worried this may be wishful thinking @AlastairMeeks. Labour will just simply put their hands up now and say “we tried but the Tories little helpers chose not to stop a no deal Brexit”.

    And that will be the best outcome, if you really want something that isn't No Deal Brexit. Because, finally the EU might come to the conclusion that Westminster really isn't going to ride to their rescue. And if they don't want an EU-wide recession, then start getting creative...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293
    OT, but "Breakdown" on R4, a day-by-day documentary about events in NI 50 years ago this week has been fascinating and alarming. A society spiralling out of control.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129

    Anorak said:

    Is there any union associated with the LibDems?

    Is there any prospect of them attracting one? Would they want to? A large union, frustrated with JC and the threat to its members from No Deal, moving allegiance would be a game-changer, IMHO.

    I await a slew of responses explaining why this is a non-starter!

    Do the lib dems show any sign of caring about organised labour?
    Well, they've just rejected working with disorganised Labour. Does that count?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,158

    Anorak said:

    Is there any union associated with the LibDems?

    Is there any prospect of them attracting one? Would they want to? A large union, frustrated with JC and the threat to its members from No Deal, moving allegiance would be a game-changer, IMHO.

    I await a slew of responses explaining why this is a non-starter!

    Do the lib dems show any sign of caring about organised labour?
    They seem to be profiting greatly from Disorganised Labour!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    ydoethur said:

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    I think that Tom Watson is probably hated as much by the Corbyn establishment as Jo Swinson
    I am sure you are correct Mike, but if the other parties offered Labour the chance of govt with Tom Watson as a temporary care-taker PM, would they really turn that down?
    Yes. Bear in mind Corbyn doesn't care about a Labour government, he wants a Socialist government. He was a more assiduous opponent of Tony Blair than David Cameron was.

    The idea of stepping aside for another leader when he believes he's very close to power would be anathema to both him and his supporters.
    Corbyn might not want a Labour govt, but I suspect many of his MPs do
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213
    Artist said:

    I don't think it works under any leader. An election on the back of blocking Brexit and removing the sitting Prime Minister would see the parties involved (except the SNP) heavily punished, you could probably add 10% onto the Tory vote from current Brexit Party voters.

    But it wouldn't be "blocking Brexit" - it would be delaying Brexit - it would be blocking No Deal.

    Fair enough if you think No Deal Brexit would be absolutely fine. But I think No Deal would be an insane disaster foisted on us by self-seeking, stupid, third-rate politicians.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 8,306
    Endillion said:

    Disagree with the header entirely. From the previous thread:




    We obviously talk to different people (and I know you're one of the tactical voting group yourself), but I've talked to literally thousands. There is a large pool of Lab/LD floating voters who are not driven by their views on Corbyn or Swinson but simply want to stop Brexit and get rid of the Tories. Swinson is playing it for tactical advantage and is IMO alienating a large chunk of those.

    All six of the voters I mentioned voted LibDem in the local elections (I'm being discreet about the two members who admitted it!). None of them will now vote LibDem in this LibDem target seat, unless Swinson moderates her stance - she doesn't need to say she likes Corbyn, merely that she will do whatever turns out to be necessary to stop No Deal. I've obviously not spoken to thousands of people this week, but I really doubt if they're unusual.

    Swinson saying it can't be Corbyn because apart from anything else he's toxic to Tories, but it could be someone like Harman or Clarke = 'playing it for tactical advantage'

    Corbyn saying it has to be, err, Corbyn, and absolutely no-one else, isn't 'playing it for tactical advantage', no, of course not. Whatever could have made a brief suspicion that it might be flit across my mind?
    Because if Corbyn enables Harman/Clarke being appointed PM, he loses out massively. He's the Leader or the Opposition, and is the obvious choice to lead the fight against No Deal.

    Whereas Swinson should, in theory, be indifferent between a Corbyn-led GoNU, and one led by anyone else, if it's on a temporary basis to stop No Deal. She's trying to get the latter, out of the belief that she can gain by not allowing Corbyn to be seen as PM and leading the Remain cause. Hence "playing it for tactical advantage".

