Clarke, Harman or Corbyn

[RonnieBird]

Gosh that's a complicated question.
The short answer is that no confidence votes are meant to be a way of taking the issue to the people for a general election, not replacing the governing party and its leader with a Prime Minister who's election by the people is unthinkable.

Neither Kenneth Clarke nor Harriet Harperson could imaginably be elected either to lead their respective parties or as Prime Minister, and could only possibly be Quislings to force through the will of a minority at home and the wishes of a foreign power.

If a vote of no confidence were successful then the one and only acceptable outcome in these circumstances is a General Election.
Any attempt to install a ridiculous candidate by a small clique of M.Ps would be nothing more than an attempted coup, and the Sovereign would be likely to refuse to sanction it and call a General Election herself.

As I said earlier though, I very much doubt that in the event they'd really attempt to go down that line.

[Wales-Bales]

Any attempt to install a ridiculous candidate by a small clique of M.Ps would be nothing more than an attempted coup, and the Sovereign would be likely to refuse to sanction it and call a General Election herself.

They recently tried an attempted coup in the USA, so why not here?

[jon1959]

They recently tried an attempted coup in the USA, so why not here?

The coup happened when the Boris Johnson 'No Deal' Clique seized control of the government on the back of some tens of thousands of Tory members' votes.

That was not 'the will of the people', just the will of a small group of unrepresentative people, and it was not carrying through the referendum result. A deal, a very easy deal was on offer then - if not a Norway or Switzerland or Canada model that half the Leave campaign were advocating at the time.

[jon1959]

Gosh that's a complicated question.
The short answer is that no confidence votes are meant to be a way of taking the issue to the people for a general election, not replacing the governing party and its leader with a Prime Minister who's election by the people is unthinkable.

Neither Kenneth Clarke nor Harriet Harperson could imaginably be elected either to lead their respective parties or as Prime Minister, and could only possibly be Quislings to force through the will of a minority at home and the wishes of a foreign power.

If a vote of no confidence were successful then the one and only acceptable outcome in these circumstances is a General Election.
Any attempt to install a ridiculous candidate by a small clique of M.Ps would be nothing more than an attempted coup, and the Sovereign would be likely to refuse to sanction it and call a General Election herself.

As I said earlier though, I very much doubt that in the event they'd really attempt to go down that line.

I can't see it working, but the whole idea is to install a temporary government (up to 3 months) that would negotiate an extension of Article 50 to allow for a general election asap. From what you said you should be happy with that.

[RonnieBird]

I can't see it working, but the whole idea is to install a temporary government (up to 3 months) that would negotiate an extension of Article 50 to allow for a general election asap. From what you said you should be happy with that.

I wouldn't be happy with it if a Parliament preferred to self destruct than follow a direction from the public which it had asked for .
However, if that should prove to be the case then a General Election is the only constitutional result. No temporary government is needed or acceptable .