politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It could be a case of Corbynus interruptus in the Labour le

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It could be a case of Corbynus interruptus in the Labour leadership contest

One of my underlying assumptions about any attempt to defenestrate Corbyn was that Corbyn would automatically be on the ballot in the subesquent contest, but judging by events this morning, that assumption might well be wrong.

Read the full story here

nunu

First comrades!

TheScreamingEagles

Politcalbetting.com, the only place you get sound betting advice and Latin puns.

SandyRentool

Let's have a proper ballot with a proper range of candidates - some of whom look like future Prime Ministers.

HYUFD

Angela Eagle was actually closer to Corbyn that even Watson or Jarvis in that members' poll, she may be the best candidate to face him as she has low expectations which means the better she does the worse for Corbyn as if he cannot convincingly beat her who can he beat? If Corbyn is kept off the ballot paper given she had the courage to challenge him in the first place and seems the most acceptable alternative to the present members (she also beat McDonnell in the same members' poll) I see no reason why she should not be made leader

SouthamObserver

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

bigjohnowls

A poor 5th like democracy in Labour

MaxPB

Would the courts even hear this case? And who the hell leads the party while the case is heard? Watson, he's one of the key plotters.

felix

SandyRentool said:

Let's have a proper ballot with a proper range of candidates - some of whom look like future Prime Ministers.

We are - unfortunately it's happening in the Conservative party and in UKIP

TheScreamingEagles

MaxPB said:

Would the courts even hear this case?

Yes.

logical_song

Tory MPs needed to defect to Labour so they can nominate Corbyn ;-).

TheWhiteRabbit

SandyRentool said:

Let's have a proper ballot with a proper range of candidates - some of whom look like future Prime Ministers.

Who? Can't remember if you're a Labour supporter Sandy but if you had the choice of any current MP (or Milliband, D) who would you go for?

Jobabob

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

Yesterday you were talking about the legal precedent set by Kinnock....

SandyRentool

TheWhiteRabbit said:

SandyRentool said:

Let's have a proper ballot with a proper range of candidates - some of whom look like future Prime Ministers.

Who? Can't remember if you're a Labour supporter Sandy but if you had the choice of any current MP (or Milliband, D) who would you go for?

Benn

DavidL

Only in the Labour Party would the question of whether should someone who does not have the support of 51 MPs be allowed to stand for Leader be considered worth an answer.

I hope he is on the ballot and that he loses. It would save the Labour Party and would be what he deserves.

MarkSenior

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

Yesterday you were talking about the legal precedent set by Kinnock....

It is certainly a precedent but not a legally established one .

DecrepitJohnL

SandyRentool said:

Let's have a proper ballot with a proper range of candidates - some of whom look like future Prime Ministers.

Labour, Conservative or UKIP -- what an uninspiring bunch of candidates.

nunu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

If only Cameron read this book he would have seen this coming.

rottenborough

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

Yesterday you were talking about the legal precedent set by Kinnock....

Clearly the rules aren't, er, clear, otherwise we all wouldn't be having this debate and nor would Andrew Marr.

SouthamObserver

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

Yesterday you were talking about the legal precedent set by Kinnock....

Yep - having thought about it further (and looking at the make up of the NEC) I think that won't work. However, if I am wrong and the NEC does go against JC that precedent will be very powerful in court.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Would the courts even hear this case?

Yes.

But would they hear the case quickly enough? That is the problem.

SouthamObserver

MaxPB said:

Would the courts even hear this case? And who the hell leads the party while the case is heard? Watson, he's one of the key plotters.

The courts would need good reason to hear the case. Corbyn would have to show the NEC had not followed the rules or that it had been discriminatory. Those are high hurdles.

TwistedFireStopper

I know it's all going to hell in a handcart, but it's a great time to be alive. We have a real chance both main parties could be screwed- and by their own hand. Bloody marvellous. Mind you, I hope someone remembers that they are supposed to have a stab at running the country at some point.

GIN1138

So, Theresa May is planning on forcing us to vote again in a second referendum?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682742/May-s-aide-hints-second-referendum-Former-Attorney-General-says-People-change-mind-not-writ-stone.html

Looks like the Tories have got to give the leadership to Andrea because Theresa cant be trusted.

Pity.

ToryJim

The spectacle of the leader of a party taking his own NEC to court would be almost Kafkaesque.

