-
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.".
itsbruce-
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.
ReekBlefs
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.