EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

I think it's all just a bit of theatre seeing as there's not anything to actually do for the time being. Someone will give in when faced with the choice between the non-ideal caretaker PM and no deal, actual food shortages and riots.

Might as well complain a bit on the off chance you can score some political points, although it does make everyone look a bit petty

Could you tell me where you're getting this viewpoint from? Because I've seen a lot of people repeat it, but it bears no relationship to reality that I can see.

Even if the Lib Dems all voted for Corbyn - which they've said they will do if he can demonstrate that he can get the numbers - that still wouldn't be enough to compensate for the 8 or so Tories who've openly stated they'd never vote for Corbyn and would prefer a no deal Brexit, and the 8 or so Labour / ex Labour / Indies who've said the same.

Lib Dems aren't saying they won't support him. They're saying if they DID support him it wouldn't make a difference because he can't get the numbers. And that seems to me to be a pragmatic measure of the numbers. The first rule of politics is, learn to count.

Also this idea that the leader of the opposition automatically gets to form a GNU is not substantive. Most GNUs in the last 100 years or so have been formed by a backbencher precisely to avoid any of these sorts of egotistical tussles about prominence.

Basically, you're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but you can't say 'Lib Dems are being unreasonable by saying Corbyn can't lead the GNU' without saying 'Corbyn is being equally unreasonable by insisting he does'. Both are conditions. Both make no deal more likely. Both have no place in a pragmatic solution.

But this idea that they won't back Labour is piffle. They suggested Harriet Harman, who is a Labour MP, for the leader of the GNU. That's precisely backing Labour.

Basically, you're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but you can't say 'Lib Dems are being unreasonable by saying Corbyn can't lead the GNU' without saying 'Corbyn is being equally unreasonable by insisting he does'. Both are conditions. Both make no deal more likely. Both have no place in a pragmatic solution.

Except one party is the official opposition, with a larger share of support from voters, and the norm choice when it comes to constitionally forming a new government.

In any case, Swinson softened her position almost immediately when it became clear it was a mistake. The ball is really in the rebel Tories hands at this point. But, as mentioned above, it doesn't matter yet anyway.

That's precisely backing Labour.

I think it's backing a version of Labour that does not exist!

i think its backing a version of labour that been rejected by the membership a couple of times for being too lib-dem...

Do you honestly believe Corbyn will get Tories onside?

don't they just need to abstain?

I didn't say anything near approaching that. But if I had an MP who was opposed to no deal and yet refused to do the very obvious and constitionally legitimate thing which could stop it because they disliked the person who would stop it, I'd be pretty pissed. Tory, libdem, or labor.

There's a path of least resistance here. It would be excellent if people would just follow it.

Sorry - didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I just think that's the crux of it - a lot of Tories think Corbyn in any form is suicide. I don't agree, but without winning a decent over from that position, a gov of national unity will fail.

The issue is that this is only the path of least resistance because Corbyn insists on it; it isn't a constitutional necessity that it be Corbyn, it just has to be whoever can obtain the support of the house. Labour's position that it can only be Corbyn makes this a partisan issue rather than one in the national interest.

Twice as many of them could and that would work, yes. But lots of them think that they would never be forgiven for letting Corbyn in.

The way to make this palatable to people from the conservative govt is to push for a unifying figure, not the leader of the opposition....

yes, as bleakrefs says:

Basically, you're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but you can't
say 'Lib Dems are being unreasonable by saying Corbyn can't lead the
GNU' without saying 'Corbyn is being equally unreasonable by insisting
he does'. Both are conditions.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just pointing out that there's a hypocrisy in being fine with Corbyn's red lines but not with Swinson's red lines (especially when, as you say, Swinson rowed them back!).

Because they're not approaching the situation from the same position. One is the leader of the opposition with (more of) a democratic and constitutional mandate to form a government.

Also, the idea that a government of national unity is simple is potentially misguided. Here are some reflections: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/national-unity-government/

For the record, I'm absolutely fine with the idea in this case. But the drive for it, rather than the obvious option of a short Corbyn government, seems to be complicating things unnecessarily for the sake of political point scoring, or general animosity towards the man.

Of course they're not. Swinson is being pragmatic, Corbyn is being ideological.

No she's not. And her caving on her original position makes that obvious.

One is the leader of the opposition with (more of) a democratic and constitutional mandate to form a government.

This is where I fundamentally disagree. Being leader of the opposition is exactly why I think Corbyn is less qualified to run a caretaker government - he doesn't want it to be a caretaker one only.

Constitutionally, all that matters is that the PM of GoNU commands the support of the house. If Corbyn can do that, fine, but evidence is he can't - in which case he has no constitutional mandate at all.

Her original position was that we need a GNU and she didn't care who ran it as long as they have the numbers. Corbyn doesn't. She's always been willing to meet Labour and she was calling for a GNU before Corbyn was, so let's not be revisionist.

he doesn't want it to be a caretaker one only.

Did you read what he proposed? Because I thought he was explicit on this point. But maybe I missed something

her original position was that she wouldn't support corbyn under any circumstances, the day she was elected.

A position she reiterated after Corbyn's letter (which she called nonsense).

I have no reason to think you're dishonest so I'll assume you're mistaken. She was talking about whether she'd go into coalition with Corbyn, which she's ruled out. GNU is a different beast.

His letter WAS nonsense. First rule of politics: learn to count.

One thing I will say for Corbyn is that his framing of Lib Dems as the problem to forming a GNU has been extraordinarily effective, despite it not being true. Perhaps he's finally getting the hang of this politics lark.

the question is, who cares so much about brexit that they'll compromise?