"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."
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
Yes but it also says 'any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP' it does not restrict that explicitly just to potential challengers so if a potential challenger gets 20% it could certainly also be read that the incumbent would too. It may well be spinning abstract points of law but even Lord Kinnock made the same point as me and it will be the focus of weeks if not months of argument in the courts
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.
That's just fluff for internal consumption. No contractual rules can oust the Courts from interpreting those very rules. [The Labour rules don't even purport to do so, in any event]
See Lee v Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329
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.
Why is it crazy , the rules are that MP's cannot sack the person chosen by the party members. If they have the requisite support they can challenge him and have the members vote on it. Pretty simple, apart from fact that these duplicitous troughers do not like to have anything close to democracy.
"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."
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 a challenger got those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to do so too to get on the leadership ballot to join the challenger
"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."
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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
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.
Why is it crazy , the rules are that MP's cannot sack the person chosen by the party members. If they have the requisite support they can challenge him and have the members vote on it. Pretty simple, apart from fact that these duplicitous troughers do not like to have anything close to democracy.
Crazy to have a set of rules that allows the leader of a major parliamentary party to remain in place even if they have absolutely no support from their own members of parliament.
@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...
Quite. But what is the positive case for Theresa May? That she stayed in office as long as IDS at DWP (while we are invoking the former leader)? May's "inherit the win" tactic seems more like Gordon Brown's than David Cameron's, and look how that worked out.
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!
I don't think so - the leader of the party remains in place, even if challenged. The post isn't vacated just because someone else wants it.
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.
Why is it crazy , the rules are that MP's cannot sack the person chosen by the party members. If they have the requisite support they can challenge him and have the members vote on it. Pretty simple, apart from fact that these duplicitous troughers do not like to have anything close to democracy.
Yup. The MPs are trying to ignore their Party rules, and the Party members decision from just 9 months ago.
They're not even trying to formulate an alternative policy platform/leaders. It's all very wrong on so many levels.
I'd be very unimpressed if the Tories did the same.
"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."
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 a challenger got those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to do so too to get on the leadership ballot to join the challenger
It does not have to because the word challenger was ( presumably ) deliberately chosen as opposed to the word candidate or similar .
"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."
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 .
That depends on whether the case appears before your friend, if it appears before another judge he might interpret it differently. In the second scenario the word 'challenger' does not appear in the second sentence that any nomination must be supported by 20% of the PLP once a challenger has passed the 20% threshold to be nominated
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.
Why is it crazy , the rules are that MP's cannot sack the person chosen by the party members. If they have the requisite support they can challenge him and have the members vote on it. Pretty simple, apart from fact that these duplicitous troughers do not like to have anything close to democracy.
Crazy to have a set of rules that allows the leader of a parliamentary party to remain in place even if they have absolutely no support from their own members of parliament.
Talking of silly rules, wasn't Ken Clark found not to be a member of the party while running for leadership? Did that get fixed?
>"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
Only word on the topic because I know how keen you are on this topic and we did this to death months ago:
Every year the leader is re-elected. He (always a he, so far) has never required nominations to be so re-elected. Nor does the rule book suggest he should require them.
Therefore, although anyone sensible would have made it clearer, the word nominations applies only to challengers, because the leader does not have to be nominated and therefore is not, by definition, a nominee. If they are challengers, they must have someone to challenge and that someone is clearly the incumbent leader, who must therefore be on the ballot.
So I will be astonished if the NEC rule against Corbyn and I think should he go to law he will have an unassailable case.
However, one thought springs to mind. This particular rule was drafted just five years ago, I believe. Has nobody thought to consult the person who drafted it?
Most of all, if a system of confidence votes were in place, as with the Conservatives, this whole argument would be unnecessary. Or if Labour had followed their own rules on nominations, it would have been unnecessary.
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.
Minimum level of support is 1.
(The Leader of the Party needs to be a member of the PLP)
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. "
"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."
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.
Yes to launch a challenge you need 20%, it also says after that 'any nomination must be supported' not 'any challenger's nomination must be supported'
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.
Why is it crazy , the rules are that MP's cannot sack the person chosen by the party members. If they have the requisite support they can challenge him and have the members vote on it. Pretty simple, apart from fact that these duplicitous troughers do not like to have anything close to democracy.
Crazy to have a set of rules that allows the leader of a parliamentary party to remain in place even if they have absolutely no support from their own members of parliament.
Prevents backstabbing and ensures they have to take the members view into consideration , seems democratic to me. members can then decide who they back. Means a clique cannot take over.
"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."
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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
Yes, UKIP is now clearly the party to represent them
"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."