    There's a lot of people who should know better who seem to think Corbyn should just randomly stand aside, because it would really help them if he did. He's doing exactly what he should be doing.
    Under those circumstances, would he even remain Leader of the Opposition? Surely Boris might then have that role!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    edited August 15

    ydoethur said:

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    I think that Tom Watson is probably hated as much by the Corbyn establishment as Jo Swinson
    I am sure you are correct Mike, but if the other parties offered Labour the chance of govt with Tom Watson as a temporary care-taker PM, would they really turn that down?
    Yes. Bear in mind Corbyn doesn't care about a Labour government, he wants a Socialist government. He was a more assiduous opponent of Tony Blair than David Cameron was.

    The idea of stepping aside for another leader when he believes he's very close to power would be anathema to both him and his supporters.
    Corbyn might not want a Labour govt, but I suspect many of his MPs do
    Yes, but that's a separate issue. This letter is Corbyn desperately trying to regain the initiative his laziness and flip-flopping has surrendered, but precisely because he's demonstrated he cannot be trusted, nobody is willing to work with him.

    The game changer would be if 150 Labour MPs offered to back an alternative as a temporary measure to revoke Article 50 and call a fresh referendum. But since they have the spine of a jellyfish that won't happen.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,139
    Interesting and sensible article by committed anti-Corbyn Labour MP.

    https://labourlist.org/2019/08/the-lib-dems-are-wrong-to-dismiss-jeremy-corbyns-offer/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    justin124 said:

    Endillion said:

    Disagree with the header entirely. From the previous thread:




    We obviously talk to different people (and I know you're one of the tactical voting group yourself), but I've talked to literally thousands. There is a large pool of Lab/LD floating voters who are not driven by their views on Corbyn or Swinson but simply want to stop Brexit and get rid of the Tories. Swinson is playing it for tactical advantage and is IMO alienating a large chunk of those.

    All six of the voters I mentioned voted LibDem in the local elections (I'm being discreet about the two members who admitted it!). None of them will now vote LibDem in this LibDem target seat, unless Swinson moderates her stance - she doesn't need to say she likes Corbyn, merely that she will do whatever turns out to be necessary to stop No Deal. I've obviously not spoken to thousands of people this week, but I really doubt if they're unusual.

    Swinson saying it can't be Corbyn because apart from anything else he's toxic to Tories, but it could be someone like Harman or Clarke = 'playing it for tactical advantage'

    Corbyn saying it has to be, err, Corbyn, and absolutely no-one else, isn't 'playing it for tactical advantage', no, of course not. Whatever could have made a brief suspicion that it might be flit across my mind?
    Because if Corbyn enables Harman/Clarke being appointed PM, he loses out massively. He's the Leader or the Opposition, and is the obvious choice to lead the fight against No Deal.

    Whereas Swinson should, in theory, be indifferent between a Corbyn-led GoNU, and one led by anyone else, if it's on a temporary basis to stop No Deal. She's trying to get the latter, out of the belief that she can gain by not allowing Corbyn to be seen as PM and leading the Remain cause. Hence "playing it for tactical advantage".

    There's a lot of people who should know better who seem to think Corbyn should just randomly stand aside, because it would really help them if he did. He's doing exactly what he should be doing.
    Under those circumstances, would he even remain Leader of the Opposition? Surely Boris might then have that role!
    Yes, Johnson would be the LOTO a la Peel in 1846.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    edited August 15

    Having said that, it is also true that Jo Swinson's response was a bit inept in its wording.

    She can always recant and say she tried, but her back is to the wall and the only hope for NoDeal is to tolerate a Corbyn GNU.

    The real question is whether a Corbyn GNU would actually extend A50. "Now we have the Papacy we mean to enjoy it" as the Pope Leo X apparently said.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let us float above the trees and survey the wood.

    Yes, we could get a GNU with Not Corbyn as PM. This is unlikely but possible. But that GNU could not deliver Ref2. All it could do is extend Art 50 to allow a GE.

    And for Brexit to be stopped (via Ref2) that GE must put the only feasible alternative to Boris Johnson into Number 10. A chap by the name of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Stopping Brexit means PM Jezza. There is no way around this.

    Again - sorry.

