YBarddCwsc said:

Sandpit said:

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.

Indeed. The thread reads like a Remainer fantasy, with ever more absurd & fantastic people being proposed for a GONU. (Liz Saville Roberts -- she has only been in Parliament for 4 years!)

Almost all MPs are now thinking, "There is a GE coming, feck, will I survive?"

Their absolute best bet for survival is to stick with their party. There will be minimal dissenters.

A handful of maniacs like Grieve may want to die in a ditch for the EU. Most don't.

Sandpit said:

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.

Tissue_Price said:

Ken said:

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.

Putting aside the fact that this appears to be your 23rd comment here, I would suggest the bit in italics is actually very clear about potential bets. And @AlastairMeeks is usually very assiduous in doing that.

Ken said:

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.

ydoethur said:

JohnO said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark 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.'

IanB2 said:

RobinWiggs 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.

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.

anothernick 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/

Beibheirli_C 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.

IanB2 said:

anothernick 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.

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.

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.

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!

YBarddCwsc said:

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.

Chris said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

MarqueeMark 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?

ydoethur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Beibheirli_C 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.

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.

justin124 said:

Endillion said:

Disagree with the header entirely. From the previous thread:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

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!

Beibheirli_C said:

ydoethur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Beibheirli_C 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

ydoethur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Beibheirli_C 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.

Stereotomy said:

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?

Gallowgate said:

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”.

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!

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

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?

Richard_Nabavi said:

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

Brom said:

Beibheirli_C 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.

SouthamObserver said:

dixiedean said:

surbiton19 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.

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton19 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

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1144630145208246272?s=20

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.

HYUFD said:

surbiton19 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

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1144630145208246272?s=20

dixiedean said:

surbiton19 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.

SouthamObserver said:

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.

Stark_Dawning 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'.

surbiton19 said:

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

Stark_Dawning 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'.

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.

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.

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.