The fatal problem is that the Govt will win a vote of no confidence if the consequence of it losing that vote is that Corbyn becomes PM. And why does he need to lead an emergency Govt if it has only the limited mandate he suggests? Corbyn, once again, is helping deliver No Deal. 
What Labour should be doing is setting out the mandate a temporary govt must have before Labour would support it. By insisting on a figure as divisive as Corbyn getting the prerogative powers it will cause many MPs to think twice before backing that govt - and kill the idea dead.
You can't simultaneously argue (1) "it's a limited mandate for a specific purpose" and (2) "Corbyn must lead that Government". If (1) is true then (2) is automatically false and if (2) is true then (1) is false. So, which is it?
The answer, of course, is that (1) is false. The prerogative powers - especially in foreign affairs where Corbyn is distrusted because of his stance on Russia, NATO, Middle East, etc - are considerable. Yet Labour insists he have those powers as the price for it stopping No Deal.
Argue all you like that the Leader of the Opposition has some right to lead an emergency Government: he won't win a vote of confidence and so he *can't*.
Argue all you like that my logic is evil centrism - and ideally with Stephen Bush.
Argue all you like that my logic is evil centrism - and ideally with Stephen Bush.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1161759470629871619?s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