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.
    Why? The most likely scenario is that Labour is still by some way the largest party in such a remain party majority. So why should Corbyn move, to be replaced by somebody dictated by their electoral opponents?

    If the LibDems did manage to get quite close to Labour in seats, then another GE where they can finish the job of replacing Labour is more likely where they want to end up.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    I’m worried this may be wishful thinking @AlastairMeeks. Labour will just simply put their hands up now and say “we tried but the Tories little helpers chose not to stop a no deal Brexit”.

    And that will be the best outcome, if you really want something that isn't No Deal Brexit. Because, finally the EU might come to the conclusion that Westminster really isn't going to ride to their rescue. And if they don't want an EU-wide recession, then start getting creative...
    This might happen, that might happen?

    Have you really the slightest idea of what may really happen if we leave without a deal, I wonder? How many people may die, if things really go badly wrong, and there is significant disruption to medical supplies, for example?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123
    edited August 15
    ydoethur said:

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    I think that Tom Watson is probably hated as much by the Corbyn establishment as Jo Swinson
    I am sure you are correct Mike, but if the other parties offered Labour the chance of govt with Tom Watson as a temporary care-taker PM, would they really turn that down?
    Yes. Bear in mind Corbyn doesn't care about a Labour government, he wants a Socialist government. He was a more assiduous opponent of Tony Blair than David Cameron was.

    The idea of stepping aside for another leader when he believes he's very close to power would be anathema to both him and his supporters.
    Once Corbyn has lost a VOC the day after Johnson loses the VONC, how many Labour MPs will vote down any other (sensible) alternative allowing No Deal just because Corbyn says so?
    Not many.
    Not enough from Corbyn's point of view.
    There are very very few Labour MPs prepared to be complicit in a No Deal Brexit and not many CLPs who will deselect an MP for saving the country from no deal, as most Labour members are remainers.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,823
    "Perplexingly"?

    Realistically, a successful candidate will need to be supportable by a dozen Tory MPs. Ian Blackford surely doesn't fit the bill. I suppose we're looking for someone on the far right of the Labour Party or someone who is currently sitting as a centrist or independent who hasn't previously burnt any bridges. Are there any of the latter? Frank Field would once have been a popular choice, but now? LibDems are problematic because of the 2010-15 coalition. That probably even rules out Stephen Lloyd.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129

    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let us float above the trees and survey the wood.

    Yes, we could get a GNU with Not Corbyn as PM. This is unlikely but possible. But that GNU could not deliver Ref2. All it could do is extend Art 50 to allow a GE.

    And for Brexit to be stopped (via Ref2) that GE must put the only feasible alternative to Boris Johnson into Number 10. A chap by the name of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Stopping Brexit means PM Jezza. There is no way around this.

    Again - sorry.

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.
    Why? The most likely scenario is that Labour is still by some way the largest party in such a remain party majority. So why should Corbyn move, to be replaced by somebody dictated by their electoral opponents?
    Because otherwise they don't have to vote for him.

    It has happened before that the leader of a minor party (or no party) has been made PM in an emergency as a compromise. It happened in 1940, 1916, and 1852 (when Russell and Palmerston couldn't agree which of them should be PM and settled on Aberdeen as a compromise).
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    Having said that, it is also true that Jo Swinson's response was a bit inept in its wording.

    She can always recant and say she tried, but her back is to the wall and the only hope for NoDeal is to tolerate a Corbyn GNU.

    The real question is whether a Corbyn GNU would actually extend A50. "Now we have the Papacy we mean to enjoy it" as the Pope Leo X apparently said.
    What an absolutely daft comment. A Corbyn GNU could be voted out an any time. As you should surely realise, unless you're terminally stupid.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,131
    Chris said:

    Artist said:

    I don't think it works under any leader. An election on the back of blocking Brexit and removing the sitting Prime Minister would see the parties involved (except the SNP) heavily punished, you could probably add 10% onto the Tory vote from current Brexit Party voters.

    But it wouldn't be "blocking Brexit" - it would be delaying Brexit - it would be blocking No Deal.

