| I cannot think of any technical reason 08:10 - Aug 16 with 6994 views | Guthrum |
why a UK government has to have a single individual as figurehead "Prime Minister". Especially a short-term government of national unity for a specific purpose.
There already exists a mechanism for the country to be governed by committee (the Cabinet, or, before that, the Council). It's pretty much how things were done before the 20-year Walpole-Whiggish domination of the Commons in the early 18th century. The chair of that committee could be held on a rotating basis by the heads of each party or faction parrticipating in the National Government, to keep everyone happy. Policy direction can be by democratic consensus (i.e. votes in Cabinet).
Solves the problem of the Corbyn-Swinson standoff, also allowing Conservative factions to take part without having to serve under a Labour leader. |  |
| |  |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:02 - Aug 16 with 2987 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:28 - Aug 16 by sparks |
The massive elephant in the room is that it remains the case that none of the factions have any clear proposal on dealing with the backstop. Boris claimed he would try to negotiate a new deal0- btu has never explained what that deal would look like or what he would be negotiating for.
The backstop still prevents everything. And the NI issue causes massive problems for no deal as well.
To an extent, I can well udnerstand why this encourages leavers- it epitomises the manner in which we are so thoroughly tied into the whole EU project- and makes a mockery of the claims people have been making for years that we have not, effectively, handed over chiunks of sovereignty and the ability to self determine. |
The elephant is a bit bigger than that. The Irish border has to remain open to free movemnt of goods and people under the terms of the good friday agreement. In other words Brexit, as presented to racists and bigots as 'taking control of our borders and ending free movement (of immigrants) is and always was utterly impossible. The only solution is to end Brexit, which may have taken a few years, but is now nearly over. |  |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:06 - Aug 16 with 2972 views | Clapham_Junction |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:51 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
I think Corbyn is putting the cart before the horse and should be more swayed by stopping no deal than getting power. And, I'm not sure that his sceptical, Bennite view on the EU helps him be as strong on that point of principle as he should be.
But interesting that this is now seen as a bad thing by all those people who say the most important thing in politics is not to act on principles but to actually get power in the first place ... and why does it matter so much to people like Swinson et al if it's Labour at the helm so long as it's the principle that's at stake here?
Partisan bubblicious politics at its best/worst. |
Seems to be a Lib Dem thing to try and avoid working with the Labour leader.
 |  | | |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:09 - Aug 16 with 2968 views | GeoffSentence |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 11:19 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
It's ultimately a pointless exercise to leave though.
Within the next 10 years it will be on the manifesto of a party to rejoin and they will win the election and we will rejoin.
Unfortunately we won't have a rebate and we won't be able to keep the pound.
So all this arguing will have been totally pointless and resulted in the UK being in a far worse position than it was previously.
"The majority of those who voted to leave knew what they were doing"
I don't think that can possibly be true. In order to fully know what you were doing you've have to understand the fundamental economics involved and that's not something the majority of people on either side understand and not something that was adequately explained during the campaign.
SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 11:25]
|
Given that re-entry would be without a rebate and would mean joining the euro and probably schengen too, I couldn't see us rejoining in the near future. |  |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:09 - Aug 16 with 2967 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:06 - Aug 16 by Clapham_Junction |
Seems to be a Lib Dem thing to try and avoid working with the Labour leader.
|
They've got a bloody cheek too given how eager they were to "work with" the Conservatives as well. We're still paying the price for their principles largely going out the window over a 5-year period. |  |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:10 - Aug 16 with 2964 views | sparks |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:02 - Aug 16 by ElephantintheRoom |
The elephant is a bit bigger than that. The Irish border has to remain open to free movemnt of goods and people under the terms of the good friday agreement. In other words Brexit, as presented to racists and bigots as 'taking control of our borders and ending free movement (of immigrants) is and always was utterly impossible. The only solution is to end Brexit, which may have taken a few years, but is now nearly over. |
I have been saying this all along.
No deal means a border in NI- and breach of good friday with all that entails. No one has proposed any viable response to the problem. Boris talked of rengotiating, but was utterly silent on what that meant or what new proposal he had... He doesnt have one. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:16 - Aug 16 with 2952 views | StokieBlue |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:09 - Aug 16 by GeoffSentence |
Given that re-entry would be without a rebate and would mean joining the euro and probably schengen too, I couldn't see us rejoining in the near future. |
Not sure I agree, I don't think those things are the most important things to many young people and in a decade the demographics will have shifted dramatically.