TheScreamingEagles

GIN1138 said:

So, Theresa May is planning on forcing us to vote again in a second referendum?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682742/May-s-aide-hints-second-referendum-Former-Attorney-General-says-People-change-mind-not-writ-stone.html

Looks like the Tories have got to give the leadership to Andrea because Theresa cant be trusted.

Pity.

Only if you ignore this

Mr Grieve told the BBC that 'as a parliamentarian and a democrat, I have to accept the verdict of the referendum' and that a Tory Government was under an obligation to 'try to give effect' to it

OldKingCole

TwistedFireStopper said:

I know it's all going to hell in a handcart, but it's a great time to be alive. We have a real chance both main parties could be screwed- and by their own hand. Bloody marvellous. Mind you, I hope someone remembers that they are supposed to have a stab at running the country at some point.

Belgium managed for over a year with a Government.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Would the courts even hear this case? And who the hell leads the party while the case is heard? Watson, he's one of the key plotters.

The courts would need good reason to hear the case. Corbyn would have to show the NEC had not followed the rules or that it had been discriminatory. Those are high hurdles.

The test for regulatory intervention by the courts is not high but you are right that the decision of the NEC would be given considerable weight, especially when the rules seem designed to give them a discretion to go beyond the rules if necessary.

rottenborough

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

MarkSenior

Should Corbyn be excluded from standing , I would expect a spoiled ballot campaign with tens of thousands writing in his name .

RodCrosby

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

Yesterday you were talking about the legal precedent set by Kinnock....

Bullshine. There was no legal precedent.

rottenborough

ToryJim said:

The spectacle of the leader of a party taking his own NEC to court would be almost Kafkaesque.

The popcorn floweth over.

MaxPB

GIN1138 said:

So, Theresa May is planning on forcing us to vote again in a second referendum?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682742/May-s-aide-hints-second-referendum-Former-Attorney-General-says-People-change-mind-not-writ-stone.html

Looks like the Tories have got to give the leadership to Andrea because Theresa cant be trusted.

Pity.

Grayling was on this morning saying there would be no second vote. Grieve is just a plonker who can't accept the will of the people.

Ishmael_X

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Would the courts even hear this case?

Yes.

But would they hear the case quickly enough? That is the problem.

Again, yes. You can expedite the hell out of things if circumstances demand it.

Andy_Cooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

So, Theresa May is planning on forcing us to vote again in a second referendum?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682742/May-s-aide-hints-second-referendum-Former-Attorney-General-says-People-change-mind-not-writ-stone.html

Looks like the Tories have got to give the leadership to Andrea because Theresa cant be trusted.

Pity.

Only if you ignore this

Mr Grieve told the BBC that 'as a parliamentarian and a democrat, I have to accept the verdict of the referendum' and that a Tory Government was under an obligation to 'try to give effect' to it

And the fact that it's from someone who is not Theresa May.

TheScreamingEagles

Andy_Cooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

So, Theresa May is planning on forcing us to vote again in a second referendum?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682742/May-s-aide-hints-second-referendum-Former-Attorney-General-says-People-change-mind-not-writ-stone.html

Looks like the Tories have got to give the leadership to Andrea because Theresa cant be trusted.

Pity.

Only if you ignore this

Mr Grieve told the BBC that 'as a parliamentarian and a democrat, I have to accept the verdict of the referendum' and that a Tory Government was under an obligation to 'try to give effect' to it

And the fact that it's from someone who is not Theresa May.

Indeed.

Pulpstar

B.
Nomination
i.
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy
leader, each nomination must be supported
by 15 per cent of the combined Commons
members of the PLP and members of the
EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.
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 combined
Commons members of the PLP and members
of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.

NickPalmer

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

It would be quite ridiculous if he wasn't on the ballot and would make the whole ballot an undignified waste of time. I'd certainly boycott it and so would most members - as Tony Blair, hardly a keen Corbynite, observed, it would be a breach of natural justice. We'd simply make sure to elect more sensible NEC members in the imminent NEC election, and ask them to get the necessary changes at Conference to rerun the election with a choice of those who actually want to stand.

CornishBlue

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

I find it amazing that a movement (the wider labour movement) which so beloves committees, rulebooks, etc, has managed to not spell out categorically in its rules for the Party Leadership whether or not the incumbent has to have nominations from MPs or not.

