You do speak some tripe. The fact that people treat the NHS as a service not a religion does not mean that they care less about the sick than you do. Your sanctimony is nauseating.
Well you either ration or pay more you cannot have it both ways. What would you do?
How much is enough in your opinion, just a rough percentage of GDP, will do
The emphasis on emergency services in the Governments plans for a seven day NHS are interesting. (and the figures spouted to support it do not stand up well to analysis. The peak day for hospital deaths is Wednesday etc).
If doctors are to be working more weekends but not more hours then they will be working less in office hours. That much is obvious. There will therefore be less elective work etc done in that time. We are seeing privatisation of elective surgery, some screening services, pathology sevices, merging of GPs into mega-practices (such as Lakeside in Northants with over 120 GPs).
I think that the plan is for most of the elective work to be done by private companies under contract to the NHS, with the rump of unprofitable emergency services and medicine of the elderly run by direct NHS employees.
Some may like this as a concept, but there are many unaddressed issues including training (if a junior is not doing supervised elective sections during the week, are they really up to an emergency section on a Saturday night?) and of continuity of care (if the Doctor who admitted you is not around when the results arrive, what happens?).
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
The rules ONLY state the mechanism for a challenger to force a contest, once a contest is forced the presumption is it will be conducted under normal rules and the incumbent will then also be required to obtain nominations to enter it.
No - the rules state who will be nominated. Your suggestion would mean that as soon as someone is nominated with 20%, then Corbyn ceases to be leader. That is the only way to then redo under the "no leader" rules.
That is not credible.
Exactly. The nomination phase is mentioned as either under no leader, or with a leader. Once the nomination phase is over you move on to the next stage (leader re-elected unopposed or a contest between challengers/leader). Nothing says you re-do the nomination stage all over again.
There has been no nomination stage until a contest is forced by a challenger receiving sufficient nominees to force one, once one has been forced it is stage 1 of that contest
Quote the part of the rulebook that says that. Because the rulebook says the EXACT opposite: it provides for a nomination stage if there is a vacancy - and a nomination stage for if there is no vacancy. Once the nomination stage is complete you don't restart it.
Yes, a nomination stage to force a contest if there is no vacancy, once nominations have been achieved to force that contest it is fought on normal rules and the nomination process is not complete until any other candidates have received sufficient nominees to force a challenge
I guess our "Puny Force " could obliterate Moscow and the Kremlin....that might cool Putins ambitions a little ..
Don't honestly know how the Germans sleep at night without a big nuclear missile to keep them safe.
They have a huge nuclear umbrella - the US'. And the UK's at 200 warheads at 100 kilotons each is all it needs to be to secure its deterrence objective.
Your argument seems to be changing from the UK's force is so puny it is useless to we don't need one because the Germans don't. Which is it?
The latter. I'd quite forgotten that the only thing which has stopped us being invaded in the last 50 years is Polaris/Trident, as that's your argument.
I think it's almost certainly the case that the West's nuclear defence prevented a wholesale takeover of Berlin and Western Germany by the Soviet Union, and consequent communist dominance over Europe, over that timeframe.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
Please God this happens .... if Benn were then to succeed Cameron as the next Prime Minister, my 949/1 bet then delivers!
He won't be PM of course or win the election, his job will be to make modest progress as Michael Howard did for the Tories and then hand over to Chuka Umunna, Stella Creasey or Dan Jarvis after an election defeat
That is a non sequitur. If Labour progressed under Benn in 2020 on the scale the Tories managed in 2005 a minority Labour Government would be likely - even if Labour remains the second largest party.
Howard picked up 30 seats, that would give Benn about 260 seats ie barely more than Brown got in 2010 and so no grounds for a minority Labour government, especially given boundary changes although I agree a hung parliament is possible
That could still be enough to block the Tories when it came to the Queen's Speech.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Which is funny as HYUFD was saying a few months ago that Corbyn was going to be a great success, north of Britain at least. How's that going again?
I never said he was going to be a great success nationally, I said he might have some relative success in London and Scotland, he has in the former, less so the latter (actually it is the Tories who have made the greatest gains there in Westminster polls)
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true, unless she is convicted of High Treason
You do speak some tripe. The fact that people treat the NHS as a service not a religion does not mean that they care less about the sick than you do. Your sanctimony is nauseating.
Well you either ration or pay more you cannot have it both ways. What would you do?
How much is enough in your opinion, just a rough percentage of GDP, will do
probably about £30bn pa extra including proper funding for social care would probably raise it to the top of the league and make us comparable with the likes of Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands etc but we would still be short of doctors and nurses in the short term because we train nowhere near enough.
I do understand how it happens, snipping for length etc, but the comments under my name in this little bit of a conversation are not mine. I do have some sympathy with the gist. People in places like Germany are finding it increasingly difficult to afford top up insurance and the result is a two tier service.
Beg pardon - it's difficult to keep track of the blockquotes on a small screen.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
Please God this happens .... if Benn were then to succeed Cameron as the next Prime Minister, my 949/1 bet then delivers!
He won't be PM of course or win the election, his job will be to make modest progress as Michael Howard did for the Tories and then hand over to Chuka Umunna, Stella Creasey or Dan Jarvis after an election defeat
That is a non sequitur. If Labour progressed under Benn in 2020 on the scale the Tories managed in 2005 a minority Labour Government would be likely - even if Labour remains the second largest party.
Howard picked up 30 seats, that would give Benn about 260 seats ie barely more than Brown got in 2010 and so no grounds for a minority Labour government, especially given boundary changes although I agree a hung parliament is possible
That could still be enough to block the Tories when it came to the Queen's Speech.
Maybe on a few issues perhaps, certainly not enough to form a government
HYUFD. The next phase "normal rules" that you keep mentioning is the voting by the members - the ones that voted for Corbyn last time.
There is no extra re-nomination stage. No matter how many times you say it, it will not come true.