    Fair enough if you think No Deal Brexit would be absolutely fine. But I think No Deal would be an insane disaster foisted on us by self-seeking, stupid, third-rate politicians.
    I think such nuances are likely to be lost in the hurly-burly of an election.

    IMO, Artist is correct that the Tories would romp home if a GE were held under such circumstances.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    kinabalu said:

    Let us float above the trees and survey the wood.

    Yes, we could get a GNU with Not Corbyn as PM. This is unlikely but possible. But that GNU could not deliver Ref2. All it could do is extend Art 50 to allow a GE.

    And for Brexit to be stopped (via Ref2) that GE must put the only feasible alternative to Boris Johnson into Number 10. A chap by the name of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Stopping Brexit means PM Jezza. There is no way around this.

    Again - sorry.

    But Jezza is only promising a ref if he wins a majority in a GE.

    So that ain’t happening.

    Jezza can see we are leaving - this is just a fig leaf for the post Brexit election.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    Chris said:

    Having said that, it is also true that Jo Swinson's response was a bit inept in its wording.

    She can always recant and say she tried, but her back is to the wall and the only hope for NoDeal is to tolerate a Corbyn GNU.

    The real question is whether a Corbyn GNU would actually extend A50. "Now we have the Papacy we mean to enjoy it" as the Pope Leo X apparently said.
    What an absolutely daft comment. A Corbyn GNU could be voted out an any time. As you should surely realise, unless you're terminally stupid.
    I have not noticed Corbyn's acolytes showing any signs of reason. We are on a short timescale and if Corbyn was VoNC'd who would take over? Boris? Or would we be thrust into GE territory? 31st October could happen in the middle of a GE and out we go.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743

    Interesting and sensible article by committed anti-Corbyn Labour MP.

    https://labourlist.org/2019/08/the-lib-dems-are-wrong-to-dismiss-jeremy-corbyns-offer/

    Wes is right to criticise Swinson for appearing to rule out talks.

    However Wes also knows - and wants - that the outcome of any such talks is most unlikely to lead to JC becoming PM.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 9,171
    I think the penny has dropped that Momentum don't get to choose the leader of a GONU.

  • It has to be someone who a majority of MPs think is experienced and competent to be PM (not necessarily great, but able to deal with another emergency should one occur whilst in temporary charge) and who demonstrably has no axe to grind in terms of wanting the job long term.

    Corbyn is neither of those - even a fair number of his own MPs severely doubt his competence.

    Realistically - as Swinson has said - hard to see past Harman or Clarke.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,663

    Chris said:

    Artist said:

    I don't think it works under any leader. An election on the back of blocking Brexit and removing the sitting Prime Minister would see the parties involved (except the SNP) heavily punished, you could probably add 10% onto the Tory vote from current Brexit Party voters.

    But it wouldn't be "blocking Brexit" - it would be delaying Brexit - it would be blocking No Deal.

    Fair enough if you think No Deal Brexit would be absolutely fine. But I think No Deal would be an insane disaster foisted on us by self-seeking, stupid, third-rate politicians.
    I think such nuances are likely to be lost in the hurly-burly of an election.

    IMO, Artist is correct that the Tories would romp home if a GE were held under such circumstances.
    There's plenty of Brexit party voters out there for Boris to mine if an election came down to a referendum by proxy. If the remain voters are split between the lib dems and labour, then thats a possible majority there.

    If you're a 'true' remainer, then a referendum before a GE is a must, as otherwise you risk losing it all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    Josh Hazlewood is a officially a bastard.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    Anorak said:

    Is there any union associated with the LibDems?

    Is there any prospect of them attracting one? Would they want to? A large union, frustrated with JC and the threat to its members from No Deal, moving allegiance would be a game-changer, IMHO.

    I await a slew of responses explaining why this is a non-starter!

    Welcome, time traveller from the 1970s....
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,663
    IanB2 said:

    Interesting and sensible article by committed anti-Corbyn Labour MP.

    https://labourlist.org/2019/08/the-lib-dems-are-wrong-to-dismiss-jeremy-corbyns-offer/

    Wes is right to criticise Swinson for appearing to rule out talks.

