Interim Government
Discussion
I know we have loads of Brexit threads already so I'm not intending this to be another thread about Brexit itself.
What does seem to warrant a discussion in its own right is the idea which seems to be gathering steam at the moment to remove the PM and appoint (most likely) Corbyn as an interim PM to stop us leaving.
By some quick arithmetic we have Labour (247 MPs) SNP (35), Independents (34), Lib Dems (18) and Anna Soubry Party (5) that would give them a parliamentary majority of 339. Enough to carry out this plan and form a coalition to stop Brexit, even with a few "rebels."
It raises a few questions though.
Firstly the legality. As I understand it all precedent says that the Queen would choose a head of government from the biggest party and coalition negotiations would follow. Smaller parties would only get a go at this in the case of that party being unable to form a government. That may well be the case here but would it be acceptable to skip that stage and go straight to smaller parties forming a government? And since we are already two years into a parliament with a change of leader would a general election not come first? Is there any precedent for this?
Second, and perhaps more importantly would such an arrangement be accepted as legitimate by the public either immediately or at the next election?
The Tories, presumably still led by Boris (?) would have a powerful narrative of being ousted by a junta determined to overturn the referendum result at all costs, and it's hard to see a coalition involving Corbyn, Soubry and all the rest holding a united front to combat this.
As far as it's possible around this issue let's try and leave Brexit itself out of this and discuss whether or not this sort of move is legitimate and desirable in itself.
What does seem to warrant a discussion in its own right is the idea which seems to be gathering steam at the moment to remove the PM and appoint (most likely) Corbyn as an interim PM to stop us leaving.
By some quick arithmetic we have Labour (247 MPs) SNP (35), Independents (34), Lib Dems (18) and Anna Soubry Party (5) that would give them a parliamentary majority of 339. Enough to carry out this plan and form a coalition to stop Brexit, even with a few "rebels."
It raises a few questions though.
Firstly the legality. As I understand it all precedent says that the Queen would choose a head of government from the biggest party and coalition negotiations would follow. Smaller parties would only get a go at this in the case of that party being unable to form a government. That may well be the case here but would it be acceptable to skip that stage and go straight to smaller parties forming a government? And since we are already two years into a parliament with a change of leader would a general election not come first? Is there any precedent for this?
Second, and perhaps more importantly would such an arrangement be accepted as legitimate by the public either immediately or at the next election?
The Tories, presumably still led by Boris (?) would have a powerful narrative of being ousted by a junta determined to overturn the referendum result at all costs, and it's hard to see a coalition involving Corbyn, Soubry and all the rest holding a united front to combat this.
As far as it's possible around this issue let's try and leave Brexit itself out of this and discuss whether or not this sort of move is legitimate and desirable in itself.
As a short term measure, to submit a Brexit extension request, it seems fine and is the way parliament is supposed to operate. I.E. the elected government of the day doesn't have a majority on the key issue of the day so parliament forms a government that will enact its will.
That is the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, not silly games like with Bercow and Benn or dragging the SC into things.
Longer term it would seem illegitimate of course because voters in many seats will have voted for Tory candidates and ended up with Corbyn as PM.
That is the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, not silly games like with Bercow and Benn or dragging the SC into things.
Longer term it would seem illegitimate of course because voters in many seats will have voted for Tory candidates and ended up with Corbyn as PM.
Short term as a way to break the impasse, why not.
Boris & co keep saying parliament is not working/broken and needs fixing.
Fine - VONC, propose New govt.
Temporary Leader
Majority of Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, indy.
All they can (between them) agree on is
a) an extension to XX
b) another referendum - where they also propose the question
c) GE to deliver result
Seems entirely fair,
If the ref returns a remain majority will of the people. We do that with the next election determining who does it.
If teh ref returns a deal / no deal majority will of the people. We do that with the next election determining who does it.
Putting no deal on is risky as in reality no govt actually wants to do it, even the ones pretending, planning that they'll be stopped (and hence look good).
Boris & co keep saying parliament is not working/broken and needs fixing.
Fine - VONC, propose New govt.
Temporary Leader
Majority of Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, indy.
All they can (between them) agree on is
a) an extension to XX
b) another referendum - where they also propose the question
c) GE to deliver result
Seems entirely fair,
If the ref returns a remain majority will of the people. We do that with the next election determining who does it.
If teh ref returns a deal / no deal majority will of the people. We do that with the next election determining who does it.
Putting no deal on is risky as in reality no govt actually wants to do it, even the ones pretending, planning that they'll be stopped (and hence look good).
B'stard Child said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I'm not intending this to be another thread about Brexit itself.
Good luck with that.......It's a fascinating time to be watching politics
It seems pretty clear that Corbyn's interest is this ‘caretaker PM’ debacle is simply to get his name down as having been a PM, giving the unlikeliness of him doing it with true legitimacy.
Once again, a clear example of our politicians acting in their own interests at the expense of the Country.
JagLover said:
As a short term measure, to submit a Brexit extension request, it seems fine and is the way parliament is supposed to operate. I.E. the elected government of the day doesn't have a majority on the key issue of the day so parliament forms a government that will enact its will.
That is the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, not silly games like with Bercow and Benn or dragging the SC into things.
