Posted: Aug 15, 2019 6:49 pm
Beatsong wrote:
It isn't a legally or politically meaningful distinction, at the point it's happening, whether you call it a Labour government or a National Unity government. If the majority party fails to command the confidence of the house, the next largest party to attempt to do so (ie, the opposition) will always, by definition, be a minority party, so they will always need the support of MPs from outside of their own party. I'm certainly no legal expert but when those who are describe this stuff, they don't seem to focus on which way the new government gets labelled. It always seems to come down to one thing: simply, whether anyone can "command the confidence of the house".
Right, but I think there's a distinction there between government and party. It's the government which has lost the confidence vote, not the party. The government could, in theory, be brought down by their own party, and a new leader could be selected who does command sufficient confidence from the remaining MP's of their own party. Not the case here, obviously with the slim majority and tenuous DUP support, but in principle I don't think it's solely the right of the opposition to form a new government after a no confidence succeeds.
While Labour's support for the no confidence will obviously be integral, Labour alone wouldn't be enough - there'd need to be a goodly number of Conservatives for it to pass.
My sense of it is that the most likely minister to garner enough support from both parties would be a moderate Conservative who promises a delay and 2nd referendum. For clarity, that's not me saying what I want to happen, but rather what I think has the best chance of succeeding.
Beatsong wrote:If there's a vote of no confidence in Johnson, then Corbyn (as leader of the opposition, in accordance with the accepted process) has 14 days to attempt to build a majority.
I am fairly confident that it's not exclusive to the opposition, and that it really just comes down to who can get that majority regardless of party. In this case, the assumption would be that members of parliament from all parties would agree on someone they find mutually satisfactory. For good reasons and/or bad reasons, I don't think that would or could be Corbyn.
Beatsong wrote:MPs will then be asked to vote "yes" or "no" on whether they have confidence in him as Prime Minister. That's all.
If the Lib Dems (along with enough others) vote "yes" then this whole sorry shitshow could potentially be stopped.
For me personally, I would definitely prefer to see this, and I have no antipathy towards Corbyn or his policies. I'm pretty far away from UK politics by and large and miss many of the daily ins and outs, but I still can't help but get a sense of how the press has characterised him over the last few years, and it's not something I buy into.
But I don't think it can happen. I think if the most vital objective is to have a further extension to the process and a 2nd referendum, then Corbyn insisting that he would have to be the PM of the unity government could well scupper it and let the no deal exit go ahead. I think he has a vital decision to make in that regard, and it will underscore what's more important to him.
Beatsong wrote:But of course it's Corbyn's fault (and will continue to be Corbyn's fault) that we're brexiting, cos he don't love the EU enough.
While it's obviously not his fault, or the Labour party's fault for the initiation and progression of Brexit, I think Labour's been an ineffective opposition at a time when the country desperately needs a strong opposition, and really has failed to exploit the embarrassing disarray of the Conservatives over the last couple of years. In that regard, I do think that if we end up leaving on 31 October with no deal that some of the blame must be apportioned to him and the Labour party. I think even a dispassionate, non-tribal history would record that.