A ridiculous party that should be put out of its misery.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

It would pretty outrageous to keep him off it from the perspective of natural justice and - I'd assume - the intent of the drafters

Pulpstar

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

SouthamObserver

Pulpstar said:

B.
Nomination
i.
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy
leader, each nomination must be supported
by 15 per cent of the combined Commons
members of the PLP and members of the
EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.
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 combined
Commons members of the PLP and members
of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.

Not clear if leader needs nominations from that. Thus, JC gets the benefit of the doubt.

RodCrosby

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Would the courts even hear this case? And who the hell leads the party while the case is heard? Watson, he's one of the key plotters.

The courts would need good reason to hear the case. Corbyn would have to show the NEC had not followed the rules or that it had been discriminatory. Those are high hurdles.

He would need to show that to win, not to have the case heard.

And he has an overwhelmingly strong case. The courts would be going out on a limb to side with plotters within one of the great political parties.

ToryJim

MaxPB said:

GIN1138 said:

So, Theresa May is planning on forcing us to vote again in a second referendum?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682742/May-s-aide-hints-second-referendum-Former-Attorney-General-says-People-change-mind-not-writ-stone.html

Looks like the Tories have got to give the leadership to Andrea because Theresa cant be trusted.

Pity.

Grayling was on this morning saying there would be no second vote. Grieve is just a plonker who can't accept the will of the people.

Grieve is a lawyer, legally speaking there is little to stop a second vote, or a vote every other week. practical considerations though override that.

HYUFD

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

It would be quite ridiculous if he wasn't on the ballot and would make the whole ballot an undignified waste of time. I'd certainly boycott it and so would most members - as Tony Blair, hardly a keen Corbynite, observed, it would be a breach of natural justice. We'd simply make sure to elect more sensible NEC members in the imminent NEC election, and ask them to get the necessary changes at Conference to rerun the election with a choice of those who actually want to stand.

Why? Tory MPs elected Michael Howard without consulting members and IDS won 60% of the members' vote in 2001.

david_herdson

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Would the courts even hear this case? And who the hell leads the party while the case is heard? Watson, he's one of the key plotters.

The courts would need good reason to hear the case. Corbyn would have to show the NEC had not followed the rules or that it had been discriminatory. Those are high hurdles.

Is there also a clause that authorizes the NEC to interpret the rules where ambiguity exists? If so, that makes Corbyn's challenge a great deal harder. If not, then I think he'd have a reasonable case.

On the discriminatory point, surely a contest only exists once a challenge is in? But there must also be a deadline on when challenges must be in by in order to be voted on at conference? If so, then a challenger has as long as he or she wants to put his or her nominations together whereas a leader would only have the time from the submission of the challenge until the deadline, which might be a matter of minutes if the challenger so chose. Such a situation would clearly be discriminatory unless the leader didn't need the nominations in the first place.

CornishBlue

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

That's how I read it too, though I wouldn't say it's "clear cut".

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

bigjohnowls

rottenborough said:

ToryJim said:

The spectacle of the leader of a party taking his own NEC to court would be almost Kafkaesque.

The popcorn floweth over.

Quick


A new NEC is being elected right now by members.

Those who say the leader cannot be on the ballot will lose their seats IMO

Pulpstar

Can we have @HenryGManson thoughts on all this ?

Charles

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

logical_song

DavidL said:

Only in the Labour Party would the question of whether should someone who does not have the support of 51 MPs be allowed to stand for Leader be considered worth an answer.

I hope he is on the ballot and that he loses. It would save the Labour Party and would be what he deserves.

Make it 85 and you could include the Tories and Leadsom.

John_M

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

Good afternoon all.

That was my reading. However, the idea that the incumbent does not require nominations is implied, rather than being made explicit. Bring on the lawyers.

rkrkrk

Pulpstar said:

B.
Nomination
i.
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy
leader, each nomination must be supported
by 15 per cent of the combined Commons
members of the PLP and members of the
EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.
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 combined
Commons members of the PLP and members
of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.

Thanks for posting this- I've been looking for this online.
My reading of that would be then that the 'nominations' refer to potential challengers and not to the current leader.

Also is there confirmation that Corbyn resigning and then standing to fill the vacancy (to benefit from a lower 15% threshold) is not acceptable?