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 a challenger got those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to do so too to get on the leadership ballot to join the challenger
It does not have to because the word challenger was ( presumably ) deliberately chosen as opposed to the word candidate or similar .
Yes but the word challenger was only in the first sentence not the second
>"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
Only word on the topic because I know how keen you are on this topic and we did this to death months ago:
Every year the leader is re-elected. He (always a he, so far) has never required nominations to be so re-elected. Nor does the rule book suggest he should require them.
Therefore, although anyone sensible would have made it clearer, the word nominations applies only to challengers, because the leader does not have to be nominated and therefore is not, by definition, a nominee. If they are challengers, they must have someone to challenge and that someone is clearly the incumbent leader, who must therefore be on the ballot.
So I will be astonished if the NEC rule against Corbyn and I think should he go to law he will have an unassailable case.
However, one thought springs to mind. This particular rule was drafted just five years ago, I believe. Has nobody thought to consult the person who drafted it?
Most of all, if a system of confidence votes were in place, as with the Conservatives, this whole argument would be unnecessary. Or if Labour had followed their own rules on nominations, it would have been unnecessary.
In the meantime, why not put back the Tory election indefinitely and let the CS get on with taking us out of the EU. With no PM, they will spend about three years doing it, but without political interference, it will be the best deal available.
Carney can handle the nuts and bolts of the economy.
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.
I think the problem is that people think of the PLP as being like the PCP.
It's not.
The PCP exists as a loose grouping of MPs following a Prime Minister. The party is the country is established to support the members of the PCP, i.e. the PIC is clearly subordinate to the PCP
The Labour Party exists to (whatever it's objectives are). The PLP is founded by TLP in order to pursue those objectives in the Parliament. The PLP is clearly subordinate to TLP. This is most clearly shown in that PLP doesn't even get to elect its own leader.
Why don't Labour MPs elect a leader of the parliamentary party? They have a chairman, so why not have a leader of the parliamentary party? You would have the thorny issue of who is the leader of the opposition but it must be remembered that when it comes to forming a government it is whoever is best placed to secure a majority in the House. As I've said before, Labour should have focused on getting a non-Corbynite (Alan Johnson?) chair of the PLP - the one position that Labour MPs elect. The fact they can't even do this says it all.
"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."
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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
Yes, UKIP is now clearly the party to represent them
"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."
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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
Yes, UKIP is now clearly the party to represent them
You mean the party that is giving up contesting elections as it cant find candidates who want to stand for it , not even defending seats where their councillor has resigned , the party which had 6 councillors elected in Cornwall in 2013 and has 1 left now who will not defend her seat next May .
>"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
Only word on the topic because I know how keen you are on this topic and we did this to death months ago:
Every year the leader is re-elected. He (always a he, so far) has never required nominations to be so re-elected. Nor does the rule book suggest he should require them.
Therefore, although anyone sensible would have made it clearer, the word nominations applies only to challengers, because the leader does not have to be nominated and therefore is not, by definition, a nominee. If they are challengers, they must have someone to challenge and that someone is clearly the incumbent leader, who must therefore be on the ballot.
So I will be astonished if the NEC rule against Corbyn and I think should he go to law he will have an unassailable case.
However, one thought springs to mind. This particular rule was drafted just five years ago, I believe. Has nobody thought to consult the person who drafted it?
Most of all, if a system of confidence votes were in place, as with the Conservatives, this whole argument would be unnecessary. Or if Labour had followed their own rules on nominations, it would have been unnecessary.
If there is no challenger then the leader is effectively elected unopposed. In sentence one it says quite clearly any challenger has to get 20% of nominations yes but once that threshold is passed then a ballot is open and to get on that ballot sentence two says 'any nomination' to get on that ballot requires a 20% threshold to be met it does not explicitly exclude the incumbent from meeting that threshold. Clearly it is going to go to the NEC and the Courts as to how that is interpreted. As for the drafter it is for the courts to interpret it regardless of what they may think and unlike Parliament the NEC would not have the power to overrule the courts if they dislike the verdict
"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."
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 a challenger got those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to do so too to get on the leadership ballot to join the challenger
It does not have to because the word challenger was ( presumably ) deliberately chosen as opposed to the word candidate or similar .
Yes but the word challenger was only in the first sentence not the second
This is why courts may prefer to give this a wide berth. It's surely up to the Labour party's rulemaking body to decide its rules, not a judge.
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.
Corbyn's candidacy should be subject to the same rules as the challengers. Nothing wrong with that.
"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."
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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
Only 25%? This vote revealed a coalition between the conservative tory shires outside of the home counties and wwc patriotic Labour and non voters in the ex industrial towns and cities. Even fucking Slough and Luton voted Leave because the normal centre ground London centric politicians can't reach them. There is a social conservative majority out there.