    However Wes also knows - and wants - that the outcome of any such talks is most unlikely to lead to JC becoming PM.
    Swinson should have kept/opened talks on the GNU for sure. but right, I feel to say it shouldn't be Corbyn or any party political individual.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,377
    edited August 15
    IanB2 said:

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.

    Hung parliament is indeed possible - more than possible - it's odds on fav.

    And I suppose it is also possible that out of this comes some form of cross party Remainer government under a senior figure which knuckles down for a year or so to do one job - cancel Brexit via Ref2. But this is surely unlikely.

    For such a government to have the authority and mandate to deliver Ref2, the Cons must not be the largest party. Meaning that Lab will be.

    So - JCorbyn not PM when he leads the largest party after a GE?

    That is a stretch.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,521
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let us float above the trees and survey the wood.

    Yes, we could get a GNU with Not Corbyn as PM. This is unlikely but possible. But that GNU could not deliver Ref2. All it could do is extend Art 50 to allow a GE.

    And for Brexit to be stopped (via Ref2) that GE must put the only feasible alternative to Boris Johnson into Number 10. A chap by the name of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Stopping Brexit means PM Jezza. There is no way around this.

    Again - sorry.

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.
    Why? The most likely scenario is that Labour is still by some way the largest party in such a remain party majority. So why should Corbyn move, to be replaced by somebody dictated by their electoral opponents?
    Because otherwise they don't have to vote for him.

    It has happened before that the leader of a minor party (or no party) has been made PM in an emergency as a compromise. It happened in 1940, 1916, and 1852 (when Russell and Palmerston couldn't agree which of them should be PM and settled on Aberdeen as a compromise).
    Probably missing something in your argument here but Churchill was a Conservative Cabinet member before becoming PM in 1940 and Lloyd George also a very senior Liberal in 1916; neither was in a minority or no party.
  • RobinWiggsRobinWiggs Posts: 376
    edited August 15
    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.

    In any essentially binary leave/remain GE either pre- or just after Brexit, we need to be mindful not of the preference of the sitting MP but how their seat voted at the referendum. It will have a significant impact upon such a binary GE, and the make-up of the Commons thereafter.

    The oft-repeated line that 70% of Tory seats and 60% of Labour seats voted Leave holds broadly true (source https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/)

    The Leave vote is distributed more efficiently than the Remain vote which is piled up in fewer metropolitan or Scottish seats.

    If those seats all favour Leave supporting candidates in a GE (unlikely I know), the makeup of the Commons could be something like:

    365 Leave MPs (217 from tory leave supporting seats, 148 from labour leave supporting seats).

    Adding in the whipped tories from Tory remain constituencies, and you have a very different parliament from the current one with the reputed 70% of remain MPs.

    It won't happen quite like that - but you can see why Boris might fancy his chances in a GE, when there is a significant enough BXP vote to squeeze and a divided remain vote. That's clearly in Cummings' thinking - unite the right/leave.

    And this is before the remain parties try to stage their fractious "coup" and soil themselves further in voters' eyes.





  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let us float above the trees and survey the wood.

    Yes, we could get a GNU with Not Corbyn as PM. This is unlikely but possible. But that GNU could not deliver Ref2. All it could do is extend Art 50 to allow a GE.

    And for Brexit to be stopped (via Ref2) that GE must put the only feasible alternative to Boris Johnson into Number 10. A chap by the name of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Stopping Brexit means PM Jezza. There is no way around this.

    Again - sorry.

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.
    Why? The most likely scenario is that Labour is still by some way the largest party in such a remain party majority. So why should Corbyn move, to be replaced by somebody dictated by their electoral opponents?
    Because otherwise they don't have to vote for him.

    It has happened before that the leader of a minor party (or no party) has been made PM in an emergency as a compromise. It happened in 1940, 1916, and 1852 (when Russell and Palmerston couldn't agree which of them should be PM and settled on Aberdeen as a compromise).
    Probably missing something in your argument here but Churchill was a Conservative Cabinet member before becoming PM in 1940 and Lloyd George also a very senior Liberal in 1916; neither was in a minority or no party.
    You've misunderstood what I wrote, although with hindsight it wasn't clear. I meant 'people who were leaders of a minor party, or not leaders of any party at all.'
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,139
    IanB2 said:

    Interesting and sensible article by committed anti-Corbyn Labour MP.

    https://labourlist.org/2019/08/the-lib-dems-are-wrong-to-dismiss-jeremy-corbyns-offer/

    Wes is right to criticise Swinson for appearing to rule out talks.