If the plotters are successful in keeping Corbyn off the ballot- it would suggest that his conciliatory strategy on de-selections was a big mistake.

SandyRentool

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I agree. That's why we need a deal to guarantee another Corbynite on the ballot if Jezza steps aside.

rottenborough

Pulpstar said:

B.
Nomination
i.
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy
leader, each nomination must be supported
by 15 per cent of the combined Commons
members of the PLP and members of the
EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.
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 combined
Commons members of the PLP and members
of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.

On face of it it seems Doughty Chambers (see Faisal Islam's twitter feed) are right and Corbyn is on. They say the alternative argument is "weak".

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

The vote is advisory, the only way Corbyn gets excluded if this goes to the courts is if the judge is of a weak and feeble mind.

MarkSenior

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

If I were a judge ( which of course I am not ) that would be my interpretation . ONLY the CHALLENGERS need the required number of nominations .

david_herdson

MarkSenior said:

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

Yesterday you were talking about the legal precedent set by Kinnock....

It is certainly a precedent but not a legally established one .

Do we know whether Kinnock put together the nominations because he needed them as a matter of process or because politically it strengthened his case as he had the overwhelming backing of all three sections? There is a culture in Labour whereby any number of internal party groups or individuals 'nominate' one candidate or another in leadership elections even though these public statements have no official role in the process.

logical_song

Andy_Cooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

So, Theresa May is planning on forcing us to vote again in a second referendum?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682742/May-s-aide-hints-second-referendum-Former-Attorney-General-says-People-change-mind-not-writ-stone.html

Looks like the Tories have got to give the leadership to Andrea because Theresa cant be trusted.

Pity.

Only if you ignore this

Mr Grieve told the BBC that 'as a parliamentarian and a democrat, I have to accept the verdict of the referendum' and that a Tory Government was under an obligation to 'try to give effect' to it

And the fact that it's from someone who is not Theresa May.

Grieve was good on Any Questions and got quite a lot of applause, although Tim Farron got more. Gisela Stuart was on the back foot mostly.

SouthamObserver

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

It would be quite ridiculous if he wasn't on the ballot and would make the whole ballot an undignified waste of time. I'd certainly boycott it and so would most members - as Tony Blair, hardly a keen Corbynite, observed, it would be a breach of natural justice. We'd simply make sure to elect more sensible NEC members in the imminent NEC election, and ask them to get the necessary changes at Conference to rerun the election with a choice of those who actually want to stand.

Not sure about that. Members in Islington North and other Corbyn hotspots might boycott, but there'd still be plenty of voters.

Disraeli

Pulpstar said:

B.
Nomination
i.
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy
leader, each nomination must be supported
by 15 per cent of the combined Commons
members of the PLP and members of the
EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.
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 combined
Commons members of the PLP and members
of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this
threshold shall be null and void.

Unambiguous to me. Only the challengers need MP nominations. The leader gets on the ballot automatically, assuming that they want to stand of course.

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

Only if the vote of no confidence has standing, which it doesn't.

The Labour constitution says that the Leader of the Party is, ex officio, the Leader of the PLP.

The PLP can't create a vacancy in the position of the leader of the PLP - it's not an elected post. And they can't, on their own, create a vacancy in the position of the leader of the Party

HYUFD

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

'In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. ' It does not say in this case any 'challengers' nomination must be supported by... So it depends which way you want to interpret it, that requirement for nominations could equally be interpreted to apply to the incumbent too if a challenger meets the nomination threshold

GIN1138

Stick to your guns Jezza! Don't be intimidated!

MikeK

Looks like Labour party will split de jure into two factions, which will quickly become separate parties. Which one keeps the Labour name is anyones guess.

rkrkrk

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

'In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. ' It does not say in this case any 'challengers' nomination must be supported by... So it depends which way you want to interpret it, taht requirement for nominations could equally be interpreted to apply to the incumbent too if a challenger meets the nomination threshold

But "in this case" directly follows the sentence:

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference."

Charles

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

'In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. ' It does not say in this case any 'challengers' nomination must be supported by... So it depends which way you want to interpret it, that requirement for nominations could equally be interpreted to apply to the incumbent too if a challenger meets the nomination threshold

No, it doesn't. It says potential challengers need to seek nominations...and that nominations must be 20%.