Many of them might not even remember the time when we had a rebate and might think a single currency is the norm given the EUR will have been around for 30 years.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:57 - Aug 16 with 2932 views | tabletopjoe |
The prime minister stopped being in charge a long time ago, since Blair served under the Campbell administration. |  |
| 'Let the ignorant argue with themselves' -- CL |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:27 - Aug 16 with 2914 views | giant_stow |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:51 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
I think Corbyn is putting the cart before the horse and should be more swayed by stopping no deal than getting power. And, I'm not sure that his sceptical, Bennite view on the EU helps him be as strong on that point of principle as he should be.
But interesting that this is now seen as a bad thing by all those people who say the most important thing in politics is not to act on principles but to actually get power in the first place ... and why does it matter so much to people like Swinson et al if it's Labour at the helm so long as it's the principle that's at stake here?
Partisan bubblicious politics at its best/worst. |
"...and why does it matter so much to people like Swinson et al if it's Labour at the helm so long as it's the principle that's at stake here?
Partisan bubblicious politics at its best/worst."
But to me, what the libs want makes total sense - how could it be a bipartisan national govt of unity with a leader from one of the main two parties? To be truly bipartisan, it needs to be led by none of the party leaders and someone who comes closet to being neutral - hence Ken Clarke or Margaret Beckett being good ideas. Especially as neither has any future career to worry about.
What's the problem with this thinking? It's not like the libs are putting Jo Swinson forward to do the job is it? (Are they?!) |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:35 - Aug 16 with 2896 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:27 - Aug 16 by giant_stow |
"...and why does it matter so much to people like Swinson et al if it's Labour at the helm so long as it's the principle that's at stake here?
Partisan bubblicious politics at its best/worst."
But to me, what the libs want makes total sense - how could it be a bipartisan national govt of unity with a leader from one of the main two parties? To be truly bipartisan, it needs to be led by none of the party leaders and someone who comes closet to being neutral - hence Ken Clarke or Margaret Beckett being good ideas. Especially as neither has any future career to worry about.
What's the problem with this thinking? It's not like the libs are putting Jo Swinson forward to do the job is it? (Are they?!) |
Ditto what's the problem in Corbyn leading it, if there's an argument that the interim leader needs the biggest mandate rather than almost no mandate at all?
Of course, it's all silly and marginal when put against the primary need to stop no deal and even long term get the current, unadulterated shower of sh!te out of government.
But it seems that the game of politics and putting your party before the country is too ingrained across the board. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:44 - Aug 16 with 2881 views | giant_stow |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:35 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
Ditto what's the problem in Corbyn leading it, if there's an argument that the interim leader needs the biggest mandate rather than almost no mandate at all?
Of course, it's all silly and marginal when put against the primary need to stop no deal and even long term get the current, unadulterated shower of sh!te out of government.
But it seems that the game of politics and putting your party before the country is too ingrained across the board. |
The problem with Corbyn leading it is he's at one end of the political spectrum and by being a leader of labour, partisan by nature.
If the idea is to drop old party allegiances for sake of the national interest, drop them! Think freshly and with new integrity without being clouded by political considerations. Aiming to have Corbyn as boss frankly fcks all that up even if it is just for short while.
Edit: Also just to say, your last line contradicts the rest of your post quite badly, to me. [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 14:45]
| |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:48 - Aug 16 with 2871 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:44 - Aug 16 by giant_stow |
The problem with Corbyn leading it is he's at one end of the political spectrum and by being a leader of labour, partisan by nature.
If the idea is to drop old party allegiances for sake of the national interest, drop them! Think freshly and with new integrity without being clouded by political considerations. Aiming to have Corbyn as boss frankly fcks all that up even if it is just for short while.
Edit: Also just to say, your last line contradicts the rest of your post quite badly, to me. [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 14:45]
|
Doesn't actually mess up anything if you understand this is an interim government until an election.
There's no real reason for Corbyn to be leader but there's also no real reason he shouldn't.
But let's make it a big issue. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:51 - Aug 16 with 2859 views | giant_stow |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:48 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
Doesn't actually mess up anything if you understand this is an interim government until an election.
There's no real reason for Corbyn to be leader but there's also no real reason he shouldn't.
But let's make it a big issue. |
Its a massive step for individual conservatives to take regardless of it being for the interim - if you can't make it just that little bit easier for them it won't happen. That would be a shame and failure and caused by the old style political thinking you're arguing against. makes no sense. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:57 - Aug 16 with 2843 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:51 - Aug 16 by giant_stow |
Its a massive step for individual conservatives to take regardless of it being for the interim - if you can't make it just that little bit easier for them it won't happen. That would be a shame and failure and caused by the old style political thinking you're arguing against. makes no sense. |
So attack them about giving a crap about an interim government's leader.
It's an interim government FFS. Just get on with it and let the public sort out the real stuff in a GE.
Anyway, I think Sturgeon is the best candidate as a Westminster outsider and with experience of leading a government. I'd rather not see a pale Westminster centrist get the chance to start electioneering for their next pointless government. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:58 - Aug 16 with 2841 views | Kievthegreat |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 13:06 - Aug 16 by Clapham_Junction |
Seems to be a Lib Dem thing to try and avoid working with the Labour leader.
|
Grab the headline and ignore the actual story and distort the truth.
"Nick Clegg hurriedly revised the Liberal Democrat post-election negotiating position today by insisting that he had not ruled out a possible deal with Labour in a hung parliament. However, he said that if Labour came third in share of the vote — with polls suggesting that is a distinct possibility — he did not believe that Gordon Brown could remain as prime minister."
Seems pretty fair to me that if Gordon Brown came 3rd in the popular vote he shouldn't stay on as PM. Of course it seems the usual suspects on here can't (or don't want) to read and will share blindly. |  | | |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:59 - Aug 16 with 2833 views | StokieBlue |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:48 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
Doesn't actually mess up anything if you understand this is an interim government until an election.
There's no real reason for Corbyn to be leader but there's also no real reason he shouldn't.
But let's make it a big issue. |
What would happen if there is a crisis during that period? What if something happens with Iran? What if a company has an issue? What if there is a national emergency?
In those cases the decisions will be made by the sitting PM - that would be JC - they wouldn't require parliamentary approval in many cases.
Will he be allowed to make policy in that interim period?
I honestly don't know the answers to the above. Just because it's an interim government that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be a fully functioning government and perhaps the Lib Dems and rebel Tories aren't keen on that?
Obviously the same arguments can be made for Boris but the Tories did actually win enough seats to form a government with a little help so they aren't quite as valid.
SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 15:02]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:06 - Aug 16 with 2806 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:59 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
What would happen if there is a crisis during that period? What if something happens with Iran? What if a company has an issue? What if there is a national emergency?
In those cases the decisions will be made by the sitting PM - that would be JC - they wouldn't require parliamentary approval in many cases.
Will he be allowed to make policy in that interim period?
I honestly don't know the answers to the above. Just because it's an interim government that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be a fully functioning government and perhaps the Lib Dems and rebel Tories aren't keen on that?
Obviously the same arguments can be made for Boris but the Tories did actually win enough seats to form a government with a little help so they aren't quite as valid.
SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 15:02]
|
Well, then the argument would be to have the leader with the largest mandate, surely? If real decisions need to be made you don't want to have someone who represents a smaller group and has fewer MPs to get through any parliamentary process.
However you cut it, someone is going to be miffed unless everyone puts their party interests to the side. But sadly typical that it's Corbyn who is portrayed as the problem here and everyone else is committed to the country's best interests (when they are palpably doing exactly the same thing by wanting "their" leader.
And just to repeat, if I were Corbyn, I wouldn't care in the context of the bigger picture. But that's the same for the LibDems and the Tories too. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:09 - Aug 16 with 2802 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:58 - Aug 16 by Kievthegreat |
Grab the headline and ignore the actual story and distort the truth.
"Nick Clegg hurriedly revised the Liberal Democrat post-election negotiating position today by insisting that he had not ruled out a possible deal with Labour in a hung parliament. However, he said that if Labour came third in share of the vote — with polls suggesting that is a distinct possibility — he did not believe that Gordon Brown could remain as prime minister."
Seems pretty fair to me that if Gordon Brown came 3rd in the popular vote he shouldn't stay on as PM. Of course it seems the usual suspects on here can't (or don't want) to read and will share blindly. |
That's silly though. Why does the leader of a smaller opposition party dictate the terms of partnership and on the basis of personality politics too?
He's playing a political game even when talking about achieving consensus and partnership. Just like now. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:13 - Aug 16 with 2789 views | StokieBlue |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:06 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
Well, then the argument would be to have the leader with the largest mandate, surely? If real decisions need to be made you don't want to have someone who represents a smaller group and has fewer MPs to get through any parliamentary process.
However you cut it, someone is going to be miffed unless everyone puts their party interests to the side. But sadly typical that it's Corbyn who is portrayed as the problem here and everyone else is committed to the country's best interests (when they are palpably doing exactly the same thing by wanting "their" leader.