'Normal rules' require all candidates to receive sufficient nominations from the PLP before they can even be put before the party members, once a new contest has been forced by a challenger that first stage then comes into being
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
The rules ONLY state the mechanism for a challenger to force a contest, once a contest is forced the presumption is it will be conducted under normal rules and the incumbent will then also be required to obtain nominations to enter it.
No - the rules state who will be nominated. Your suggestion would mean that as soon as someone is nominated with 20%, then Corbyn ceases to be leader. That is the only way to then redo under the "no leader" rules.
That is not credible.
Exactly. The nomination phase is mentioned as either under no leader, or with a leader. Once the nomination phase is over you move on to the next stage (leader re-elected unopposed or a contest between challengers/leader). Nothing says you re-do the nomination stage all over again.
There has been no nomination stage until a contest is forced by a challenger receiving sufficient nominees to force one, once one has been forced it is stage 1 of that contest
Quote the part of the rulebook that says that. Because the rulebook says the EXACT opposite: it provides for a nomination stage if there is a vacancy - and a nomination stage for if there is no vacancy. Once the nomination stage is complete you don't restart it.
Yes, a nomination stage to force a contest if there is no vacancy, once nominations have been achieved to force that contest it is fought on normal rules and the nomination process is not complete until any other candidates have received sufficient nominees to force a challenge
Bear in mind that the election will be governed by the NEC, elected by the Corbynite-dominated membership. What do you think their interpretation of the rule will be?
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
He is on the ballot without being nominated, apparently
Yet on the Daily Politics it was put that that was not clearly the case and the rules could well be interpreted to require Corbyn too to be nominated once a challenger had received sufficient nominations to force a ballot, otherwise the challenger would be elected unopposed
I don't trust the Daily Politics, and I do trust the advice I have had, although of course it has never actually been tested in practice as no Labour leader has faced, never mind lost, a confidence motion since 1935 - and then Lansbury elected not to contest the election.
However, as I have pointed out, Corbyn could make the ballot even if he were required to be nominated. Merely because 190 of the PLP hate his guts is no reason to assume the other 41 would not back him.
So where does this oracle of advice come from? Nothing in Labour Party rules states that once a challenger has got the nominations to force a contest Corbyn is then automatically excused from getting any nominations to enter the contest himself.
Given as I said the trigger for a challenge would be Labour falling behind UKIP in a by election or something similar he has virtually no chance of getting the nominations required
Nothing in the Labour party rules says an incumbent needs to be nominated. There is nowhere in the Labour Party rules that says how an incumbent would be nominated, only challengers if there is no vacancy.
Yet once a challenger has received the nominations to force a contest if the incumbent does not get the nominations to enter that new contest the challenger is elected unopposed
HYUFD - when every single person (that deigns to comment on the Labour nomination issue - most just despair at the misunderstanding, I imagine) on this website full of political enthusiasts disagrees with you, it might be time to admit you're wrong.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Also, new UMASS national GOP poll tonight
Trump 31 Carson 22 Cruz 13 Rubio 9 Fiorina 4 Kasich 4 Paul 4 Bush 3 Christie 2 Huckabee 1 Jindal 1 Santorum < 1 Graham < 1 Pataki 0 Gilmore 0
@DPJHodges: At the next election the Conservatives won't have to campaign. They'll just have to send every voter a DVD of tonight's 10 o'clock news.
In my lifetime i never thought to see such an appalling interview. The man is quite simply mad and the Labour Party and supporters are equally to blame for putting him there. This will never be forgotten whatever they do now. Labour are finished.
Driving back home, I heard Corbyn's view on "shoot to kill".
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that this man is quite simply not a politician.
What drove him to say these words today beats me. As someone in the shadow cabinet is supposed to have said he lives in another planet ! That would still mean he is from our solar system which I am not so sure anymore.
Did he have to give that interview - now ? Agreeing to an interview is not compulsory, surely. No matter how many journalists want it.
From a legalistic point of view, he is probably right. "Shoot to kill", by definition implies extra-judicial killing though a French policeman entering Bataclan on Friday evening could be excused if he wasn't aware about the exact code of the penal law which would have justified his actions. It was either him or the other guy !
Regarding bombing, I don't think Corbyn is that wrong. Apart from the emotive "solidarity", what will this actually achieve ? For God's sake, the US and the French have been at it for a year now. It was almost hilarious [ sorry about that ! ] when the French announced they had hit the HQ and the Recruitment centre in Raqqa. Excusez-moi! Qu'avez-vous fait jusqu'à maintenant
There can be a military solution. Probably one is needed. I cannot see a way out. But it would be a high risk one. It would need SAS type quick operation. Of course, the British, French and anyone who could join, would join. Turks might. The Russians, maybe, if a separate sector could be agreed with them. Quite literally, go in for a surgical attack and finish off what matters in Raqaa. No point hanging around. There will be casualties. Don't wait for the Yanks ! They never join a fight unless victory can be guaranteed.
Isam and Sean F might be surprised to agree that I could not object to anything Farage said on C4 news tonight. That will almost certainly be a first and last for me.
After the emotions have died down. I am quite sure Cameron will decide not to join the bombing campaign for the reasons above. There are no plus points.
I'd cut health too. The concept that we are putting huge amount of resources into ensuring that humans eek out an extra few days, months or years in the most unbearable circumstances, whether t's terminal illness, dementia, old age or whatever surely needs looking at. It's not about resources either, it's about morality.
I spent an afternoon today on an acute ward in Florence- akin to night of the living dead. A ward populated by really old, sick people being kept alive. I felt sorrier for the families actually than the patients who were too sick, old and ill to care about anything.
(snipped)
IMHO we need to have a serious re-think about what we expect from the NHS. Part of the problem is, it's just too huge.
But I doubt if that re-think will be effective until our society is prepared to accept that we all have to die some day.
An anecdote: a friend's mother was in a situation such as you describe - really elderly, really sick - and the patients there were being kept alive by continuing to give them the daily medication they'd been taking for years. Withdrawing those medications would have enabled natural death to occur far sooner, without any horror stories about euthanasia or dying of thirst.
I have some sympathy with this view - I have a mother with terminal cancer, in a serious amount of pain essentially all the time.
