Corbyn as caretaker

It does all depend on a no-confidence vote being successful though Grandad. I feel no confidence myself in that being the case.

From what is being stated in some sections of the press it would seem that pressure is being placed on Jeremy Corbyn not to place a motion of no confidence in this government before Parliment when it reassembles from its summer break in September.

The alternative being put forward would be to place a motion on the order paper that if carried would allow Backbench MPs to take control of the government agenda throughout Parliament and in that prevent a no-deal Brexit.

Similar to the above was attempted prior to Parliament adjourning for its summer recess in July, and the motion placed before the house by Ivett Cooper and Dominic Grieve did not gain a majority. It is very possible that such a motion would fail again I believe, and should that be the case only three weeks of Parliamentary time would then be available to stop a no-deal Brexit when Parliament Returns again following the Party Conference recess in September.

Therefore, when Parliament resembles in October only a successful motion of no Confidence quickly followed by the setting up of a temporary government would have any chance of stopping Britain "crashing out" of the European Union on October 31st.

It has to be remembered that even when a no-confidence vote is carried against the government, Boris Johnson would have two full weeks to attempt to set up an administration acceptable to Parliament before he has to resign.

Therefore, It may well be almost the last week of October before Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the opposition in Parliament is called to the palace and a request made by the monarch for him to try and form a minority government. In that eventuality, it would be a case of whatever administration Corbyn very rapidly put together having to be accepted by the House of Commons as a temporary government for there to be any chance of a no-deal Brexit being avoided

No "ifs" no "buts" would be the case I feel

POGS : 'It is kicking the can down the road.'

No it is not. This young chap says it well- just a bit older than my grandson. Agree 100%

Only Corbyn can call a vote of no confidence, can't he? If there is and 'no confidence' wins, what happens then? I am assuming whoever takes over is expected to ask for a further extension so we don't fall into an ND.

So, I am wondering what we expect then. An election? A long extension? Revoking Article 50? If so on what basis? It could be to stop the whole thing or to regroup and put a proper choice back to the people at a set date.

The EU would want to know before we got an extension. The Queen would need to know before she could appoint someone to form a government.

How can this happen when they fight like cats in a sack and there is so little time.

I think they have to show Buck House how they can form a government. I wonder if it would be better if there was a Quartet of people standing just to get an extension on the time

I'm not thinking about what I or anyone else might want but what is possible.

I joined the lp before Corbyn and seen his dis loyal antics over the years. He is not a Democrat, never has been and that's the first prerequisite for me of any PM, temporary or not. Certainly I would prefer someone from the the LP with real integrity, however being pragmatic I think Ken Clarke would stand the best chance of gaining parliamentary support.

Varian

"so it would be much better to find another candidate to become a temporary PM such as Harriet Harman or Ken Clarke"
-

The parties involved don't even agree as to what the outcome should be! Whether the ' unelected' Leader of the National Unity Government is Corbyn, Swinson, Clark or Harman it matters not a jot.

The Lib Dems and Greens want a 2nd Referendum but will not accept the result if the vote is to leave again. Very Liberal hence they are now the ' Oxymoron Party'.

The Lib Dems want to Revoke Article 50, others do not.

The Lib Dems /Greens want to Remain, Labour wants to renegotiate a deal.

The only agreement between them is to stop ' NO DEAL ' alongside hypocrisy and lacking in principle by accepting / enacting everything they have vociferously challenged others for doing.

It is kicking the can down the road.

You need to persuade a number of Conservatives to support Corbyn and several of those most likely to rebel have made it clear that they will not do that.

GG13

GGMK3 I appreciate we are not of the same political alliance, but I also appreciate that you , like me want a solution to this "insolvable problem" .

"Sorry, not very helpful GGMK3 I have not interrogated you, just asked how you see the way forward."

Varian, I have explained but your reasons for not being able to see what I am saying is simply because you don't want to. I cannot change how you chose to behave. I can choose not to be involved in a conversation with you, however.

varian, it has been already pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn is the only person in the House of Commons who as leader of Her Majesty's opposition can place a motion of no confidence before Parliament.

Should that be carried by the House of Commons, it will be Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the opposition that the Monarch will call to the palace and requested to try and form a government.

It will then be for Parliament to accept or reject any temporary government that Corbyn puts forward. It may well be by that point in time Britain will have only a few days to prevent this nation from "crashing out" of the EU.

Therefore any further delay while arguments continue in regard to who should lead a temporary government would very much play into the hands of the parliamentary minority who wish to see the catastrophe of no-deal Brexit.

So would it be better to accept or reject any temporary government Corbyn puts forward?

WadesNan Quote [If JC puts forward a motion of no confidence and loses - I wonder if he would be prepared to stand aside and let someone else take over as leader of the Labour Party] End Quote.

If Corbyn puts forward a motion of no confidence and it fails to command a majority, Corbyn will not resign as leader of the Labour Party. The failure of such a motion would be caused by MPs by on all sides of the House voting against that motion, so why should that bring about the resignation of Corbyn.