But don't bother replying. You spend hours spinning yourself about abstract points of law and invariably get them wrong, so I'm not going to waste my time

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

The vote is advisory, the only way Corbyn gets excluded if this goes to the courts is if the judge is of a weak and feeble mind.

That's your book talking isn't it ?

SouthamObserver

John_M said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

Good afternoon all.

That was my reading. However, the idea that the incumbent does not require nominations is implied, rather than being made explicit. Bring on the lawyers.

Yep - that is the problem. There's nothing explicit. It's up to the NEC to interpret. If they went against JC he'd have to show the process used to come to that decision was wrong. But I think it's very unlikely the NEC will go against him precisely because the wording is not clear.

TheWhiteRabbit

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

Only if the vote of no confidence has standing, which it doesn't.

The Labour constitution says that the Leader of the Party is, ex officio, the Leader of the PLP.

The PLP can't create a vacancy in the position of the leader of the PLP - it's not an elected post. And they can't, on their own, create a vacancy in the position of the leader of the Party

It would also mean that as I write this now there is no leader of the PLP!

Paul_Bedfordshire

blockquote class="Quote" rel="surbiton">

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

surbiton said:

<

When you say the "Commonwealth" , do you mean the "white" Commonwealth [ otherwise, known as the "Old" Commonwealth ] or the entire Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth is composed of mainly Republics. Take out your rose tinted spectacles.

They still all have represenative democracy, the common law and the rule of law. They nearly all speak English either as a first languagem an official language or a defacto official language. Basically politically they all play Rugby Union wheras the EU dosent even keep to the rules of Rugby league.

It is not a centralised organisation like the EU and no one will be forced into anything.

The fact is that I could, without any prior knowledge of the place, land in India or even Zimbabwe, comminicate with anyone educated, have the ability to competently find myself housing and work (in terms of being capable of doing the application, understsnding how contractual issues work - not employment laws for immigrants). I would be in an environment where the basic framework of life is the same - yes even in Zimbabwe. And in time off I could join a cricket club :-)

That is not the case anywhere in the EU except RoI, Malta and Cyprus.

I am looking forward to India play Pakistan at rugby followed by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The winners could take on Malaysia.........

What crap are you talking ? Just say you meant only the "white bit" of the Commonwealth and we will all understand what you really wanted to say.

India rugby team:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_national_rugby_union_team.

No I dont mean just the white commonwealth although in practice free movement would be thus limited to avoid the same problem we have with Eastern Europe at the moment, until such time as other members are as wealthy so unbalanced movement would not occur.

No reason why we cant have free trade and free movement for all who can demonstate a certain level of wealth so as to be able to support themselves with India S.A. etc

The commonwealth isnt a one size fits all organisation like the EU.

malcolmg

felix said:

SandyRentool said:

Let's have a proper ballot with a proper range of candidates - some of whom look like future Prime Ministers.

We are - unfortunately it's happening in the Conservative party and in UKIP

None of the runners look like future PM's though, at best we will get the accidental PM caused by stupidity.

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

Don't think that works. Here's the rule:

"There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP." (p. 4)

Being leader gives the person the leadership of PLP by virtue of being leader (ex-officio).

I can't see anything about confidence.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

The vote is advisory, the only way Corbyn gets excluded if this goes to the courts is if the judge is of a weak and feeble mind.

That's your book talking isn't it ?

If Eagle runs unopposed it will cost me a few quid but we're a long way from that yet.

Paul_Bedfordshire

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

"that would be the ideal way to ensure UKIP wins the 2020 general election" A rather naive statement from a wise head.

Let's say that the Brexit votership is 45% (having removed a few Bregretters), then three quarters of Brexiters would need to vote Ukip for them to win the election. This seems highly unlikely if the Brexit process has been initiated and is going along towards its conclusion. I would rather say "that would be the ideal way to ensure UKIP makes a massive dent in Tory support at the 2020 general election."

And, be that as it may, there do seem to be some Tories who want an election before
we leave the EU. http://markfieldmp.com/news-a-articles/to-those-constituents-demanding-a-second-referendum/

If we get EEA UKIP would be guaranteed about 20-25% of the vote ie about the same the LDs got in 2001, 2005 and 2010 but that would not be enough to win a general election even if would mean they won a few more seats

I think it depends on the settlement that May gets on free movement, if there are enough small changes to bring immigration down to below 200k I think UKIP will be looking at a somilar performance to what they have now. If she gets nothing and immigration stays at above 300k then I agree that they should be looking at a minimum of 20%.