    However Wes also knows - and wants - that the outcome of any such talks is most unlikely to lead to JC becoming PM.
    Indeed. But it is a sensible and measured response, centred on the overriding need to prevent no deal, ruling nothing in and nothing out. In sharp contrast to Swinson's over-hasty and intemperate reaction.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,664
    edited August 15
    So, if Johnson and Corbyn are both opposed to a proposed government of “unity” (sic), where do the proposers get 200 defectors from the two largest parties for their majority in a vote of confidence.

    I could just about see a couple of dozen MPs willing to commit almost certain career suicide over Brexit, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred doing so.

    Johnson and Corbyn would both be very happy to expel anyone voting against their own party whip in a vote of confidence, people don’t seem to realise this.
  • As @SouthamObserver has put it:

    "[T]he LibDems should publicly back him [Corbyn] on … condition … he undertakes to back their choice of candidate if he fails to win a vote of confidence. Corbyn will refuse."

    I'd also expect him to refuse.

    However, I think the invitation to 'back [another] choice of candidate' [for leader of a GNU] should be directed at finding the candidate able to command the most broadly based support and head an emergency administration able to (a) extend, (b) formulate and legislate for a final say, (c) organise and conduct a final say vote, AND (d) then call for a GE.

    SM/JC have gambled on the PLP hanging together as things become increasingly messy - in the weeks ahead.

    I don't believe that they have any real desire for/or interest in supporting or in being part of a GNU. But their bluff needs to be called.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743

    In any essentially binary leave/remain GE either pre- or just after Brexit, we need to be mindful not of the preference of the sitting MP but how their seat voted at the referendum. It will have a significant impact upon such a binary GE, and the make-up of the Commons thereafter.

    The oft-repeated line that 70% of Tory seats and 60% of Labour seats voted Leave holds broadly true (source https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/)

    The Leave vote is distributed more efficiently than the Remain vote which is piled up in fewer metropolitan or Scottish seats.

    If those seats all favour Leave supporting candidates in a GE (unlikely I know), the makeup of the Commons could be something like:

    365 Leave MPs (217 from tory leave supporting seats, 148 from labour leave supporting seats).

    Adding in the whipped tories from Tory remain constituencies, and you have a very different parliament from the current one with the reputed 70% of remain MPs.

    It won't happen quite like that - but you can see why Boris might fancy his chances in a GE, when there is a significant enough BXP vote to squeeze and a divided remain vote. That's clearly in Cummings' thinking - unite the right/leave.

    And this is before the remain parties try to stage their fractious "coup" and soil themselves further in voters' eyes.


    Tying to categorise seats into “Remain” or “ leave” like that is simplistic HY stuff.

    The pendulum has shifted since 2016. And the profile of those who vote in normal elections is a subset of those who voted in the referendum, anyway.

    It matters far more how the ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ votes fall within each constituency than on what the result was way back in 2016.

    Cf. Brecon, and a string of local by-elections recently in strong leave areas.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,903

    Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.

    Not with the SNP , regarding blocking Scottish Independence referendum.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,345
    Joe denly is a poor mans james vince....
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123

    Interesting and sensible article by committed anti-Corbyn Labour MP.

    https://labourlist.org/2019/08/the-lib-dems-are-wrong-to-dismiss-jeremy-corbyns-offer/

    "The overriding priority for every Member of Parliament who doesn’t want to see this [No Deal] happen, which is a clear majority of the House of Commons, must be preventing this outcome."

    Which is why if Corbyn cannot win a confidence vote, most Labour MPs will at least tolerate another GoNU PM.
  • KenKen Posts: 24
    I have been reading this site for quite a few years, but this is my first comment here and hopefully my last. Thanks to PB I made a few bob betting on dear old Donald Trump and I read PB as an aid to my flutters.

    How is this piece aiding the political betting of anyone? You may be all in favour of Corbyn or you may hate his guts but all I want from a political betting site are ideas about placing political bets.