I obviously would prefer her not to die, but it is coming and in truth she just wants the pain to end.
Very sorry to hear that; wish you both strength and fortitude.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
Don't waste your time - you're talking political reality, he isn't.
Complaints about BBC bias on my Facebook TImeline btw.
What for being nasty to Hug a Jahadi Jez?
" I know a selection of the media is particularly biased in it's political agenda, but I don't believe that necessarily extends to all their minions. In this case I think it's some idiot, jumped up interviewer looking to score points."
"She's the BBCs chief political reporter. Of course this has nothing at all to do with the BBCs fear that the Tories might pull the rug from under them. The Tories essentially have Aunty Beeb's knackers in a vice!"
"The "positive" out of this interview, I reckon, is that more and more people who see interviews like this will also see the unfair/childish/cowardly attempts on interviewees and it will hopefully serve to reinforce the fact that all mainstream media is manipulated. But Corbyn is a politician - and a pretty strong one. He ain't gonna let it get to him."
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
He is on the ballot without being nominated, apparently
Yet on the Daily Politics it was put that that was not clearly the case and the rules could well be interpreted to require Corbyn too to be nominated once a challenger had received sufficient nominations to force a ballot, otherwise the challenger would be elected unopposed
I don't trust the Daily Politics, and I do trust the advice I have had, although of course it has never actually been tested in practice as no Labour leader has faced, never mind lost, a confidence motion since 1935 - and then Lansbury elected not to contest the election.
However, as I have pointed out, Corbyn could make the ballot even if he were required to be nominated. Merely because 190 of the PLP hate his guts is no reason to assume the other 41 would not back him.
So where does this oracle of advice come from? Nothing in Labour Party rules states that once a challenger has got the nominations to force a contest Corbyn is then automatically excused from getting any nominations to enter the contest himself.
Given as I said the trigger for a challenge would be Labour falling behind UKIP in a by election or something similar he has virtually no chance of getting the nominations required
Nothing in the Labour party rules says an incumbent needs to be nominated. There is nowhere in the Labour Party rules that says how an incumbent would be nominated, only challengers if there is no vacancy.
Yet once a challenger has received the nominations to force a contest if the incumbent does not get the nominations to enter that new contest the challenger is elected unopposed
HYUFD - when every single person (that deigns to comment on the Labour nomination issue - most just despair at the misunderstanding, I imagine) on this website full of political enthusiasts disagrees with you, it might be time to admit you're wrong.
We'd be very grateful!
They can say what they like, when there is no evidence to say an incumbent is denied the requirement to receive any nominations from the PLP AT ALL once a contest has been forced by a challenger there is nothing to admit
Complaints about BBC bias on my Facebook TImeline btw.
What for being nasty to Hug a Jahadi Jez?
" I know a selection of the media is particularly biased in it's political agenda, but I don't believe that necessarily extends to all their minions. In this case I think it's some idiot, jumped up interviewer looking to score points."
"She's the BBCs chief political reporter. Of course this has nothing at all to do with the BBCs fear that the Tories might pull the rug from under them. The Tories essentially have Aunty Beeb's knackers in a vice!"
"The "positive" out of this interview, I reckon, is that more and more people who see interviews like this will also see the unfair/childish/cowardly attempts on interviewees and it will hopefully serve to reinforce the fact that all mainstream media is manipulated. But Corbyn is a politician - and a pretty strong one. He ain't gonna let it get to him."
They realise this reporter has been seen giving Team Corbyn advice right? I fact his team isn't or wont listen isn't her fault.
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
The rules ONLY state the mechanism for a challenger to force a contest, once a contest is forced the presumption is it will be conducted under normal rules and the incumbent will then also be required to obtain nominations to enter it.
No - the rules state who will be nominated. Your suggestion would mean that as soon as someone is nominated with 20%, then Corbyn ceases to be leader. That is the only way to then redo under the "no leader" rules.
That is not credible.
Exactly. The nomination phase is mentioned as either under no leader, or with a leader. Once the nomination phase is over you move on to the next stage (leader re-elected unopposed or a contest between challengers/leader). Nothing says you re-do the nomination stage all over again.
The
Quote the part of the rulebook that says that. Because the r
Yes, a nomination stage to force a contest if there is no vacancy, once nominations have been achieved to force that contest it is fought on normal rules and the nomination process is not complete until any other candidates have received sufficient nominees to force a challenge
Bear in mind that the election will be governed by the NEC, elected by the Corbynite-dominated membership. What do you think their interpretation of the rule will be?
The NEC also includes representatives of the PLP, MEPs, trades unions and socialist societies, not just constituency Labour Parties
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Wrong. The U.K. Government has the power to grant pardons.
If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
I don't think SeanT has ever been to a PBmeet - he once said that he was wary of ...LIKING people and it cramping his style. I'll buy him a drink if he turns up and he can spit it if he likes.
On topic, sorry to disagree with the consensus here, but Corbyn's response on Syria remains right IMO. We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
As for shoot to kill, Corbyn has simply restated existing policy, that the police should respond proportionately, seeking to minimise casualties. That can indeed involve shooting to kill, but that shouldn't be the only option, and won't be in practice.
I can see the case for arguing that Corbyn should tack to the wind in the current climate. But I like the fact that he doesn't, and I'd vote for him again if the necessity arose. So, I suspect, would most of his supporters. Which is why it won't happen any time soon.
Russia (and probably North Korea, the state we're in) could invade us several times over and we couldn't stop them. That's more of a real worry than domesday weapon top trumps. Trident no thanks. Conventional forces yes.
Yeah Great ... conventional forces. Whoopee we have more than you.
North Korea then lobs a couple of battlefield nukes and it's all over. Wouldn't even need to take the covers off the ballistic ones. The left will never understand that though no matter how many times you try to explain it. I hate nukes but I understand the realities and understand disarmament should be done together and by mutual agreement.
........... Which brings us neatly back to North Korea.
