Sed contra...
My thoughts on the latest twist in the Brexit saga (specifically, Corbyn's plan to table a vote of no confidence to stop No Deal, organise a general election, and campaign for a second referendum). Management summary: keep calm and support the plan.
First, let’s deal with the accusations that Corbyn is “refusing to compromise” and/or “playing political games”:
1. Corbyn’s offer already represents a huge compromise. It’s a significant climb-down from Labour’s ambition to negotiate a soft Brexit. It risks losing Leave voters in Labour seats, and it alienates some of Corbyn’s key allies in the union movement and elsewhere on the left.
2. A general election is coming so political games are inevitable to some extent. For example, the vast majority of Lib-Dem target seats are currently held by the Conservatives (there are only two LD/Lab marginal and I live in one of them) so it makes sense for Jo Swinson to “punch left” and burnish her anti-Corbyn credentials. Also, it would undermine Corbyn’s legitimacy and damage Labour’s electoral prospects if Corbyn were prevented from assuming his natural position as head of a caretaker government, following a successful VoNC. Conversely, leading a caretaker government would immediately make Corbyn appear more "prime ministerial", the one thing his opponents insist he isn't, and would improve Labour's prospects in a general election. In theory it shouldn't matter who leads a caretaker government, but the political reality is different. All party leaders know this and are positioning themselves accordingly. To that extent, all of them are "playing political games", not just Corbyn, as the dominant narrative invites us to believe.
The reality is that – unwritten constitution notwithstanding – there is a natural expectation that the leader of the opposition should have the opportunity to form a government following a successful VoNC. Labour is the single largest opposition party by far, and Corbyn commands the single largest bloc of anti-No Deal, pro second referendum votes by far. Therefore, on any reasonable test, he should lead a caretaker government, the sole aim of which is to prevent no deal and organise a GE/second referendum.
None of the additional objections raised by Swinson, and others, stack up:
1. Corbyn can't control his own MPs.
Firstly this is an exaggeration. In a VoNC, the number of Labour rebels would be in low single figures (Hoey, Stringer, and other lost causes). Secondly it's irrelevant because, even if it were true, it would apply equally to any attempt to form a "government of national unity" led by (e.g.) Kenneth Clarke.
2. Corbyn can't get enough support from rebel Tories and smaller parties.
This is vacuous or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there are enough MPs opposed to No Deal, and if preventing it is the absolute priority they claim it is, then there is no *principled* objection to a time-limited caretaker government, led by Corbyn, with the sole aim of stopping No Deal and organising a GE/second referendum. Rather than immediately ruling this out, Swinson should commit to backing Corbyn’s plan to put extra pressure on soft Tories, and/or strive to persuade them that it’s the right thing to do. Similarly, People’s Vote activists should be organising petitions and letter writing campaigns aimed at potential Tory rebels such as Dominic Grieve. Where there's a will, there's a way.
3. Corbyn is "a divisive figure".
That might be true. But again it's irrelevant since, on the "single biggest political issue of the day" Corbyn is now offering exactly what pro-Remain MPs have always wanted, and nothing more. If the issue really is that important, there is no excuse not to take up the offer.
4. Corbyn can't be trusted.
Irrelevant. If Corbyn tries any funny business his caretaker government will immediately fall to a VoNC.
5. Corbyn secretly wants Brexit.
So call his bluff and accept his offer. Also: see 4, above.
6. We want a referendum before a GE.
There's some room for debate here but I see at least four arguments against this:
a. It's more complicated, and takes longer = more chance that things will go wrong.
b. It lacks the clear political legitimacy of immediately calling a GE (in line with convention, following a VoNC).
c. It sets Boris Johnson up nicely for a "People vs Parliament" election, which he might easily win.
d. It stands less chance of carrying the 20+ Labour MPs who opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes.
The last point is important, but few commentators have picked up on it, even though Jo Swinson mentions these MPs in her official reply to Corbyn. Three or four Labour MPs support Brexit, even if that means we leave the EU without a deal; these people are lost causes. A more significant group of, perhaps, 25 Labour MPs (including Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint) opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes. These MPs aren’t ideological Brexiteers, but they are concerned about the political legitimacy of trying to overturn the referendum result. Corbyn’s proposal (GE first, with Labour campaigning for a second referendum) allows them to reclaim political legitimacy, if Labour secure enough seats to form a (coalition) government. For all the focus on rebel Tories, Change UK and the LDs, it’s important not to forget this important group of Labour MPs, whose support will be critical in a VoNC.
So, stepping back from the detail, Corbyn's plan has clear political legitimacy, and looks like the quickest and cleanest route to prevent no deal, force a GE and (potentially) stop Brexit via a second referendum. If those are your political priorities, there is no principled reason not to support it. The plan might not succeed but it's the best chance we've got.
It is a sink hole with no escape. I have given up on it. Not because of the sensible posters but after going around the gold fish bowl a 100 times it eventually sinks in no facts could swing it. Mind you got some good laughs from the folk I would be on the same page as.