For those who wish to witness the demise of Jeremy Corbyn I have no doubt that should any leadership challenge come about Corbyn would stand again in any election brought forward and in that again command an overwhelming majority in such a ballot of Labour Party and affiliate members.

Jeremy Corbyn has stated he will stand down prior to the next scheduled Geneal election, but obviously, that will not happen while the present Tory created Brexit crisis is ongoing.

Jo Swinson merely pointed out that it was obvious that Jeremy Corbyn could never command a majority in the HOC, with or without the support of the LibDems so it would be much better to find another candidate to become a temporary PM such as Harriet Harman or Ken Clarke.

If JC puts forward a motion of no confidence and loses - I wonder if he would be prepared to stand aside and let someone else take over as leader of the Labour Party

I have one word .....,,,,,compromise!!!

If the majority of the MPs in the House of Commons wish to avoid a no-deal brexit (and I believe is the case) then they have to pull together. However, in the last two days it would seem that the rivalries and divisions that have "dogged" the above position and prevented success have again resurfaced.

In the Labour Party, we have the usual MPs that have never accepted the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader are once again putting that grievance before the desperate position of the country. Kate Hoey states she no longer accepts the Labour whip and claims she now sits as the Brexit parties first MP.

Margret Hodge has, as far as I am aware, stated nothing, but in that her silence is deafening. There are others who are quite high profile in the party, but I feel the above demonstrates what is happening.

In the Conservative Party, we have a number it would seem who wish to avoid a no-deal Brexit but are stating they will not support a vote of no confidence that then may place Jeremy Corby as leader of a temporary government. So, once again it is Party before country with those MPs.

With the Liberal Democrats as far as I am aware we have Jo Swinson still refusing to support Jeremy Corbyn as prospective leader on a temporary government and in that we have Corbyn supporting MPs stating they would support no other person but Corbyn for such a position.

With the vote of no confidence and temporary government route now seemingly blocked, one Other route to avoid a no-deal brexit is being put forward. That would be for MPs across the House of Commons to take control of the Order Paper and in that the government agenda in the house and force through a motion that would prevent the government allowing Britain to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement acceptable to Parliament.

Those promoting the above solution seem to forget that exactly the same tactic and legislation was placed before the House of Commons prior to the summer recess and it failed to gain a majority.

Therefore, we again have a majority in Parliament who wish to prevent the United Kingdom "crashing out" of the EU at the end of October, but within that majority no agreement whatsoever as to how that is to be achieved.

The ERG group and Nigel Farage must be slurping back their champagne with great glee, unable to believe their luck.

Sorry, not very helpful GGMK3 I have not interrogated you, just asked how you see the way forward.

I agree with you that it is about politics and certainly not about democracy. It always has been. Since politics, specifically Tory Party politics, has caused this mess, we need to find a political solution.

I think I have made it clear enough. I was trying to help Varian, not putting myself up for interrogation.

So, if you still want us to remain in the EU, how do you think that can best be achieved?

You may call me defeatist Varian. What shall I call you? I have not changed my opinion since the day I voted. The media hasn't affected me nor have ill-mannered posters on forums. We are, believe it or not, both allowed to see this as we see it.

I don't know where you're getting your percentages from GGMK3

Opinion polls over the last two years have consistently shown a majority in favour of REMAINING in the EU.

It is absurd to suggest that all those who want to remain "want things to remain exactly as things have been up to now". Most of us recognise that the EU is not perfect, but it has given us great benefits. It will change over time and as members we will be able to influence that change for the better. Far from being an extreme position, this is mainstream.

It is a sad reflection on the power of the media to influence attitudes that even some folk who voted remain now just seem to accept that leaving is inevitable. It is wrong to be so defeatist. If you voted Remain because you believed that was best for our country, and still believe that, why should you ever accept that we must inflict harm on our country by leaving?

whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/?removed

Very succinctly put GracesGranMK3.

I understand that is how you see it Varian, but it is not, as you must be aware, how others see it. By insisting on winning each battle you may well end up losing the war.

Whatever we think of the referendum we know we do not all share the same view of the EU. We come out roughly 50/50 whenever a poll is taken.

However, this is not 50% who insist on one extreme (as in furthest from the middle) - no change from the status quo or 50% who insist on the other extreme (as in furthest from the middle) - leaving with no deal. It is closer to about 33% who want to remain exactly as things have been up to now and that 33% want to "just leave" with a no-deal. That leaves 33% who are split between those who are happy to stay if we leave the political EU or leave if we stay in the economic EU.

The winner will probably be the extreme that can attract the largest number of the middle group. The loser will probably be the extreme that cannot even discuss a compromise.

This is not about democracy now. It is about politics and I rather think it always was.

The referendum was ill-conceived, fraudulent and won by lies and foreign interference. Just because the leave side cheated their way to a narrow win, that does not make it right to condemn us all and future generations to accept the dire consequenses.

I would support any leagal measure to stop the madness, including Corbyn becoming a temporary PM.

If the leave campaign had lost the vote, would you accept leavers nevertheless demanding that the vote be ignored and we leave anyway?