And just to repeat, if I were Corbyn, I wouldn't care in the context of the bigger picture. But that's the same for the LibDems and the Tories too. |
But JC doesn't have a mandate otherwise he would already be PM. Whatever happens you are removing the largest single mandate which is the Tories with a collection of lesser mandates. Given that I don't think it's a great argument.
Why can't Labour put party interests aside? You seem to want everyone else to put them aside. Why are Labour so insistent they control the actual power (PM) if the only objective is to stop no-deal, as you've rightly said it shouldn't matter who it is if that is the only reason.
It does make people question their motives.
The Lib Dems haven't asked for "their leader", both their suggestions were from the two main parties who favoured remain.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:16 - Aug 16 with 2786 views | Kievthegreat |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:09 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
That's silly though. Why does the leader of a smaller opposition party dictate the terms of partnership and on the basis of personality politics too?
He's playing a political game even when talking about achieving consensus and partnership. Just like now. |
If it's a partnership then both sides dictate terms, compromise and find agreement. The Lib Dems learnt the hard way how being too accommodating works out. They should of course dictate terms at the start.
As it stands both sides are dictating terms that run contrary but both have offered to meet, but both are pushing their preferred option. For what it's worth, I'm a Lib Dem and I didn't like her initial statement, but I actually agree with the reasons she lays out. I do not think Corbyn can get a majority. However the diplomatic way she responded has distracted from Corbyn's unsuitablilty to get a majority. | | | |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:22 - Aug 16 with 2775 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:13 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
But JC doesn't have a mandate otherwise he would already be PM. Whatever happens you are removing the largest single mandate which is the Tories with a collection of lesser mandates. Given that I don't think it's a great argument.
Why can't Labour put party interests aside? You seem to want everyone else to put them aside. Why are Labour so insistent they control the actual power (PM) if the only objective is to stop no-deal, as you've rightly said it shouldn't matter who it is if that is the only reason.
It does make people question their motives.
The Lib Dems haven't asked for "their leader", both their suggestions were from the two main parties who favoured remain.
SB |
I don't want "everyone else to put their party interests aside". I want everyone to put their party interests inside. That includes the LibDems who seem to be promoting the idea that only a centrist can lead an interim government.
Actually anyone can. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:25 - Aug 16 with 2763 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:16 - Aug 16 by Kievthegreat |
If it's a partnership then both sides dictate terms, compromise and find agreement. The Lib Dems learnt the hard way how being too accommodating works out. They should of course dictate terms at the start.
As it stands both sides are dictating terms that run contrary but both have offered to meet, but both are pushing their preferred option. For what it's worth, I'm a Lib Dem and I didn't like her initial statement, but I actually agree with the reasons she lays out. I do not think Corbyn can get a majority. However the diplomatic way she responded has distracted from Corbyn's unsuitablilty to get a majority. |
I still don't see what that's got to do with making an arbitrary decision on who should or shouldn't be leader. Or otherwise the agreement is off. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:26 - Aug 16 with 2761 views | J2BLUE |
Can't they just force an election rather than try and put this backdoor government together? I think it's a bad idea and I can't stand Swinson. |  |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:27 - Aug 16 with 2756 views | giant_stow |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:22 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
I don't want "everyone else to put their party interests aside". I want everyone to put their party interests inside. That includes the LibDems who seem to be promoting the idea that only a centrist can lead an interim government.
Actually anyone can. |
Well no, they can't unless enough people decide to join. Thats the bleeding point! | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:29 - Aug 16 with 2750 views | Darth_Koont |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:27 - Aug 16 by giant_stow |
Well no, they can't unless enough people decide to join. Thats the bleeding point! |
Who are these people who won't support an interim government to block a no-deal Brexit depending on who is leader?
They sound like massive tw@ts. | |
| |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 15:31 - Aug 16 with 2745 views | Clapham_Junction |
| I cannot think of any technical reason on 14:58 - Aug 16 by Kievthegreat |
Grab the headline and ignore the actual story and distort the truth.
"Nick Clegg hurriedly revised the Liberal Democrat post-election negotiating position today by insisting that he had not ruled out a possible deal with Labour in a hung parliament. However, he said that if Labour came third in share of the vote — with polls suggesting that is a distinct possibility — he did not believe that Gordon Brown could remain as prime minister."
Seems pretty fair to me that if Gordon Brown came 3rd in the popular vote he shouldn't stay on as PM. Of course it seems the usual suspects on here can't (or don't want) to read and will share blindly. |
Perhaps I used the wrong headline, but it still happened:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/12/mandelson-clegg-brown-coalition | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