Indeed but I think she is most likely to get minor concessions at best

The existing EFTA renewable emergency brake and restrictions on migrant benefits/NHS entitlement will do fine for now

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

'In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. ' It does not say in this case any 'challengers' nomination must be supported by... So it depends which way you want to interpret it, that requirement for nominations could equally be interpreted to apply to the incumbent too if a challenger meets the nomination threshold

Let's suppose that there are challengers, but none of them achieve 20%. The incumbent also fails to achieve 20%. That would mean that nobody could be the leader if it was necessary for the incumbent to get the 20%.

That would be nonsense since the incumbent would clearly remain in post. Corbyn doesn't need nominations. The only way to keep him off the ballot is with a deal.

malcolmg

GIN1138 said:

Stick to your guns Jezza! Don't be intimidated!

Afternoon GIN, hopefully the cowardly clowns get their just desserts.

logical_song

malcolmg said:

felix said:

SandyRentool said:

Let's have a proper ballot with a proper range of candidates - some of whom look like future Prime Ministers.

We are - unfortunately it's happening in the Conservative party and in UKIP

None of the runners look like future PM's though, at best we will get the accidental PM caused by stupidity.

Can't disagree with that.

John_M

SeanT said:

OldKingCole said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I know it's all going to hell in a handcart, but it's a great time to be alive. We have a real chance both main parties could be screwed- and by their own hand. Bloody marvellous. Mind you, I hope someone remembers that they are supposed to have a stab at running the country at some point.

Belgium managed for over a year with a Government.

I recall reading that their economy actually prospered, comparatively, during that time

Robert assures me that Italy only suffers economically when it has a strong government.

However, the idea that we're without a government is overblown. The Civil Service will be servicing away; it's a flywheel that will do fine without ministers floundering about, at least for a little while.

rkrkrk

From a tactical perspective... If it is the case that the plotters try and fail to exclude Corbyn from the ballot... that surely makes their life much harder when it comes to the leadership election?

Their case to the voters is then... we tried very hard to prevent you from having your say on Corbyn... but having failed- please listen to us?

stjohn

Using Reductio ad absurdum, would it be OK for Corbyn to be on the ballot if every single PLP member was opposed to him? If not a single one supported him? This seems preposterous to me. Surely he needs a minimum level of PLP support to lead the party otherwise the PLP become irrelevant. Maybe that's what's happened and it already is.

rottenborough

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

It would be quite ridiculous if he wasn't on the ballot and would make the whole ballot an undignified waste of time. I'd certainly boycott it and so would most members - as Tony Blair, hardly a keen Corbynite, observed, it would be a breach of natural justice. We'd simply make sure to elect more sensible NEC members in the imminent NEC election, and ask them to get the necessary changes at Conference to rerun the election with a choice of those who actually want to stand.

Not sure about that. Members in Islington North and other Corbyn hotspots might boycott, but there'd still be plenty of voters.

Most members boycott the election. Hmm. So only non-Corbynites would be voting then? So Eagle (or someone else) will be leader until a conference can be organized to enable another election.

SandyRentool

stjohn said:

Using Reductio ad absurdum, would it be OK for Corbyn to be on the ballot if every single PLP member was opposed to him? If not a single one supported him? This seems preposterous to me. Surely he needs a minimum level of PLP support to lead the party otherwise the PLP become irrelevant. Maybe that's what's happened and it already is.

He needed a minimum level of PLP support to get on last year's ballot. Which he got. Now he is the incumbent different rules apply.

HYUFD

rkrkrk said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

'In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. ' It does not say in this case any 'challengers' nomination must be supported by... So it depends which way you want to interpret it, taht requirement for nominations could equally be interpreted to apply to the incumbent too if a challenger meets the nomination threshold

But "in this case" directly follows the sentence:

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference."

Yes and if they then get those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to get those nominations too

edmundintokyo

David Allen Green tweeting on the rules:
https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen

Scott_P

As predicted before the vote...

@iainmartin1: A pro-Brexit Tory MP tells me that Leadsom's backers see the chance to "re-run the IDS leadership which was cruelly curtailed"... Well...

malcolmg

stjohn said:

Using Reductio ad absurdum, would it be OK for Corbyn to be on the ballot if every single PLP member was opposed to him? If not a single one supported him? This seems preposterous to me. Surely he needs a minimum level of PLP support to lead the party otherwise the PLP become irrelevant. Maybe that's what's happened and it already is.