I am not on the left. Nor do I oppose all nuclear weapons. I oppose Trident renewal. You yourself just mentioned that North Korean tactical nuclear weapons could destroy us. So why do we need Trident? I oppose Trident on the following grounds:
-I have no belief that the USA would arm another country with the ability to inflict mass destruction on the USA with impunity. The idea is beyond ludicrous. Therefore I believe that Trident comes with 'kill switch' circuitry or some such system to give the US ultimate sanction. It's what we would all do if we were them.
-Even if this isn't true, the partnership with the USA on the programme means that without their support, it would collapse in months. Therefore if relations with that country should become cooler, the spend would become useless and we would be undefended. The same fact means that quite frankly they know too much - such as when they gave the serial numbers of all our nukes to the Russians a few years back during their 'reset'. What dependable ally does that?
-It is a vast and unwarranted contribution to the USA military industrial complex.
-I believe the technology to be out-dated, and the submarines to be detectable with new technologies, destroying the 'continuous at sea deterrent' aspect.
-Lastly and most importantly, we can't afford it. Not in the sense that we can't scrimp and save and keep it, but that it deals with a very limited set of scenarios, but spends a massively disproportionate proportion of our defence budget on them, leaving us ill equipped to face the actual and more common challenges that we face day to day.
Going backwards, we can afford it. We pay for it now. There's plenty of government fat that could still be cut if necessary.
The technology isn't outdated now, though there's always the possibility it might become so. All the same, even if the subs were detectable, as long as they could get their missiles off before being hit, the deterrent effect would still be there.
The first three points I have some sympathy with. We should co-operate with the French instead.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
Assuming HYFUD is correct (and I doubt it!) Is there any reason to believe either that the CLP would unite behind Benn? Or indeed that he would stand?
As I stated the scenario only arises if, say, Labour fall behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour seat and Labour remains clearly behind in most polls, then the CLP will be looking around for a viable alternative and the only viable alternative is Benn, you can be nominated whether you ask to be or not
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Richard Nixon.
HYUFD says he couldn't pardon himself because 'his poll figures were low'.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Wrong. The U.K. Government has the power to grant pardons.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
That's the way it works here too.
Realistically if Hillary has just won a presidential election she can pardon herself as much as she wants!
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Wrong. The U.K. Government has the power to grant pardons.
Assuming HYFUD is correct (and I doubt it!) Is there any reason to believe either that the CLP would unite behind Benn? Or indeed that he would stand?
I think the answer to a lot of questions on Labour leadership is
Tom Watson.
My understanding of the rules is that they are ambiguous, that they will be 'tidied up' when the balance of the NEC is amended sufficiently to the left.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Wrong. The U.K. Government has the power to grant pardons.
Mr Palmer, Corbyn has not simply restated existing policy. If he has he has done it in an infantile incoherent and implausible way, one which indicates incompetence.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Wrong. The U.K. Government has the power to grant pardons.
Mr Palmer, Corbyn has not simply restated existing policy. If he has he has done it in an infantile incoherent and implausible way, one which indicates incompetence.
Apparently at the PLP, Corbyn said that is what he actually meant...cough...bull....cough...shit.....even though he never said such words in the interview. It would have been easier to say so in the interview, than the rambling attempt at a non-answer, which included claims he would rather police attended these incidents than special forces (which is equally bonkers).
Anybody who saw the video of what the police faced when they turned up at the music venue in Paris, despite being armed they were forced back...it required special forces to go in and neutralise these people. They are trained killers, not wannabe gangsters.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
HYUFD. The next phase "normal rules" that you keep mentioning is the voting by the members - the ones that voted for Corbyn last time.
There is no extra re-nomination stage. No matter how many times you say it, it will not come true.
'Normal rules' require all candidates to receive sufficient nominations from the PLP before they can even be put before the party members, once a new contest has been forced by a challenger that first stage then comes into being
No they don't. Quote the passage of the rules this so called "normal rule" appears as.
The nomination stage is covered in quite some detail. If there is no vacancy then (case 1), if there is a vacancy then (case 2). Normal rules proceed AFTER the nomination stage.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
That's the way it works here too.
Realistically if Hillary has just won a presidential election she can pardon herself as much as she wants!
Politics was defined long ago as 'the art of the possible'. Realistically your premise is nonsense.
But feel free to dream on - it doesn't seem that anyone is buying your learned legal opinions on either side of the Atlantic.
When you do your poll thing, sometimes you seem quite erudite and numerate. Once you stray onto legal technicalities and what's feasible you are woefully off-base and appear to show little understanding of political (NOT legal) realities either side of the pond.
Assuming HYFUD is correct (and I doubt it!) Is there any reason to believe either that the CLP would unite behind Benn? Or indeed that he would stand?
As I stated the scenario only arises if, say, Labour fall behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour seat and Labour remains clearly behind in most polls, then the CLP will be looking around for a viable alternative and the only viable alternative is Benn, you can be nominated whether you ask to be or not
There are plenty of other viable contenders: Watson, Creasy, Harman, Cooper, Jarvis etc Benn being appointed against his will is too absurd to refute.
Corbyn is it, unless he dies or quits, there is no easy way past that. More's the pity!
LG83..You have yet to tell us how Russia and North Korea could easily invade the UK..take your time..you may have to confer with your minders..we can wait
I'm happy to concede that they haven't got the logistics (North Korea was a joke by the way).
If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
I don't think SeanT has ever been to a PBmeet - he once said that he was wary of ...LIKING people and it cramping his style. I'll buy him a drink if he turns up and he can spit it if he likes.
On topic, sorry to disagree with the consensus here, but Corbyn's response on Syria remains right IMO. We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
As for shoot to kill, Corbyn has simply restated existing policy, that the police should respond proportionately, seeking to minimise casualties. That can indeed involve shooting to kill, but that shouldn't be the only option, and won't be in practice.
I can see the case for arguing that Corbyn should tack to the wind in the current climate. But I like the fact that he doesn't, and I'd vote for him again if the necessity arose. So, I suspect, would most of his supporters. Which is why it won't happen any time soon.
