Bingo.
Look. I am certainly not an advocate of Corbyn.
We don't need someone who will "stop brexit" because someone running on a "stop brexit" platform wouldn't get enough votes to form a caretaker government.
Yes, she hasn't as they say 'hit the ground running'...more like ploughed straight into the runway!
Yes, published off and on for the last forty years or so, based on Jeremy's own actions and utterances during this period, his Marxist stance also highlighted in the Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Express, etc.
So why not Corbyn then ?
Because it's abundantly clear he can't command a majority in the HoC.
I think the clue is in his own description 'a government of national unity', which implies it's about more than just one party. They need to talk to find someone mutually acceptable, which could still be Corbyn of course, having talked, or another Labour figure, or someone else. But not just automatically Corbyn.
And the same with Ken Clarke. The unity government stuff has no chance of happen, no matter who it is(A no confidence vote winning is looking pretty slim as well). It was just a tactic use by labour to screw over the lid Dems.
Well the national unity thing was a Corbyn proposal, but if you think it's a dead idea fair enough.
I think it was a great way to screw over the lib dems. And its worked perfectly for Labour.
To be fair, 'People's Quantitive Easing' is a radical policy, previously proposed by Corbyn. It may have merits economically - certainly more and more economists think central banks have exhausted conventional monetary policy ahead of the next downturn. However, mandating that the Bank of England monetise the government's fiscal policy is obviously extremely provocative and jeopardises the independence of the central bank. The fears about what this means coming from a left-wing government are obvious and not unfounded.
Yes I see that. And it gets Brexit a step closer at the same time. Win-win for Corbyn, so far.
It would be great if Curtis ended all his documentaries like this.
Again a reminder to everyone Corbyn hasn't got a stop Brexit button.
So Labour have no serious intention of trying to stop no deal and are merely playing party politics in your view?
Of course. And that is why they are both in such senior positions in the Labour party.
I thought this was pretty obvious - it's his only hope of ever being PM.
By radical I took you to mean extreme, ie for the EU to completely change its fundamental being just to suit Jeremy.
I actually think that if Corbyn offered to serve under someone else in the government he's proposed himself, one of national unity, he would go up hugely in everyone's estimation and it would increase his support in the first election to form a 'real' government. He'd risk Brexit being stopped in the meantime though, so I can't see it.
Twenty years outside the UK and still blaming everyone else for your problems. You should be cured by now.
But it would also show that he isn't a leader, which to me is also quite obvious.
He'd go up in my estimation, but if I'm out of step with everyone else fair enough. I suspect he'll do what McDonnell tells him to do anyway, but there's no way of proving that one way or the other.
I’d have said it would show great leadership, being confident enough to accept a compromise candidate while knowing that there will be an election soon where he can run anyway. It’d Just show he put the country ahead of his own ambitions, and I think people would appreciate that.
I think your right
I think they have and are trying to stop a no deal but unity government was party politics(Which I don't view as a bad thing)
Nope, tory, labour, liberal, just someone mutually acceptable.
Yes you're both right in a sense that his image would improve but to be a future PM , not so sure, comes across to me as if someone's pulling his strings.
I'm looking forward to the Labour conference. The last one was entertaining, watching Corbyn and McDonnell twisting and turning to avoid the membership's wish to stand for Remain. I think they'll get a harder ride this time.
You're right, it wouldn't play well for him as a prospective PM. "Showing leadership" in a general sense isn't the same as positioning yourself as a leader politically.
Unless a general election is called before... Then I assume they would see that as a reason to keep the current brexit fudge in manifesto before the policy could be changed.
The interim PM would have to be someone who was not going to stand for permanent leader, which one reason the ancient Clarke has been suggested, along with him being a life-long EU enthusiast who was nonetheless prepared to compromise of course. It wouldn't have to be a Tory though, but someone who committed to not challenging for leadership afterwards.
Yeah.
Because hes actively trying to be prime minister, even after Brexit, so any offer will be viewed with suspicion. Because the Tories hate him. Because he's not respected by the leave or remain camps, and you need someone respected by both.
I'm not blaming anyone i am simply pointing out your hypocrisy by voting for the prat that delivered the very thing you hate.
But I didn't vote for him. It's like asking which team do you support out of Liverpool City or Arsenal- none of them but if pushed to pick one...
Agree he may be ancient. But intellectually he is still very sharp and seems to be well respected. Which is important in this instance.
Ok so we've confirmed that you failed to find a radical policy. Glad that's sorted.
This never made the manifesto though, did it? It was just an idea that was floated around. It's certainly unconventional but how radical it is is up for debate. Also, hasn't the ECB embarked on their own policy of QE? See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30933515 and https://www.neweurope.eu/article/ecb-prepares-for-a-second-wave-of-quantitative-easing/
He's also on centrist wing of his own party, and if the whole idea is national unity it makes sense to have someone closer to the centre than either extreme.
Good point.