It seems to be crystal clear from the rules, the existing leader can be challenged by someone if the get 20% of PLP support. Other wise he is leader till he resigns. A blind man can see that, Corbyn will not resign and will whip the stalking donkey put up against him. Hopefully we will then see a long list of these no-users being hung by their own petards.

HYUFD

rkrkrk said:

From a tactical perspective... If it is the case that the plotters try and fail to exclude Corbyn from the ballot... that surely makes their life much harder when it comes to the leadership election?

Their case to the voters is then... we tried very hard to prevent you from having your say on Corbyn... but having failed- please listen to us?

The voters have listened to Corbyn, they give him one of the worst opposition leader ratings in postwar history and in May gave him one of the worst local election performances of any opposition leader in history, Labour won just 31% and actually lost seats. Even Foot and Hague had some big local election wins

stjohn

SandyRentool said:

stjohn said:

Using Reductio ad absurdum, would it be OK for Corbyn to be on the ballot if every single PLP member was opposed to him? If not a single one supported him? This seems preposterous to me. Surely he needs a minimum level of PLP support to lead the party otherwise the PLP become irrelevant. Maybe that's what's happened and it already is.

He needed a minimum level of PLP support to get on last year's ballot. Which he got. Now he is the incumbent different rules apply.

Those different rules being that he needs no support at all. Crazy.

nunu

TwistedFireStopper said:

I know it's all going to hell in a handcart, but it's a great time to be alive. We have a real chance both main parties could be screwed- and by their own hand. Bloody marvellous. Mind you, I hope someone remembers that they are supposed to have a stab at running the country at some point.

Belgium goes long periods without government and they seem to get on fine.

HYUFD

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

"that would be the ideal way to ensure UKIP wins the 2020 general election" A rather naive statement from a wise head.

Let's say that the Brexit votership is 45% (having removed a few Bregretters), then three quarters of Brexiters would need to vote Ukip for them to win the election. This seems highly unlikely if the Brexit process has been initiated and is going along towards its conclusion. I would rather say "that would be the ideal way to ensure UKIP makes a massive dent in Tory support at the 2020 general election."

And, be that as it may, there do seem to be some Tories who want an election before
we leave the EU. http://markfieldmp.com/news-a-articles/to-those-constituents-demanding-a-second-referendum/

If we get EEA UKIP would be guaranteed about 20-25% of the vote ie about the same the LDs got in 2001, 2005 and 2010 but that would not be enough to win a general election even if would mean they won a few more seats

I think it depends on the settlement that May gets on free movement, if there are enough small changes to bring immigration down to below 200k I think UKIP will be looking at a somilar performance to what they have now. If she gets nothing and immigration stays at above 300k then I agree that they should be looking at a minimum of 20%.

Indeed but I think she is most likely to get minor concessions at best

The existing EFTA renewable emergency brake and restrictions on migrant benefits/NHS entitlement will do fine for now

Not for those who voted Leave to end immigration it won't and they will form the base for UKIP's messsage of opposition

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.

I've just been told that the logic is that the vote of no confidence in Corbyn creates a vacancy.

Interesting logic.

The vote is advisory, the only way Corbyn gets excluded if this goes to the courts is if the judge is of a weak and feeble mind.

That's your book talking isn't it ?

If Eagle runs unopposed it will cost me a few quid but we're a long way from that yet.

I'm on holiday from July 27th until August 9th in countries where betting is illegal, I suspect this is going to be an expensive holiday in so many ways.

HYUFD

SeanT said:

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC will keep Corbyn on the ballot. The rules are unclear and given that he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

It would be quite ridiculous if he wasn't on the ballot and would make the whole ballot an undignified waste of time. I'd certainly boycott it and so would most members - as Tony Blair, hardly a keen Corbynite, observed, it would be a breach of natural justice. We'd simply make sure to elect more sensible NEC members in the imminent NEC election, and ask them to get the necessary changes at Conference to rerun the election with a choice of those who actually want to stand.

Oooh.

