'Evidence? If David Miliband were to win nominations from 90% of Labour Party MPs then there is no automatic guarantee the leader would go to the membership, as a contest had been called and he had failed to get the 15-20% of nominations required
"Labour Party Rules 2013 2.B. ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void." (my bold)
No mention of the incumbent requiring to be re-nominated.
Common sense indicates this too. Otherwise, it requires 85% to block Corbyn from getting on the ballot, but only 80% to immediately depose him if elected, which is palpable nonsense.'
It does not explicitly say the leader can go into a ballot without any nominations either. In any case if 80-85% of the parliamentary party opposes the party leader his position is untenable
I'm enjoying all the Corbyn Bad bleating down the thread, particularly as many of us PBers helped talk him up as a candidate. Anyway on utilities Corbyn is tapping into the public mood that the likes of rail, electricity and gas should be in public ownership.
Agree re utilities. It may well be nonsense, but there's a significant market for thinking important utilities should not be privately owned.
>Good morning, comrades. Impressive of Labour to find a leader that could be worse than Miliband. I'm not sure Corbyn would be worse than Miliband. Miliband had everything in place to win, but he continually missed the open goal. Instead he would kick the ball towards random campaigns, without connecting them up in a move forwards. Corbyn might well have a better set of coherent policies that can be wrapped up into simple messages. Even if they are utter lunacy in the view of many people. That's where Miliband failed: he jumped on bandwagons and utterly failed to connect them into a narrative (apart from 'nasty Tories'). Corbyn might well do that much better; we can only hope the Great British Public don't like his message ... Corbyn's message may be nuts, but he will be able to sell it far better than Miliband could and be far more aggressive in opposing the government with an undiluted socialist platform. How can he sell his message when he claims that there is no competition in telecoms? Presumably as a prelude to renationalising it? I can only assume you mean he would be better at selling it because he - unlike any of the other candidates - would have the bare faced effrontery to to talk the total bollocks necessary to justify his warped opinions.
Telecoms is an awful example to pick if you want to hitch your wagon to the renationalisation star.
There is a huge and highly competitive marketplace for data, mobile and domestic communications services , offering a highly diverse mix of packages and products, at very low prices.
The UK is a world leader with telecoms companies precisely because it privatised so early, and led the sale of 3G and 4G licences. Even the poorest, not just here, but worldwide, now have affordable access to mobile phones. Moreover, it gets better all the time and, if you're not happy, you can switch/exchange or buy what you want instead and get it straight away.
Contrast that to the nationalised BT days when you had to wait months for a telephone to be delivered and connected, and even then the line quality was often dreadful and the customer service - worse.
Virtually all public sector efficiency & customer service was/ is/ and probably always will be, worse than private sector efficiency & customer service (this isn't bad vs good). Why? Little or no competition and very rarely any incentive to do anything other than the minimum in either delivery or development.
Comments
'Evidence? If David Miliband were to win nominations from 90% of Labour Party MPs then there is no automatic guarantee the leader would go to the membership, as a contest had been called and he had failed to get the 15-20% of nominations required
"Labour Party Rules 2013
2.B.
ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by
potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party
conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20
per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not
attaining this threshold shall be null and void." (my bold)
No mention of the incumbent requiring to be re-nominated.
Common sense indicates this too. Otherwise, it requires 85% to block Corbyn from getting on the ballot, but only 80% to immediately depose him if elected, which is palpable nonsense.'
It does not explicitly say the leader can go into a ballot without any nominations either. In any case if 80-85% of the parliamentary party opposes the party leader his position is untenable
Impressive of Labour to find a leader that could be worse than Miliband.
I'm not sure Corbyn would be worse than Miliband. Miliband had everything in place to win, but he continually missed the open goal. Instead he would kick the ball towards random campaigns, without connecting them up in a move forwards.
Corbyn might well have a better set of coherent policies that can be wrapped up into simple messages. Even if they are utter lunacy in the view of many people.
That's where Miliband failed: he jumped on bandwagons and utterly failed to connect them into a narrative (apart from 'nasty Tories'). Corbyn might well do that much better; we can only hope the Great British Public don't like his message ...
Corbyn's message may be nuts, but he will be able to sell it far better than Miliband could and be far more aggressive in opposing the government with an undiluted socialist platform.
How can he sell his message when he claims that there is no competition in telecoms? Presumably as a prelude to renationalising it?
I can only assume you mean he would be better at selling it because he - unlike any of the other candidates - would have the bare faced effrontery to to talk the total bollocks necessary to justify his warped opinions.
Telecoms is an awful example to pick if you want to hitch your wagon to the renationalisation star.
There is a huge and highly competitive marketplace for data, mobile and domestic communications services , offering a highly diverse mix of packages and products, at very low prices.
The UK is a world leader with telecoms companies precisely because it privatised so early, and led the sale of 3G and 4G licences. Even the poorest, not just here, but worldwide, now have affordable access to mobile phones. Moreover, it gets better all the time and, if you're not happy, you can switch/exchange or buy what you want instead and get it straight away.
Contrast that to the nationalised BT days when you had to wait months for a telephone to be delivered and connected, and even then the line quality was often dreadful and the customer service - worse.
Virtually all public sector efficiency & customer service was/ is/ and probably always will be, worse than private sector efficiency & customer service (this isn't bad vs good). Why? Little or no competition and very rarely any incentive to do anything other than the minimum in either delivery or development.