"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."
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 a challenger got those nominations it does not explicitly say the incumbent is not required to do so too to get on the leadership ballot to join the challenger
It does not have to because the word challenger was ( presumably ) deliberately chosen as opposed to the word candidate or similar .
Yes but the word challenger was only in the first sentence not the second
This is why courts may prefer to give this a wide berth. It's surely up to the Labour party's rulemaking body to decide its rules, not a judge.
True but if it does go to court the court's verdict would stand
The problem is that if it does go to law, it will almost certainly be because Corbyn has lost at the NEC. Therefore the judge would effectively have to tell an organisation that its leadership didn't understand its own rule book. Unfortunately for Corbyn's enemies, as I have pointed out that case is not a very hard one for a judge to rule on.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking on Green's part. He doesn't want Corbyn on the ballot and he is so desperate he's twisting the rules to try and suit that interpretation.
Again, hard to see any outcome other than a split. This is a power struggle to determine which faction within Labour inherits the name and status, after the split
Exactly this - what we have here essentially is the world's most political trademark dispute :-)
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?
That will concentrate minds if true - seems absurd though
I've read differently. Though the EU has other ways to force our hand if it wishes...
My guess is that the deal is already being negotiated by civil servants and diplomats and will be largely sorted in principle by the time May takes over.
My guess is that it will be EFTA with some additional free movement restrictions and that the quid pro quo will be that we pay significantly more per head than Norway in return for the free movement restrictions.
I suspect that the restrictions on movement will be devised such that it only in practice applies to Eastern Europeans seeking blue collar work and the France and Germany, once they have screwed higher single market payments from us in return for them will promptly adopt the same measures themselves.
As time goes on, and exports to the EU become ever smaller a part of our overall exports (due to free trade elsewhere being negotiated) our single market fee will become a bone of contention like our EU membership fee was until Thatcher got the rebate.
"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."
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 %.
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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
Yes, UKIP is now clearly the party to represent them
We need PR first.
Even under FPTP they could get a few more seats in the Thames Estuary, East Midlands and the likes of Hartlepool and Grimsby
"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."
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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
Yes, UKIP is now clearly the party to represent them
You mean the party that is giving up contesting elections as it cant find candidates who want to stand for it , not even defending seats where their councillor has resigned , the party which had 6 councillors elected in Cornwall in 2013 and has 1 left now who will not defend her seat next May .
Most of whom were ex Tories anyway. If Leadsom wins then UKIP members will largely join the Tories as Leadsom will end free movement anyway and stay out of the EEA, if May wins and keeps some element of free movement to stay in the EEA and single market then UKIP will have plenty of disappointed Leave voters to appeal to
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?
That will concentrate minds if true - seems absurd though
I've read differently. Though the EU has other ways to force our hand if it wishes...
My guess is that the deal is already being negotiated by civil servants and diplomats and will be largely sorted in principle by the time May takes over.
My guess is that it will be EFTA with some additional free movement restrictions and that the quid pro quo will be that we pay significantly more per head than Norway in return for the free movement restrictions.
I suspect that the restrictions on movement will be devised such that it only in practice applies to Eastern Europeans seeking blue collar work and the France and Germany, once they have screwed higher single market payments from us in return for them will promptly adopt the same measures themselves.
As time goes on, and exports to the EU become ever smaller a part of our overall exports (due to free trade elsewhere being negotiated) our single market fee will become a bone of contention like our EU membership fee was until Thatcher got the rebate.
That's a pretty likely outcome, and a pretty reasonable one.
If Danegeld is what it takes the undo the mistakes of the past then so be it.
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.
Well quite. An indisputable philosophical case.
The arguments is about the legality because Corbyn has no sense of honour.
The problem with the existing Labour rules is they were written in the assumption that a leader who lost a vote of confidence would resign
That's the great thing about the Tory leadership rules, you lose a vote of confidence, you're not allowed to stand in the subsequent leadership contest
If there is no challenger then the leader is effectively elected unopposed. In sentence one it says quite clearly any challenger has to get 20% of nominations yes but once that threshold is passed then a ballot is open and to get on that ballot sentence two says 'any nomination' to get on that ballot requires a 20% threshold to be met it does not explicitly exclude the incumbent from meeting that threshold. Clearly it is going to go to the NEC and the Courts as to how that is interpreted. As for the drafter it is for the courts to interpret it regardless of what they may think and unlike Parliament the NEC would not have the power to overrule the courts if they dislike the verdict
I'm not going to get drawn in. I have already explained why the leader is not a nominee according to the admittedly badly drafted clause in question. If you choose not to agree that's your prerogative. I'm clearly not going to convince you so I think we may as well leave it there.
I wish that Corbyn were not on the ballot. But he's going to be. As a result, Labour are screwed and so is our system of government.
Thank you Messrs and Messdames Beckett, and Field, and Macdonnell and the others. I hope you are able to sleep at night, but bluntly you don't deserve to.
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?
Nope. The entire point of Article 50 is that it is to be triggered by the country intending to leave, in accordance with said country's own constitutional laws. The only reference to QMV is on the deal between the EU and the seceding country that is to be produced after the negotiations - it must be approved on the EU side by QMV or no deal will exist. Under those circumstances, the seceding country leaves the EU on the 2 year point after triggering Article 50 with no deal between it and the EU.
Only 25%? This vote revealed a coalition between the conservative tory shires outside of the home counties and wwc patriotic Labour and non voters in the ex industrial towns and cities. Even fucking Slough and Luton voted Leave because the normal centre ground London centric politicians can't reach them. There is a social conservative majority out there.
Yep. And the tories need to become their party and realise that most socially conservative people are more aligned with Frank Field than John Redwood.
The conservative party needs to be er.. conservative
@OwenJones84: Whatever you think about Jeremy Corbyn, if he was kept off the ballot most of the party and country would think it's an undemocratic outrage
Hmmm
If the PLP had not played silly buggers and kept him off the ballot last time, it would not have been a democratic outrage.
If the "leader" doesn't command the support of MPs, he (she) is not a leader. He is at best a figurehead.
The problem with the existing Labour rules is they were written in the assumption that a leader who lost a vote of confidence would resign
That's the great thing about the Tory leadership rules, you lose a vote of confidence, you're not allowed to stand in the subsequent leadership contest
If there is no challenger then the leader is effectively elected unopposed. In sentence one it says quite clearly any challenger has to get 20% of nominations yes but once that threshold is passed then a ballot is open and to get on that ballot sentence two says 'any nomination' to get on that ballot requires a 20% threshold to be met it does not explicitly exclude the incumbent from meeting that threshold. Clearly it is going to go to the NEC and the Courts as to how that is interpreted. As for the drafter it is for the courts to interpret it regardless of what they may think and unlike Parliament the NEC would not have the power to overrule the courts if they dislike the verdict
I'm not going to get drawn in. I have already explained why the leader is not a nominee according to the admittedly badly drafted clause in question. If you choose not to agree that's your prerogative. I'm clearly not going to convince you so I think we may as well leave it there.
I wish that Corbyn were not on the ballot. But he's going to be. As a result, Labour are screwed and so is our system of government.
Thank you Messrs and Messdames Beckett, and Field, and Macdonnell and the others. I hope you are able to sleep at night, but bluntly you don't deserve to.
Yes our disagreement may well end up the Labour Party's disagreement and will probably have to be settled in the courts after potentially months of legal wrangling, it really does look like Labour could be headed in that direction.
This is why courts may prefer to give this a wide berth. It's surely up to the Labour party's rulemaking body to decide its rules, not a judge.
Nope. Of course they can "make the rules", but they can't misinterpret them, or set themselves as final arbiter of them.
'The jurisdiction of a domestic tribunal, such as the committee of the Showmen's Guild, must be founded on a contract, express or implied. Outside the regular courts of this country, no set of men can sit in judgment on their fellows except so far as Parliament authorizes it or the parties agree to it. The jurisdiction of the committee of the Showmen's Guild is contained in a written set of rules to which all the members subscribe. This set of rules contains the contract between the members and is just as much subject to the jurisdiction of these courts as any other contract. ... The courts have never allowed a master to dismiss a servant except in accordance with the terms of the contract between them. So also they cannot permit a domestic tribunal to deprive a member of his livelihood or to injure him in it, unless the contract, on its true construction, gives the tribunal power to do so. I repeat "on its true construction," because I desire to emphasize that the true construction of the contract is to be decided by the courts and by no one else. Sir Frank Soskice argued that it was for the committee of the guild to construe the rules, and that, so long as they put an honest construction on them, their construction was binding on the members, even though it was a wrong construction. I cannot agree with that contention. The rules are the contract between the members. The committee cannot extend their jurisdiction by giving a wrong interpretation to the contract, no matter how honest they may be. They have only such jurisdiction as the contract on its true interpretation confers on them, not what they think it confers. The scope of their jurisdiction is a matter for the courts, and not for the parties, let alone for one of them.'
per Denning LJ in Lee v Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329
If there is no challenger then the leader is effectively elected unopposed. In sentence one it says quite clearly any challenger has to get 20% of nominations yes but once that threshold is passed then a ballot is open and to get on that ballot sentence two says 'any nomination' to get on that ballot requires a 20% threshold to be met it does not explicitly exclude the incumbent from meeting that threshold. Clearly it is going to go to the NEC and the Courts as to how that is interpreted. As for the drafter it is for the courts to interpret it regardless of what they may think and unlike Parliament the NEC would not have the power to overrule the courts if they dislike the verdict
I'm not going to get drawn in. I have already explained why the leader is not a nominee according to the admittedly badly drafted clause in question. If you choose not to agree that's your prerogative. I'm clearly not going to convince you so I think we may as well leave it there.
I wish that Corbyn were not on the ballot. But he's going to be. As a result, Labour are screwed and so is our system of government.
Thank you Messrs and Messdames Beckett, and Field, and Macdonnell and the others. I hope you are able to sleep at night, but bluntly you don't deserve to.
Yeah but Corbyn is really a symptom. The people he represents would be active in different ways if he wasn't leader. Look at other centre left parties in Europe. Podemos and Syriza and actually the SNP show the danger of continuity Labour.
The problem with the existing Labour rules is they were written in the assumption that a leader who lost a vote of confidence would resign
That's the great thing about the Tory leadership rules, you lose a vote of confidence, you're not allowed to stand in the subsequent leadership contest
Exactly right. Only a deranged megalomaniac would stay...
"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 massive dent in Tory support at the 2020 general election."
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 %.
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 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
Yes but that 25% of the electorate are enough to almost double UKIP's present support
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
Yes, UKIP is now clearly the party to represent them
We need PR first.
Even under FPTP they could get a few more seats in the Thames Estuary, East Midlands and the likes of Hartlepool and Grimsby
Could being the key word. Anyone serious about believing the voice of ordinary voters should be heard must surely believe that a party with 25% of the vote should be strongly represented in Parliament. That Leave vote told us people think they are being ignored.
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.
I think you will find that this is the plan, Nick. If you listen carefully to the words Eagle used in this morning's interview there are very strong hints of this.
To me, the rules appear to be written assuming that the leader is on the ballot (although to be fair no-one would have imagined a leader not being able to get the nominations anyway) - not least because the threshold of nominations needed is higher to challenge a leader than in an open contest, which can only be to deter challengers/underline that challenging a leader is a more serious business. To extend the higher hurdle to the leader also wouldn't make much sense.
On the other hand, there is the 1980s precedent. Which I suspect arose because, although (or even if) the leader doesn't need nominations, it is clearly in the interests of a challenged leader to collect and publish as many as s/he can. Regardless, if the NEC is lined up against Corbyn, which is my suspicion, it will be very difficult to challenge. The Corbynistas can only really respond either by leaving (which is what the moderates want) or through the grassroots organisations including in the constituencies of the plotters. I don't know enough about internal labour democracy to know how far this might get them; my impression is that during New Labour the grassroots ability to rock the boat was significantly curtailed.
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.
Well quite. An indisputable philosophical case.
The arguments is about the legality because Corbyn has no sense of honour.
I think Corbyn would be quite happy if almost the entire PLP went off and formed their own party leaving just him and John McDonnell with their 'vast' membership base
If there is no challenger then the leader is effectively elected unopposed. In sentence one it says quite clearly any challenger has to get 20% of nominations yes but once that threshold is passed then a ballot is open and to get on that ballot sentence two says 'any nomination' to get on that ballot requires a 20% threshold to be met it does not explicitly exclude the incumbent from meeting that threshold. Clearly it is going to go to the NEC and the Courts as to how that is interpreted. As for the drafter it is for the courts to interpret it regardless of what they may think and unlike Parliament the NEC would not have the power to overrule the courts if they dislike the verdict
I'm not going to get drawn in. I have already explained why the leader is not a nominee according to the admittedly badly drafted clause in question. If you choose not to agree that's your prerogative. I'm clearly not going to convince you so I think we may as well leave it there.
I wish that Corbyn were not on the ballot. But he's going to be. As a result, Labour are screwed and so is our system of government.
Thank you Messrs and Messdames Beckett, and Field, and Macdonnell and the others. I hope you are able to sleep at night, but bluntly you don't deserve to.
Yes our disagreement may well end up the Labour Party's disagreement and will probably have to be settled in the courts after potentially months of legal wrangling, it really does look like Labour could be headed in that direction.
One final thought that I think we can agree on - that's going to be an utter catastrophe for Labour if it happens. Not merely the negative publicity, but can they actually afford the hundreds of thousands or more that it will cost without going bankrupt?
Although there might be worse endings than that, the way this is going!
The problem with the existing Labour rules is they were written in the assumption that a leader who lost a vote of confidence would resign
That's the great thing about the Tory leadership rules, you lose a vote of confidence, you're not allowed to stand in the subsequent leadership contest
I suspect Labour will adopt that rule in future
Indeed. When this sorry mess is over they will look to adopt the Tory system, perhaps with an additional PLP threshold to avoid Leadsom scenario
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
It would be useful (and prevent another paroxysmic upheaval in the fullness of time after too much of the electorate have been sidelined for too long) if representation in Parliament could reflect better the votes of the electorate.
I've seen things like MMP and STV suggested and they come across as rather involved. Why not do it a bit more simply? Do it proportionately by counties. Old traditional (and well understood) area divisions. So, say, Oxfordshire has 6 MPs. If 50% of Oxfordshire votes for Tories, they get 3 MPs. If 17% votes for UKIP, UKIP get 1 MP in Oxfordshire. Representative, easy to count, minimum actual changes required to the ballot system, all MPs of the same type, most people get a (fairly) local MP they voted for...
(I looked in more depth and maybe we'd want to split the very largest counties in half, but that's a damn site easier than the arcane and eternally-arguable Boundaries system for artificial constituencies. London could go as per the GLA constituencies of a couple-of-boroughs-put-together). Pretty much all areas would be 3-8 MPs in size, and you could get a majority on 42-44% of the vote).
In the labour rules i didnt see any rule that said an MP could only nominate 1 candidate. Im not sure why theyd want to nominate more than one but i couldnt see a rule preventing it.
The problem with the existing Labour rules is they were written in the assumption that a leader who lost a vote of confidence would resign
Citation needed - I've never heard of this suggestion in relation to the rules as drawn up.
The basic question is whether the leader represents the party through direct election or it's somehow thought that indirect election via MPs is the way to go. That approach was explicitly rejected by one T. Blair among others.
Frankly the centre-right needs to win the argument, not try to exclude its opponents - even the current leader elected by an overall majority of members - by legal devices.
In the labour rules i didnt see any rule that said an MP could only nominate 1 candidate. Im not sure why theyd want to nominate more than one but i couldnt see a rule preventing it.
True, but there isn't a rule saying candidates must wear clothes on public occasions during the campaign either. There are some things you may reasonably take for granted!
Only 25%? This vote revealed a coalition between the conservative tory shires outside of the home counties and wwc patriotic Labour and non voters in the ex industrial towns and cities. Even fucking Slough and Luton voted Leave because the normal centre ground London centric politicians can't reach them. There is a social conservative majority out there.
Yep. And the tories need to become their party and realise that most socially conservative people are more aligned with Frank Field than John Redwood.
The conservative party needs to be er.. conservative
@OwenJones84: Whatever you think about Jeremy Corbyn, if he was kept off the ballot most of the party and country would think it's an undemocratic outrage
Hmmm
If the PLP had not played silly buggers and kept him off the ballot last time, it would not have been a democratic outrage.
If the "leader" doesn't command the support of MPs, he (she) is not a leader. He is at best a figurehead.
He is leader of the party - he needs to command their support (and he did in the election). He's leader of the PLP ex officio.
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.
Well quite. An indisputable philosophical case.
The arguments is about the legality because Corbyn has no sense of honour.
I think Corbyn would be quite happy if almost the entire PLP went off and formed their own party leaving just him and John McDonnell with their 'vast' membership base
Indeed. With Nick Palmer as general secretary no doubt!
Citation needed - I've never heard of this suggestion in relation to the rules as drawn up.
John Smith told me there would be no need for an ejector seat. If a leader lost a no confidence vote they would resign. You cannot survive. So we never thought it was necessary.
Could being the key word. Anyone serious about believing the voice of ordinary voters should be heard must surely believe that a party with 25% of the vote should be strongly represented in Parliament. That Leave vote told us people think they are being ignored.
I agree - I don't like PR because it gives too much power to the parties, and breaks the constituency link.
Without being an expert, I've always thought that multi-member STV might be a good compromise.
Perhaps we need a thread on AV and the alternatives to discuss?
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.
More to the point can anyone think of any election for anything anywhere where a boycott has both been effective and actually undermined or overturned the result?
Could being the key word. Anyone serious about believing the voice of ordinary voters should be heard must surely believe that a party with 25% of the vote should be strongly represented in Parliament. That Leave vote told us people think they are being ignored.
I agree - I don't like PR because it gives too much power to the parties, and breaks the constituency link.
Without being an expert, I've always thought that multi-member STV might be a good compromise.
Perhaps we need a thread on AV and the alternatives to discuss?
What do you think about turning the counties into multi-member consituencies, with those members elected proportionately? As above, the size of the components means that even getting a majority isn't completely out of the question.
If they can't beat Corbyn with him on the ballot, then the problem isn't him, it's the members. In that scenario, how can leaving not be the most sensible position ideologically, even accepting it is so hard they won't do it.
In the interests of pin-head dancing, could the wording
"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference."
be claimed to mean that all potential challengers FOR THE LEADERSHIP not the potential challengers TO THE LEADER. In that sense everyone who is standing, including the current leader, is a "challenger" for the position.
The Labour party cannot win whilst it is in a state of civil war. Getting rid of Corbyn whilst not having him on the ballot would only make it worse.
This is politics, and most politicians are focused on winning first, and worrying about the consequences afterwards. Winning in this circumstance means controlling the Labour Party.
The test I would recommend is to assume that the NEC has been lined up to rule against Corbyn, and assume that Eagle knows this already. Then listen again to her interview, and in particular to her careful choice of words in response to the key questions.
The Labour party cannot win whilst it is in a state of civil war. Getting rid of Corbyn whilst not having him on the ballot would only make it worse.
I get your point. But this hard left direction under Corbyn won't win either.
I see it as a "short-term pain for long-term gain" scenario. They will take a big hit from the die hard lefties and perhaps the general electorate in the short term, but if it makes them more electable longer term it's a risk worth taking. It's winning those middle class center ground voters that wins elections and that is impossible under Corbyn.
In the interests of pin-head dancing, could the wording
"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference."
be claimed to mean that all potential challengers FOR THE LEADERSHIP not the potential challengers TO THE LEADER. In that sense everyone who is standing, including the current leader, is a "challenger" for the position.
You don't 'challenge' for a vacant position, you stand for it.
I really am going to have to stop reading this thread or I will explode with my own pedantry. Have a good afternoon everyone.
The problem with the existing Labour rules is they were written in the assumption that a leader who lost a vote of confidence would resign
Where is there any mention of votes of confidence in the rules? You're making stuff up...
The key words were written 'in the assumption that'. When people assume things are a given, they don't think to include specific detail covering scenarios which is where difficulties then arise. So he wasn't making things up, you just weren't reading what he wrote.
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.
I think the problem is that people think of the PLP as being like the PCP.
It's not.
The PCP exists as a loose grouping of MPs following a Prime Minister. The party is the country is established to support the members of the PCP, i.e. the PIC is clearly subordinate to the PCP
The Labour Party exists to (whatever it's objectives are). The PLP is founded by TLP in order to pursue those objectives in the Parliament. The PLP is clearly subordinate to TLP. This is most clearly shown in that PLP doesn't even get to elect its own leader.
What's you view of the move by many local Cons Associations to pull away from CCHQ after the Feldman Review?
I was horrified by the attempted power grab. Mine feels the same and is now actively asking existing members to renew directly/ensure all monies are retained locally and not via the centralised CAMS system.
I hope whomever takes over actually understands its members a whole lot better.
It's time that 25% of the electorate was represented. They've always been there. They've just never had a viable, non-Nazi, socially conservative, patriotic, minimal-immigration party to vote for.
This is another way Brexit could be good. It's forcing our politics to realign in a way that ACTUALLY represents how voters feel.
It would be useful (and prevent another paroxysmic upheaval in the fullness of time after too much of the electorate have been sidelined for too long) if representation in Parliament could reflect better the votes of the electorate.
I've seen things like MMP and STV suggested and they come across as rather involved. Why not do it a bit more simply? Do it proportionately by counties. Old traditional (and well understood) area divisions. So, say, Oxfordshire has 6 MPs. If 50% of Oxfordshire votes for Tories, they get 3 MPs. If 17% votes for UKIP, UKIP get 1 MP in Oxfordshire. Representative, easy to count, minimum actual changes required to the ballot system, all MPs of the same type, most people get a (fairly) local MP they voted for...
(I looked in more depth and maybe we'd want to split the very largest counties in half, but that's a damn site easier than the arcane and eternally-arguable Boundaries system for artificial constituencies. London could go as per the GLA constituencies of a couple-of-boroughs-put-together). Pretty much all areas would be 3-8 MPs in size, and you could get a majority on 42-44% of the vote).
Seems a very good idea to do it by counties. But small ones are a problem. Herefordshire would have two MPs, giving the second non-Tory MP a job probably on 15% of the vote since the non-Tory vote is usually about 50% and is highly-divided between UKIP/Lib Dem/Labour/Green.
Powys would give the same result as under FPTP. It only has enough population for one MP.
It would probably need a small top-up list to make the H of C result proportional.
How the hell is Angela Eagle going to win a general election, if she evidently thinks she can't even beat Corbyn in a proper election?