*googles recipes for extra spicy popcorn*

Nick has gone from being an ultra loyal pro Iraq War Blairite to an ultra loyal pro Corbyn hardcore leftist all in the space of a decade!

malcolmg

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

'In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. ' It does not say in this case any 'challengers' nomination must be supported by... So it depends which way you want to interpret it, taht requirement for nominations could equally be interpreted to apply to the incumbent too if a challenger meets the nomination threshold

But "in this case" directly follows the sentence:

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference."

Yes and if they then get those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to get those nominations too

Give up you obviously cannot read very well or are just being obtuse. It explicitly states that to challenge teh incumbent you need 20% of the PLP's support, ie "NO vacancy.

MarkSenior

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

Labour rules, where no vacancy:

"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 combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."

You can read all the rules here:
http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rule-Book-2016.pdf

That's pretty clear that it's only potential challengers that need to seek nominations

'In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. ' It does not say in this case any 'challengers' nomination must be supported by... So it depends which way you want to interpret it, taht requirement for nominations could equally be interpreted to apply to the incumbent too if a challenger meets the nomination threshold

But "in this case" directly follows the sentence:

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference."

Yes and if they then get those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to get those nominations too

Having spoken to my friend who is a judge, Corbyn would certainly win if it came to court . The crux is that the rules give two scenarios vacancy or no vacancy .In only the 2nd scenario are the words potential challengers used and by definition challenger(s) do not include the incumbent .

John_M

nunu said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I know it's all going to hell in a handcart, but it's a great time to be alive. We have a real chance both main parties could be screwed- and by their own hand. Bloody marvellous. Mind you, I hope someone remembers that they are supposed to have a stab at running the country at some point.

Belgium goes long periods without government and they seem to get fine.

In the UK, the Civil Service gets its marching orders based on the outcome of the spending rounds - we essentially operate on a series of Five Year Plans, which is positively Soviet.

Government, like business, isn't really a complete adhocracy (though plans & priorities can and do change between spending rounds). If I were to be unkind, ministers are just there to occasionally keep the plates spinning.

Paul_Bedfordshire

HYUFD said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

"that would be the ideal way to ensure UKIP wins the 2020 general election" A rather naive statement from a wise head.

Let's say that the Brexit votership is 45% (having removed a few Bregretters), then three quarters of Brexiters would need to vote Ukip for them to win the election. This seems highly unlikely if the Brexit process has been initiated and is going along towards its conclusion. I would rather say "that would be the ideal way to ensure UKIP makes a massive dent in Tory support at the 2020 general election."

And, be that as it may, there do seem to be some Tories who want an election before
we leave the EU. http://markfieldmp.com/news-a-articles/to-those-constituents-demanding-a-second-referendum/

If we get EEA UKIP would be guaranteed about 20-25% of the vote ie about the same the LDs got in 2001, 2005 and 2010 but that would not be enough to win a general election even if would mean they won a few more seats

I think it depends on the settlement that May gets on free movement, if there are enough small changes to bring immigration down to below 200k I think UKIP will be looking at a somilar performance to what they have now. If she gets nothing and immigration stays at above 300k then I agree that they should be looking at a minimum of 20%.

Indeed but I think she is most likely to get minor concessions at best

The existing EFTA renewable emergency brake and restrictions on migrant benefits/NHS entitlement will do fine for now

Not for those who voted Leave to end immigration it won't and they will form the base for UKIP's messsage of opposition

Let them oppose. Even if they are half of Brexiters they are only 25% of the electorate.

If, as I suspect, the EFTA rules are enough then the issue will fade away. If not then we can re-evaluate in a few years

SimonStClare

Afternoon all.

I’m sure Corbyn knows the rule book backwards, I’m yet to be convinced that the NEC will interoperate them in a way that blocks a party leader’s right to be included automatically on the leadership ballot. – However, stranger things have happened in the past when Labour lays down with lawyers, demonstrating manifesto promises were mere guff was perhaps the highlight of Blair’s time in office.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I know it's all going to hell in a handcart, but it's a great time to be alive. We have a real chance both main parties could be screwed- and by their own hand. Bloody marvellous. Mind you, I hope someone remembers that they are supposed to have a stab at running the country at some point.

Belgium managed for over a year with a Government.

Glorious Freudian slip OKC!

PlatoSaid

Is it true that under Lisbon from 31 March 2017 triggering Article 50 falls under QMV and requires 14 members to approve it?

It's a new one on me. A Lisbon expert about?