As I wrote , at any "normal" time, his "shoot to kill" words would have been brave and he could have fought his corner since legally he would have been correct.
There is no need to say that now. Not at this moment. Whilst he clearly chooses his words, he clearly has people like himself as the listener.
Assuming HYFUD is correct (and I doubt it!) Is there any reason to believe either that the CLP would unite behind Benn? Or indeed that he would stand?
As I stated the scenario only arises if, say, Labour fall behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour seat and Labour remains clearly behind in most polls, then the CLP will be looking around for a viable alternative and the only viable alternative is Benn, you can be nominated whether you ask to be or not
There are plenty of other viable contenders: Watson, Creasy, Harman, Cooper, Jarvis etc Benn being appointed against his will is too absurd to refute.
Corbyn is it, unless he dies or quits, there is no easy way past that. More's the pity!
None of those have the potential to be unity figures as he does so are all non-starters, he is the only potential candidate leftwing enough to appease the membership while mainstream and experienced enough to appease the PLP, at least until after the next election.
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
As long as Putin and N Korea have nuclear weapons so should we and who knows what ISIS could acquire in future
Russia (and probably North Korea, the state we're in) could invade us several times over and we couldn't stop them. That's more of a real worry than domesday weapon top trumps. Trident no thanks. Conventional forces yes.
Not if send a nuclear strike on Moscow or Pyonyang. Russia and N Korea would have to get through Western Europe too and NATO would inevitably already have intervened against them, including ourselves, however what happens if they send a nuclear weapon first, of course we would need a response
Trident (even allowing the day dream that we can send it independently without the Americans using a back door kill switch) is a doomsday weapon. It is not there to prevent anyone being invaded, because you can be invaded without introducing nuclear Armageddon. It is there to prevent nuclear attack by another nuclear state - by the Soviet Union to be precise.
India, Pakistan and North Korea rely to a degree on nukes ot keep other powers from attacking them.
BTW in your own words you have described a deterrent effect.
I know I have. I'm not denying the effect, I'm saying we shouldn't renew Trident.
Of course you would, you'd be OK with Putin having the only nukes in the world.
And you rather dimly think the Trident system is the only available nuke in the world.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
That's the way it works here too.
Realistically if Hillary has just won a presidential election she can pardon herself as much as she wants!
...
Please just stop before you lose all credibility.
Sadly, that point was reached several months ago.
If only HYUFD realised it.
I do still wonder if the poster is in fact a clever attempt at PB AI.....
Key words 'as I understand it', there is nothing that states the incumbent automatically appears on the ballot by default at all
Chapter clause II, Rule D(i) states that “When the PLP is in opposition, the election of the leader and deputy leader shall take place at each annual session of party conference
He's on the ballot, automatically, every year, challenge or not
Regarding Corbyn's comments, there's no 'shoot to kill' policy in the UK for terrorists anyway. There's an 'in extremis shoot to save innocent lives' policy, which as a side effect may well kill the terrorist.
1) If Corbyn is challenged, I say he won't need any nominations, he's automatically on the ballot paper
2) if Hillary is indicted, she'll quit the race.
Both hypothicals, in case 1 he will only be replaced if a replacement is backed overwhelmingly by the PLP, in case 2 unless she is convicted of High Treason nothing to stop her running, nonetheless agreed if they are both to pan out
Regarding Corbyn's comments, there's no 'shoot to kill' policy in the UK for terrorists anyway. There's an 'in extremis shoot to save innocent lives' policy, which as a side effect may well kill the terrorist.
Oh, Richard please ! Do you have to bring your legalistic stuff always ? You are almost as bad as Corbyn !
Corbyn doesn't understand that in such situations there is no alternative to shoot to kill.
You want to finish the threat you have to keep shooting until bits of body and head are detaching under the weight. It is done to literally crush the ability of the assailant to shoot or push a button or whatever. Its just how it is and we might as well be honest about it.
Well done Labour, you've voted in a man who has no concept of reality.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Wrong. The U.K. Government has the power to grant pardons.
The UK government is not the same as an individual MP
Christ you are thick aren't you and can't comprehend facts that shatter your opinions.
The UK government would be acting on behalf of Her Majesty in granting the Royal Prerogative to grant a pardon, nothing to do with individual MPs so absolutely nothing shattered there
Going backwards, we can afford it. We pay for it now. There's plenty of government fat that could still be cut if necessary.
The technology isn't outdated now, though there's always the possibility it might become so. All the same, even if the subs were detectable, as long as they could get their missiles off before being hit, the deterrent effect would still be there.
The first three points I have some sympathy with. We should co-operate with the French instead.
Were the submarines detectable, the nuclear aggressor would surely first target them, destroying the deterrent before the threat of nuclear conflict became apparent.
'Normal rules' require all candidates to receive sufficient nominations from the PLP
...if there is no incumbent.
When the incumbent is challenged, they appear on the ballot by default (as I understand it)
Key words 'as I understand it', there is nothing that states the incumbent automatically appears on the ballot by default at all
Yes there is.
No there is not, it states the grounds for a challenger to bring about a contest and then nothing to say that contest is not then conducted under normal rules
1) If Corbyn is challenged, I say he won't need any nominations, he's automatically on the ballot paper
2) if Hillary is indicted, she'll quit the race.
Both hypothicals, in case 1 he will only be replaced if a replacement is backed overwhelmingly by the PLP, in case 2 unless she is convicted of High Treason nothing to stop her running, nonetheless agreed if they are both to pan out
Cool I'll register the bets with Peter in the morning.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
That's the way it works here too.
Realistically if Hillary has just won a presidential election she can pardon herself as much as she wants!
Has any country in the world impeached both a husband and wife, separately?!
LG83..You have yet to tell us how Russia and North Korea could easily invade the UK..take your time..you may have to confer with your minders..we can wait
I'm happy to concede that they haven't got the logistics (North Korea was a joke by the way).
It would be South Korea of course. To start with.... Then the theatre of operations would expand if it is allowed too. There's the rub of course and the response by deployments of ground troops would expose them to various weapons. N. Korea still might use them of course but they would know there could be an equal response. Fat boy wouldn't care though so N.Korea probably not a great example and probably one place where deterrent does not work.