Longer term it would seem illegitimate of course because voters in many seats will have voted for Tory candidates and ended up with Corbyn as PM.
That is the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, not silly games like with Bercow and Benn or dragging the SC into things.
Longer term it would seem illegitimate of course because voters in many seats will have voted for Tory candidates and ended up with Corbyn as PM.
REALIST123 said:
B'stard Child said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I'm not intending this to be another thread about Brexit itself.
Good luck with that.......It's a fascinating time to be watching politics
It seems pretty clear that Corbyn's interest is this ‘caretaker PM’ debacle is simply to get his name down as having been a PM, giving the unlikeliness of him doing it with true legitimacy.
Once again, a clear example of our politicians acting in their own interests at the expense of the Country.
Two myths that the general public seriously need to be disabused of:
1) You vote for MPs, not parties.
2) Our PM is not a president.
So many of our problems with politics now are down to people not understanding how our democracy or legal system works.
I don't see Corbyn heading up a government that will stop an exit, he might get an extension and get some sort of deal done but remain isn't going to be his path?
If you said Clarke or Beckett, I could see it, especially as they now have no party and thus less likely to response to party/peer pressure.
If you said Clarke or Beckett, I could see it, especially as they now have no party and thus less likely to response to party/peer pressure.
Electro1980 said:
What this has shown me is that the majority have no idea how our government works.
Two myths that the general public seriously need to be disabused of:
1) You vote for MPs, not parties.
2) Our PM is not a president.
So many of our problems with politics now are down to people not understanding how our democracy or legal system works.
You do realise that civil servants, including those who aid in the drafting of legislation, work for the government and not parliament don't you. Parliament appoints a government in which it has confidence, and holds that government to account. In ordinary times it does not create its own legislation because it does not have the machinery to do so. Two myths that the general public seriously need to be disabused of:
1) You vote for MPs, not parties.
2) Our PM is not a president.
So many of our problems with politics now are down to people not understanding how our democracy or legal system works.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: If it wasn't legitimate it couldn't happen.
Desirable? Probably not but it's what the rules allow.
I suspect anyone who is interim PM will become toxic for many people so if it is Corbyn perhaps that's indirectly a good thing as it may encourage him to stand down.
But apparently Johnson remaining as the Conservative leader having been deposed or resigning is absolutely fine.Desirable? Probably not but it's what the rules allow.
I suspect anyone who is interim PM will become toxic for many people so if it is Corbyn perhaps that's indirectly a good thing as it may encourage him to stand down.
Maybe he doesn't mean surrender bill as an insult...
There should be a referendum on a May's deal or a no deal exit.
The issue of staying or leaving has already been settled by a referendum of the people.
This new referendum should legally bind Parliament into immediately bringing the outcome into effect.
Then we can release the hounds in a General Election and let our dear MPs fight that one out between them.
So far the only positive I can see from all of the last 3 years ststorm is the end of Bercow's time.
So not all bad then.
The issue of staying or leaving has already been settled by a referendum of the people.
This new referendum should legally bind Parliament into immediately bringing the outcome into effect.
Then we can release the hounds in a General Election and let our dear MPs fight that one out between them.
So far the only positive I can see from all of the last 3 years s
tstorm is the end of Bercow's time.So not all bad then.
JagLover said:
Electro1980 said:
What this has shown me is that the majority have no idea how our government works.
Two myths that the general public seriously need to be disabused of:
1) You vote for MPs, not parties.
2) Our PM is not a president.
So many of our problems with politics now are down to people not understanding how our democracy or legal system works.
You do realise that civil servants, including those who aid in the drafting of legislation, work for the government and not parliament don't you. Parliament appoints a government in which it has confidence, and holds that government to account. In ordinary times it does not create its own legislation because it does not have the machinery to do so. Two myths that the general public seriously need to be disabused of:
1) You vote for MPs, not parties.
2) Our PM is not a president.
So many of our problems with politics now are down to people not understanding how our democracy or legal system works.
However, my comment was in reference to your statement about people having voted Tory.
El stovey said:
I hope Clarke’s in charge, he’s be great.
He would, and I'd be happy for Beckett to get the job as well.I'm still hoping for Bercow to resign as speaker and lead a Government of National Unity though, as however unlikely it might be, the reaction here would be a thing of awe and wonder.
Best fireworks display, ever.
eharding said:
El stovey said:
I hope Clarke’s in charge, he’s be great.
He would, and I'd be happy for Beckett to get the job as well.I'm still hoping for Bercow to resign as speaker and lead a Government of National Unity though, as however unlikely it might be, the reaction here would be a thing of awe and wonder.
Best fireworks display, ever.
Especially if he started going on about fighting the establishment like those revolutionaries Boris and Gove are doing.
Unsurprisingly, it seems whether or not people support this depends on their Brexit stance.
So for those who do support it, what would you expect to happen at the next general election? Whether we have a long extension, a Remain/BRINO referendum or simply cancel Article 50 altogether the issue won't just go away, and nor will the Conservatives or the Brexit Party.
So for those who do support it, what would you expect to happen at the next general election? Whether we have a long extension, a Remain/BRINO referendum or simply cancel Article 50 altogether the issue won't just go away, and nor will the Conservatives or the Brexit Party.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff