Legislative Route after a 'Free Run'

Opposition parties (could have had one individual Conservative, unable to attend) have agreed the legislative route to oppose a no deal exit from the European Union.

This is a limited strategy, unfortunately, and has the disadvantage that it leaves the government and decision taking in the hands of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

There is a logic to this, because it is a first move, and one that must show success. The difficulty that the opposition parties face is that Johnson has 'hit the ground running' and had a 'free run', able to oush with a strategy which, until about a week ago, looked like a reckless run in no deal one direction, to then and now look more like a strategy to get a deal.

The free run is over, very soon, but also we know that Johnson's 'thirty days to propose something' from Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, to replace the backstop and preserve open human and trade movement in Ireland, is likely to produce nothing at all. He has been on maximum bluster on this one, in that there is nothing to propose what the backstop was able to give. We should see his 'positive conversation' today with Jean-Claude Juncker in this light, Johnson doing some ducking and weaving to try and take back the initiative from the opposition and keep the attachment of likely wavering Tory MPs.

The problem with the legislative route is what it is for, and whether anything beyond a purposeless extension is on offer. The action of taking power is quite different, because it is a demonstrable change of direction. It is also its own guarantee. It is also temporary, towards a General Election.

It's rather like Jo Swinson's rejection of Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker Prime Minister. It didn't matter what her own view was on this, but that the numbers for that were impossible. Now, after Johnson's relatively good 'free run', Tory MPs are less likely to come over, beyond those who know Johnson all too well and are unimpressed by him (to say the least). But party loyalty is likely to kick in at this stage, and the practicality is to go for the legislative route.

We also have the problem that many opposition MPs are wedded to their own gamble of a second referendum rather than Parliament taking the necessary decisions including a General Election.

The Johnson gamble itself is the early General Election, that producing a caretaker government is rejected as he, in effect, votes no confidence in his own government - the two-thirds vote achieved that then goes directly to a General Election. He would want a majority, just as Theresa May did, and he thinks he is a better campaigner than she ever was.

He cannot chose to be Prime Minister after the fortnight between a vote of no confidence and the vote of confidence stipulated in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. He does stay on if no one else comes forward. This is where a Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman or Yvette Cooper (etc.) can become caretaker leader in the following vote of confidence, she or he then going to the Palace. The monarch is not involved other that to receive such a person, selected probably by some indicative vote or even a formal signed letter by MPs.

It is the act of receiving a vote of confidence that it removes Johnson. I suspect after Johnson's free run that success in this needs further tension, a sense of crisis and wheels coming off his wagon that will lead towards a vote of no confidence. At present then the Johnson vehicle can stay on course, but with others getting a legislative hand on the steering wheel, while his and his special advisor's grip on the wheel and all pedals remains the stronger.