EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

It's always nice how they libdems are willing to go to bat for Tories. She could have let them make it clear if it was nonsense. Instead, she weakened the prospect immediately.

I am totally dishonest!
I know she was talking about coalition but didn't she only explicitly rule out a coalition with corbyn, rather than with labour or anyone else? she's just playing the same games as everyone else!

The reactions from all the people you'd think would have a say in a GNU (aside from the SNP who've been great) has been terrible, Labour included. I would have thought you'd get the votes first then suggest a leader from them, rather than the other way round, but I'm not a politician. Equally I would have thought you'd be open to everything at first, then rule things out, rather than how the lib dems and labour are acting. Too soon this becomes the lib dems and labour fighting among themselves and brexit has happened!

Swinson is being pragmatic, Corbyn is being ideological.

Immediately rejecting the only option supported by constitutional convention wasn't pragmatic. The monarch is tightly bound by these conventions. The country has been kidnapped by ideologues who will happily destroy all of that. The route out of that hole isn't yet more of the same; short of a full-on revolution, it relies on the monarch being offered a conventionally-acceptable life raft.

We may already be in the place where there isn't enough support for those conventions - either in Parliament or the country at large - to be maintained, but that kind of revolution clearly wasn't Swinson's motivation.

You would think that a bunch of elected representatives could come up with some way of choosing a representative for themselves

Also a bit surprising that Corbyn even wants to be caretaker PM and take personal responsibility for stopping no deal, given that his Brexit strategy is basically the Jurassic Park T-Rex idea, "stay perfectly silent, make no movements at all or I'll be eaten alive by voters"

And also whoever gives in first is going to come off looking best, as a compromising pragmatist instead of a self-interested zealot.

Seems to me Corbyn doesn't have much to lose by allowing Ken Clarke or someone to do it IMO.

Your criticism comes down to: Swinson identified the problem with a Corbyn-led government before Corbyn did. That's not a criticism.

No, she ruled out a coalition with Tories too: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/jo-swinson-rejects-tory-coalition-idea-and-rules-out-scots-indyref2-support-1-4969501

And yes, I agree she's playing the same games, which is why I'm pushing back on this idea that Corbyn isn't. Anyone who puts barriers in the way of a GNU (whether it's Swinson saying no Corbyns or Corbyn saying ONLY Corbyns) are actively fucking with my ability to pay the mortgage and I've no time for any of them. I'm just saying give the opprobrium where it's due - both at Swinson and Corbyn's door, not just at Swinsons. And less at Swinsons since she's prepared to compromise on who leads; Corbyn isn't.

Immediately rejecting the only option supported by constitutional convention

Could you provide some evidence for this? There is no constitutional convention that says the leader of a GNU should be the leader of the opposition and plenty (particularly within the 20th century) to say that it usually isn't.

HOLD IT!
i think we agree. kinda. not exactly, but enough to get along.
if only we were MPs!

Ha yes! I don't really have a side in this stuff, I just want to be sure we're all being honest about what's actually happening, rather than what's being politicked as happening. I suppose that would be a terrible character trait in an MP!

Almost by definition I would expect a leader of a GNU not to be either the prime minister or the leader of the opposition.

And +1 on providing some evidence that there’s “constitutional convention”

There is no constitutional convention that says the leader of a GNU

There's no convention for that at all. There is for who gets to step up to the plate in the case of a vote of no confidence overturning the incumbents. Support for a GNU would bolster the case for that person being able to form a government, not the other way round.

There's no convention for that at all. There is for who gets to step up to the plate in the case of a vote of no confidence overturning the incumbents. Support for a GNU would bolster the case for that person being able to form a government, not the other way round.

Absolutely, the leader of the opposition gets first dibs, unless it's clear that he won't get the MPs, which he won't. What there certainly IS constitutional convention for is that majority rules, and he ain't got one. So if he were serious about stopping no deal, he wouldn't be faffing about putting his own name forward, he'd be supporting GNU by any means necessary.

I'm not sure I follow your second point.

That article seems way off-beam to me and very Brexiteerish. She's arguing against a GNU on the basis that it takes power away from the people and turns it into a "professional decision" for MPs. But from the moment that the referendum result came in as a more-or-less equal split, it's always been exactly that i.e., how do you actually enact this thing for which the public has (just about) expressed its support but for which there is no clear roadmap? Various factions have tried to pull the Brexit process towards their own political ends to get the type of brexit they want (and which they claim is thewillofthepeople(TM)). GNU is an attempt to prevent individual minority factions from hijacking the process precisely because it forces people to cooperate.

"Just like the denial of authority to the seventeen million or so citizens who voted Brexit, the denial of dignity to the half-million Labour members represented by Corbyn reveals the enduring inability of pro-Remain elites to comprehend, let alone relate to, opinions they oppose."