It is where I see the biggest risk and the place it's most likely to kick off in a big way. ISIS. Would be a footnote in comparison.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
That's the way it works here too.
Realistically if Hillary has just won a presidential election she can pardon herself as much as she wants!
Politics was defined long ago as 'the art of the possible'. Realistically your premise is nonsense.
But feel free to dream on - it doesn't seem that anyone is buying your learned legal opinions on either side of the Atlantic.
When you do your poll thing, sometimes you seem quite erudite and numerate. Once you stray onto legal technicalities and what's feasible you are woefully off-base and appear to show little understanding of political (NOT legal) realities either side of the pond.
Please just stop before you lose all credibility.
The two are interlinked, if Hillary won the presidency it would be because she polled well enough to win the election, that is when the legal powers of the presidency would then be brought into play
Regarding Corbyn's comments, there's no 'shoot to kill' policy in the UK for terrorists anyway. There's an 'in extremis shoot to save innocent lives' policy, which as a side effect may well kill the terrorist.
Oh, Richard please ! Do you have to bring your legalistic stuff always ? You are almost as bad as Corbyn !
Thinking about it Corbyn could have got away with his position if he had invoked the example of Jean Charles DeMenenez
If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
There's nothing wrong with bombing:as part of an overall strategy - it is important. But if that's the sum total of your strategy it will not work. IS is fighting Assad, so very few (if any) countries are going to gang up on eliminating IS if it means Assad will stay. So you need to get rid of Assad and then tackle IS, or as a questioner asked Obama in his amazingly hostile press conference today - 'why can't we just go and kill the bastards?'.
Regarding Corbyn's comments, there's no 'shoot to kill' policy in the UK for terrorists anyway. There's an 'in extremis shoot to save innocent lives' policy, which as a side effect may well kill the terrorist.
Oh, Richard please ! Do you have to bring your legalistic stuff always ? You are almost as bad as Corbyn !
To be fair to Mr Nabavi, he isn't presenting himself as a putative PM.
I agree with Nick that bombing Syria while trying to remove their government makes no sense. It's just a pity that Corbyn didn't get Nick to explain it for him so we wouldn't be left with the idea that his motivation was pacifism
Regarding Corbyn's comments, there's no 'shoot to kill' policy in the UK for terrorists anyway. There's an 'in extremis shoot to save innocent lives' policy, which as a side effect may well kill the terrorist.
That's right - he supports existing policy. There has however been vague media speculation that it was going to change to a "shoot to kill" policy (whatever that would be), and that's what he was asked about. In practice, I can't see a change from the current policy under either party.
When you read Corbyn's comments or hear his interviews today, the first and easiest reaction is to think that he is utterly insane. The problem is that he is quite, quite sane. This is, perhaps, what makes him more insidious and more dangerous.
To most on the Left (and indeed probably quite a lot on the more centrist Right), Multiculturalism is a methodology not an ideology. It is a method by which they can ignore the inherent contradictions of allowing core Muslim beliefs such as Kafir, Haraam and Harb to be ignored, to be swept under the carpet and not addressed at all.
This is obviously a mistake, the core tenets of Islam cannot square with peaceful co-existence with Western society. They are diametrically opposed philosophies.
But to Corbyn, Multuculturalism isn't a method, it is his creed. It is his absolute fundamental belief that this apartheid form of society actually works despite all the evidence to the contrary. He cannot accept the evidence in front of his eyes and the outcome which Multiculturalism creates - segregated, ideologically opposed communities. And wherever you find such segregated, ideological opposition, the only possible result is conflict.
The problem with Corbyn is not that he is insane. It is that he is blind.
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
That's the way it works here too.
Realistically if Hillary has just won a presidential election she can pardon herself as much as she wants!
Has any country in the world impeached both a husband and wife, separately?!
I need to check the precise wording but Pakistan might have with Benazir Bhutto and her husband.
HYUFD. The next phase "normal rules" that you keep mentioning is the voting by the members - the ones that voted for Corbyn last time.
There is no extra re-nomination stage. No matter how many times you say it, it will not come true.
'Normal rules' require all candidates to receive sufficient nominations from the PLP before they can even be put before the party members, once a new contest has been forced by a challenger that first stage then comes into being
No they don't. Quote the passage of the rules this so called "normal rule" appears as.
The nomination stage is covered in quite some detail. If there is no vacancy then (case 1), if there is a vacancy then (case 2). Normal rules proceed AFTER the nomination stage.
If there is no vacancy it sets out the requirements for a challenger to initiate a contest in terms of the nominations they require, normal contest rules then apply with any further contendors joining the challenger also required to gain nominations before being put to the membership
If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
There's nothing wrong with bombing:as part of an overall strategy - it is important. But if that's the sum total of your strategy it will not work. IS is fighting Assad, so very few (if any) countries are going to gang up on eliminating IS if it means Assad will stay. So you need to get rid of Assad and then tackle IS, or as a questioner asked Obama in his amazingly hostile press conference today - 'why can't we just go and kill the bastards?'.
A more sensible strategy would be to give Assad the Alawite, Shiite part and the FSA the Sunni part
I think HYUFD is proving that people believe what they want to believe.
Further evidence -
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Technically true
But the reality would be different.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
The President has the power to pardon unlike MPs under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
Stop trying to change the subject - his point was that technically he could have stayed an MP but realistically he couldn't.
That's the way it works here too.
Realistically if Hillary has just won a presidential election she can pardon herself as much as she wants!
Has any country in the world impeached both a husband and wife, separately?!
An impeachment to be successful requires 2/3 of the Senate, the impeachment of Bill failed on that ground as would any attempted impeachment of Hillary
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
The rules ONLY state the mechanism for a challenger to force a contest, once a contest is forced the presumption is it will be conducted under normal rules and the incumbent will then also be required to obtain nominations to enter it.