    For the record, Corbyn is a Brexiteer of many years standing. He heads a party that has been taken over by Federasts, but there is no evidence to suggest that he has changed his views.

    He wants to take over after a no-deal exit that comes with political chaos in its wake. So the last thing he wants is to take over now and sort out the mess. Hence his letter which he must know that the minor parties will not accept and which will rally to Tories to Boris. So, his aim is to make sure that the vote of no-confidence which he has to table will be won by the government.

    OK, back to political betting posts, please.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    Not so. The most likely outcome, other than a Bozo win, is a balanced parliament in which the remain parties command a majority. I’d expect it most unlikely that JC would emerge as PM from such a scenario.

    Hung parliament is indeed possible - more than possible - it's odds on fav.

    And I suppose it is also possible that out of this comes some form of cross party Remainer government under a senior figure which knuckles down for a year or so to do one job - cancel Brexit via Ref2. But this is surely unlikely.

    For such a government to have the authority and mandate to deliver Ref2, the Cons must not be the largest party. Meaning that Lab will be.

    So - JCorbyn not PM when he leads the largest party after a GE?

    That is a stretch.
    On the hypothetical poll downthread, he wouldn’t have the largest party.

    But, leaving that flimsy thread aside, we’d be in a 2010 situation viz Brown, where a pre-condition would be a change of leader.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,063

    Anorak said:

    Is there any union associated with the LibDems?
    Is there any prospect of them attracting one? Would they want to? A large union, frustrated with JC and the threat to its members from No Deal, moving allegiance would be a game-changer, IMHO.
    I await a slew of responses explaining why this is a non-starter!

    Do the lib dems show any sign of caring about organised labour?
    It was the Liberals who set up the Labour Representation Movement - but then it was hijacked by revolutionary Socialists. Traditionally, Liberals are highly sympathetic towards trade unions, worker participation, co-ownership, co-operatives etc. I think a positive declaration of support from a trade union would be welcomed by the Lib Dems.
  • RobinWiggsRobinWiggs Posts: 376
    IanB2 said:

    In any essentially binary leave/remain GE either pre- or just after Brexit, we need to be mindful not of the preference of the sitting MP but how their seat voted at the referendum. It will have a significant impact upon such a binary GE, and the make-up of the Commons thereafter.

    The oft-repeated line that 70% of Tory seats and 60% of Labour seats voted Leave holds broadly true (source https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/)

    The Leave vote is distributed more efficiently than the Remain vote which is piled up in fewer metropolitan or Scottish seats.

    If those seats all favour Leave supporting candidates in a GE (unlikely I know), the makeup of the Commons could be something like:

    365 Leave MPs (217 from tory leave supporting seats, 148 from labour leave supporting seats).

    Adding in the whipped tories from Tory remain constituencies, and you have a very different parliament from the current one with the reputed 70% of remain MPs.

    It won't happen quite like that - but you can see why Boris might fancy his chances in a GE, when there is a significant enough BXP vote to squeeze and a divided remain vote. That's clearly in Cummings' thinking - unite the right/leave.

    And this is before the remain parties try to stage their fractious "coup" and soil themselves further in voters' eyes.


    Tying to categorise seats into “Remain” or “ leave” like that is simplistic HY stuff.

    The pendulum has shifted since 2016. And the profile of those who vote in normal elections is a subset of those who voted in the referendum, anyway.

    It matters far more how the ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ votes fall within each constituency than on what the result was way back in 2016.

    Cf. Brecon, and a string of local by-elections recently in strong leave areas.
    Yes, it won't happen quite like that.

    But it's much easier to have a remain pact in a single seat at a by-election. Much much harder to organise something meaningful on a grander scale at a GE.

    The fact remains that the remain vote is more likely to be more split than the leave vote, in view view. And that is before the leave vote is stoked up by the forthcoming shenanigans in Parliament.

    The "Tell them again" line for Ref2 is equally if not more powerful in a Brexit GE - "don't let their underhand tactics steal the vote" is powerful against a remain alliance.

    Any binary election will be largely on, um, binary lines.
This discussion has been closed.