What utter balls. The majority of Labour voters voted to remain, so suggesting that "pro-Remain elites" don't understand the concerns of people who also voted remain is just nonsensical. More to the point, most remain voters (let alone voters in general) are not Corbynites so any coalition/GNU that actually wants to build unity (around a remain platform or otherwise), should be headed by someone who is less clearly divisive.

I'm not sure I follow your second point.

That visible support for his proposal would bolster his case.

unless it's clear that he won't get the MPs, which he won't.

Which Swinson started out by insisting without even testing it (and has since had to row back). Could have started with "I'm sceptical you can build that support; show me.".

FB ad update

quite a few localised pages/ads from 'Scientists for EU' . like 'Essex for EU' etc.

2 Attachments

Did a little reading up on the author of that piece who is apparently opposed to a GNU 'on deontological grounds' (for fucks actual sake).

I also found this bit of the piece quite interesting:

"A government of national unity identifies the whole nation with the part opposed to a no-deal Brexit. It not only ignores the will of the other part of the nation, inclined to leave the EU, and indeed leave by October 31st, but denies its claim to be part of the nation, even in name."

This is straight out of the Steve Bannon playbook - accuse your enemy of what you yourself are doing. It wasn't Remainers going round telling Brexiters that they were 'the people' and 48% are citizens of nowhere, metropolitan liberal elites, saboteurs, traitors, etc. That approach has failed. I don't think a GNU will work either, but it's better than continuing with the same old rhetoric and hoping that something will turn up before the 31st Oct.

yes, and you'd have to argue that any GNU that contains Labour would actually be representing a good number of both leave and remain voters.

I'm not sure I follow your second point.
That visible support for his proposal would bolster his case.

To the point where it would compensate for the 8 Labour and 8 Tory MPs who've said they'd never vote for Corbyn as lead of a GNU under any circumstances? I think that's beyond optimistic.

unless it's clear that he won't get the MPs, which he won't.
Which Swinson started out by insisting without even testing it (and has since had to row back). Could have started with "I'm sceptical you can build that support; show me.".

I'm not saying she's not made mistakes on this. She's been out manuevered politically by Corbyn. (Christ, imagine something that embarrassing being on your CV as a new party leader!) What I'm saying is that even if she had started out by saying that it wouldn't have changed the numbers. When you need to convince Labour MPs who've been deselected by Corbyn's changes, and you need to convince Tory MPs whose constituents are convinced that Corbyn is the antichrist, visible support is not your problem; Corbyn's divisiveness is. The proof of it is that since Swinson has provided visible support to Corbyn (https://www.libdemvoice.org/in-full-jo-swinsons-letter-to-jeremy-corbyn-61743.html) the numbers have not changed any. No Tories have changed their minds.

As I say I don't really have a side here. I'm just saying you can't slag Swinson for her partisanship without doing the same to Corbyn.

Agree completely.

A more inflammatory description is this one from twitter:

Swinson: “make somebody temporary PM. could be anybody who can do it. It shouldn’t be me or Corbyn.

Corbyn: “make me PM now it can be nobody else. Not any other labour mp even. Only me. If you don’t make me PM now you’re a Tory”

Doesn't even feel inflammatory to me, that just feels like quite an accurate summary of the situation. Appreciate not everyone feels that way of course.

"A government of national unity identifies the whole nation with the part opposed to a no-deal Brexit.

Em, really? So a conservative government identifies the whole nation as conservative supporters?

It not only ignores the will of the other part of the nation, inclined to leave the EU, and indeed leave by October 31st,

Well yes, if you don't exactly get your own way you are ignored (sound of eyerolling)

but denies its claim to be part of the nation, even in name."

Is that even proper English????

Also NI/Scotland/Wales now don't want to Brexit anymore, but "the nation" is shorthand for "England"?

Exactly. It's piffle. I'd expect more of someone of that obvious learning.

It's obviously completely safe to be pissing around with the 'backstop' since there are no signs whatsoever that there might be violence in Northern Ireland again without too much difficulty.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/19/police-escape-without-injury-after-bomb-explodes-in-fermanagh

I do hope it's (again) communicated clearly to the public that the 'backstop' is there because of Treeza May's ridiculous 'red lines' nonsense, which Bonzon seems not to question in the slightest, instead trying to mislead people about it.

I expect he'll get a bloody nose just like May did when he talks to Merkel et al.

I expect he'll get a bloody nose just like May did when he talks to Merkel et al.

Christ I hope so. Johnson desperately needs a smack in the mouth from reality.

Just made the mistake of reading some of the comments beneath an ad for a telegraph article on FB.

It's been a while since I did this, but having now reacquainted myself with this demographic, feel comfortable saying that half the country is FUCKING INSANE.

That is all.