No - the rules state who will be nominated. Your suggestion would mean that as soon as someone is nominated with 20%, then Corbyn ceases to be leader. That is the only way to then redo under the "no leader" rules.
That is not credible.
Exactly. The nomination phase is mentioned as either under no leader, or with a leader. Once the nomination phase is over you move on to the next stage (leader re-elected unopposed or a contest between challengers/leader). Nothing says you re-do the nomination stage all over again.
The
Quote the part of the rulebook that says that. Because the r
Yes, a nomination stage to force a contest if there is no vacancy, once nominations have been achieved to force that contest it is fought on normal rules and the nomination process is not complete until any other candidates have received sufficient nominees to force a challenge
Bear in mind that the election will be governed by the NEC, elected by the Corbynite-dominated membership. What do you think their interpretation of the rule will be?
The NEC also includes representatives of the PLP, MEPs, trades unions and socialist societies, not just constituency Labour Parties
Yes, it does. And going by its constitutional make-up, I'd say that Corbyn should find no difficulty generating a majority on it. The twelve (out of 33) union places are a good start.
Key words 'as I understand it', there is nothing that states the incumbent automatically appears on the ballot by default at all
Chapter clause II, Rule D(i) states that “When the PLP is in opposition, the election of the leader and deputy leader shall take place at each annual session of party conference
He's on the ballot, automatically, every year, challenge or not
That is simply a requirement for an annual endorsement at conference, not a full leadership contest
If I ever meet NPXMP in person I will politely spit fine wine in his silly face.
Having studiously avoided each other over the past 10 years, I consider any future meeting to be very unlikely.
We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
There's nothing wrong with bombing:as part of an overall strategy - it is important. But if that's the sum total of your strategy it will not work. IS is fighting Assad, so very few (if any) countries are going to gang up on eliminating IS if it means Assad will stay. So you need to get rid of Assad and then tackle IS, or as a questioner asked Obama in his amazingly hostile press conference today - 'why can't we just go and kill the bastards?'.
A more sensible strategy would be to give Assad the Alawite, Shiite part and the FSA the Sunni part
That would have been fine if we were back a couple of years. Now there are many other opposition groups. What do they get? We're at the point where my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Key words 'as I understand it', there is nothing that states the incumbent automatically appears on the ballot by default at all
Chapter clause II, Rule D(i) states that “When the PLP is in opposition, the election of the leader and deputy leader shall take place at each annual session of party conference
He's on the ballot, automatically, every year, challenge or not
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
The rules ONLY state the mechanism for a challenger to force a contest, once a contest is forced the presumption is it will be conducted under normal rules and the incumbent will then also be required to obtain nominations to enter it.
No - the rules state who will be nominated. Your suggestion would mean that as soon as someone is nominated with 20%, then Corbyn ceases to be leader. That is the only way to then redo under the "no leader" rules.
That is not credible.
Exactly. The nomination phase is mentioned as either under no leader, or with a leader. Once the nomination phase is over you move on to the next stage (leader re-elected unopposed or a contest between challengers/leader). Nothing says you re-do the nomination stage all over again.
The
Quote the part of the rulebook that says that. Because the r
Yes, a nomination stage to force a contest if there is no vacancy, once nominations have been achieve
Bear in mind that the election will be governed by the NEC, elected by the Corbynite-dominated membership. What do you think their interpretation of the rule will be?
The NEC also includes representatives of the PLP, MEPs, trades unions and socialist societies, not just constituency Labour Parties
Yes, it does. And going by its constitutional make-up, I'd say that Corbyn should find no difficulty generating a majority on it. The twelve (out of 33) union places are a good start.
If Corbyn fails to make any further progress in 2 years in the polls and starts losing by-elections to UKIP the unions could certainly live with replacing Corbyn by Hilary Benn
Comments
If doctors are to be working more weekends but not more hours then they will be working less in office hours. That much is obvious. There will therefore be less elective work etc done in that time. We are seeing privatisation of elective surgery, some screening services, pathology sevices, merging of GPs into mega-practices (such as Lakeside in Northants with over 120 GPs).
I think that the plan is for most of the elective work to be done by private companies under contract to the NHS, with the rump of unprofitable emergency services and medicine of the elderly run by direct NHS employees.
Some may like this as a concept, but there are many unaddressed issues including training (if a junior is not doing supervised elective sections during the week, are they really up to an emergency section on a Saturday night?) and of continuity of care (if the Doctor who admitted you is not around when the results arrive, what happens?).
"I would hate to do it, but it's something that you're going to have to strongly consider," Mr Trump told MSNBC.
Oh dear....that goes against everything that the US constitution US stands for.
HYUFD. The next phase "normal rules" that you keep mentioning is the voting by the members - the ones that voted for Corbyn last time.
There is no extra re-nomination stage. No matter how many times you say it, it will not come true.
He was insisting the other night that Hillary Clinton could get indicted by the Feds, win the nomination (in either order), run for office, win, be found guilty, pardon herself, then carry on as POTUS as if nothing has happened.
Take Chris Huhne, technically he could have remained an MP after serving his sentence. But we all knew the moment he pleaded guilty he'd have to resign as an MP. Public opinion would demand it, he knew it too, that's why he quit straight away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34836397/leeds-pub-garden-floods-men-go-for-pint-anyway
When the incumbent is challenged, they appear on the ballot by default (as I understand it)
HYUFD - when every single person (that deigns to comment on the Labour nomination issue - most just despair at the misunderstanding, I imagine) on this website full of political enthusiasts disagrees with you, it might be time to admit you're wrong.
We'd be very grateful!
Trump 31
Carson 22
Cruz 13
Rubio 9
Fiorina 4
Kasich 4
Paul 4
Bush 3
Christie 2
Huckabee 1
Jindal 1
Santorum < 1
Graham < 1
Pataki 0
Gilmore 0
Democrats
Clinton 78
Sanders 19
O'Malley 3
http://www.umass.edu/poll/pdfs/20151116_Toplines.pdf
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that this man is quite simply not a politician.
What drove him to say these words today beats me. As someone in the shadow cabinet is supposed to have said he lives in another planet ! That would still mean he is from our solar system which I am not so sure anymore.
Did he have to give that interview - now ? Agreeing to an interview is not compulsory, surely. No matter how many journalists want it.
From a legalistic point of view, he is probably right. "Shoot to kill", by definition implies extra-judicial killing though a French policeman entering Bataclan on Friday evening could be excused if he wasn't aware about the exact code of the penal law which would have justified his actions. It was either him or the other guy !
Regarding bombing, I don't think Corbyn is that wrong. Apart from the emotive "solidarity", what will this actually achieve ? For God's sake, the US and the French have been at it for a year now. It was almost hilarious [ sorry about that ! ] when the French announced they had hit the HQ and the Recruitment centre in Raqqa. Excusez-moi! Qu'avez-vous fait jusqu'à maintenant
There can be a military solution. Probably one is needed. I cannot see a way out. But it would be a high risk one. It would need SAS type quick operation. Of course, the British, French and anyone who could join, would join. Turks might. The Russians, maybe, if a separate sector could be agreed with them. Quite literally, go in for a surgical attack and finish off what matters in Raqaa. No point hanging around. There will be casualties. Don't wait for the Yanks ! They never join a fight unless victory can be guaranteed.
Isam and Sean F might be surprised to agree that I could not object to anything Farage said on C4 news tonight. That will almost certainly be a first and last for me.
After the emotions have died down. I am quite sure Cameron will decide not to join the bombing campaign for the reasons above. There are no plus points.
"She's the BBCs chief political reporter.
Of course this has nothing at all to do with the BBCs fear that the Tories might pull the rug from under them. The Tories essentially have Aunty Beeb's knackers in a vice!"
"The "positive" out of this interview, I reckon, is that more and more people who see interviews like this will also see the unfair/childish/cowardly attempts on interviewees and it will hopefully serve to reinforce the fact that all mainstream media is manipulated. But Corbyn is a politician - and a pretty strong one. He ain't gonna let it get to him."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom#
On topic, sorry to disagree with the consensus here, but Corbyn's response on Syria remains right IMO. We are deluded to be seeking to bomb the country while simultaneously trying to get rid of the government - it makes the Iraq intervention that I voted for look well-thought-through by comparison. If the negotiations reach an agreement on a postwar coalition after defeating ISIS, then I'd favour Britain taking part in a joint UN mission to drive ISIS out and end the war.
As for shoot to kill, Corbyn has simply restated existing policy, that the police should respond proportionately, seeking to minimise casualties. That can indeed involve shooting to kill, but that shouldn't be the only option, and won't be in practice.
I can see the case for arguing that Corbyn should tack to the wind in the current climate. But I like the fact that he doesn't, and I'd vote for him again if the necessity arose. So, I suspect, would most of his supporters. Which is why it won't happen any time soon.
The technology isn't outdated now, though there's always the possibility it might become so. All the same, even if the subs were detectable, as long as they could get their missiles off before being hit, the deterrent effect would still be there.
The first three points I have some sympathy with. We should co-operate with the French instead.
That's the way it works here too.
Tom Watson.
My understanding of the rules is that they are ambiguous, that they will be 'tidied up' when the balance of the NEC is amended sufficiently to the left.
£100 each at evens on the following two events
1) If Corbyn is challenged, I say he won't need any nominations, he's automatically on the ballot paper
2) if Hillary is indicted, she'll quit the race.
Anybody who saw the video of what the police faced when they turned up at the music venue in Paris, despite being armed they were forced back...it required special forces to go in and neutralise these people. They are trained killers, not wannabe gangsters.
The nomination stage is covered in quite some detail. If there is no vacancy then (case 1), if there is a vacancy then (case 2). Normal rules proceed AFTER the nomination stage.
But feel free to dream on - it doesn't seem that anyone is buying your learned legal opinions on either side of the Atlantic.
When you do your poll thing, sometimes you seem quite erudite and numerate. Once you stray onto legal technicalities and what's feasible you are woefully off-base and appear to show little understanding of political (NOT legal) realities either side of the pond.
Please just stop before you lose all credibility.
Benn being appointed against his will is too absurd to refute.
Corbyn is it, unless he dies or quits, there is no easy way past that. More's the pity!
There is no need to say that now. Not at this moment. Whilst he clearly chooses his words, he clearly has people like himself as the listener.
If only HYUFD realised it.
I do still wonder if the poster is in fact a clever attempt at PB AI.....
You want to finish the threat you have to keep shooting until bits of body and head are detaching under the weight. It is done to literally crush the ability of the assailant to shoot or push a button or whatever. Its just how it is and we might as well be honest about it.
Well done Labour, you've voted in a man who has no concept of reality.
For example, with this one:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107516
Map:
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=107516
It's all getting a bit 'chalice from the palace has the brew that is true, the flagon with the dragon has the pellet with the poison.'
And its late...
It is where I see the biggest risk and the place it's most likely to kick off in a big way. ISIS. Would be a footnote in comparison.
So you need to get rid of Assad and then tackle IS, or as a questioner asked Obama in his amazingly hostile press conference today - 'why can't we just go and kill the bastards?'.
To most on the Left (and indeed probably quite a lot on the more centrist Right), Multiculturalism is a methodology not an ideology. It is a method by which they can ignore the inherent contradictions of allowing core Muslim beliefs such as Kafir, Haraam and Harb to be ignored, to be swept under the carpet and not addressed at all.
This is obviously a mistake, the core tenets of Islam cannot square with peaceful co-existence with Western society. They are diametrically opposed philosophies.
But to Corbyn, Multuculturalism isn't a method, it is his creed. It is his absolute fundamental belief that this apartheid form of society actually works despite all the evidence to the contrary. He cannot accept the evidence in front of his eyes and the outcome which Multiculturalism creates - segregated, ideologically opposed communities. And wherever you find such segregated, ideological opposition, the only possible result is conflict.
The problem with Corbyn is not that he is insane. It is that he is blind.
That is simply a requirement for an annual endorsement at conference, not a full leadership contest
Praise the Lord !