The electorates are different.
Labour members are not representative of Labour voters, is the theory
But there is still a continuum: the truly good politicians can convince any electorate to side with them.
After all, Blair and Cameron had no problem getting through their own party electorates, despite their differences on some points of principle. An election is an election, and if Angela Eagle feels she doesn't have the skills to win a fair leadership election, then she quite clearly is not a very talented politician - and non-talented politicians don't win general elections.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Wallasey CLP pass a motion of no confidence (and effective deselection) in Eagle in the next few days.
That could arguably legally "invalidate" her candidacy in the leadership election? She can hardly put herself forward as a PM candidate if she's not even going to be in Parliament after the next election.
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?
That really would be the "Hotel California clause"....
Surely any treaty can just be rejected by a signee? i.e. The domestic legislature voting to leave the EU, then notifying the other member states of that decision.
Comments
It may well be spinning abstract points of law but even Lord Kinnock made the same point as me and it will be the focus of weeks if not months of argument in the courts
See Lee v Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329
They're not even trying to formulate an alternative policy platform/leaders. It's all very wrong on so many levels.
I'd be very unimpressed if the Tories did the same.
Every year the leader is re-elected. He (always a he, so far) has never required nominations to be so re-elected. Nor does the rule book suggest he should require them.
Therefore, although anyone sensible would have made it clearer, the word nominations applies only to challengers, because the leader does not have to be nominated and therefore is not, by definition, a nominee. If they are challengers, they must have someone to challenge and that someone is clearly the incumbent leader, who must therefore be on the ballot.
So I will be astonished if the NEC rule against Corbyn and I think should he go to law he will have an unassailable case.
However, one thought springs to mind. This particular rule was drafted just five years ago, I believe. Has nobody thought to consult the person who drafted it?
Most of all, if a system of confidence votes were in place, as with the Conservatives, this whole argument would be unnecessary. Or if Labour had followed their own rules on nominations, it would have been unnecessary.
(The Leader of the Party needs to be a member of the PLP)
I think this outrageous attempt to keep Jezza off the ballot is doomed to failure.
http://www.eudemocrats.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/D-Reader_friendly_latest version.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228848/7310.pdf
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of
its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the
Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the
arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future
relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with
Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be
concluded by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent
of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into
force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification
referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the
Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of
the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the
discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. "
https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen/status/752106481319809024
In the meantime, why not put back the Tory election indefinitely and let the CS get on with taking us out of the EU. With no PM, they will spend about three years doing it, but without political interference, it will be the best deal available.
Carney can handle the nuts and bolts of the economy.
Politics can start again in 2020.
It's not.
The PCP exists as a loose grouping of MPs following a Prime Minister. The party is the country is established to support the members of the PCP, i.e. the PIC is clearly subordinate to the PCP
The Labour Party exists to (whatever it's objectives are). The PLP is founded by TLP in order to pursue those objectives in the Parliament. The PLP is clearly subordinate to TLP. This is most clearly shown in that PLP doesn't even get to elect its own leader.
https://twitter.com/dkenstone/status/750656158847807489
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking on Green's part. He doesn't want Corbyn on the ballot and he is so desperate he's twisting the rules to try and suit that interpretation.
My guess is that it will be EFTA with some additional free movement restrictions and that the quid pro quo will be that we pay significantly more per head than Norway in return for the free movement restrictions.
I suspect that the restrictions on movement will be devised such that it only in practice applies to Eastern Europeans seeking blue collar work and the France and Germany, once they have screwed higher single market payments from us in return for them will promptly adopt the same measures themselves.
As time goes on, and exports to the EU become ever smaller a part of our overall exports (due to free trade elsewhere being negotiated) our single market fee will become a bone of contention like our EU membership fee was until Thatcher got the rebate.
If Danegeld is what it takes the undo the mistakes of the past then so be it.
The arguments is about the legality because Corbyn has no sense of honour.
I wish that Corbyn were not on the ballot. But he's going to be. As a result, Labour are screwed and so is our system of government.
Thank you Messrs and Messdames Beckett, and Field, and Macdonnell and the others. I hope you are able to sleep at night, but bluntly you don't deserve to.
The entire point of Article 50 is that it is to be triggered by the country intending to leave, in accordance with said country's own constitutional laws.
The only reference to QMV is on the deal between the EU and the seceding country that is to be produced after the negotiations - it must be approved on the EU side by QMV or no deal will exist. Under those circumstances, the seceding country leaves the EU on the 2 year point after triggering Article 50 with no deal between it and the EU.
The conservative party needs to be er.. conservative
Hmmm
If the PLP had not played silly buggers and kept him off the ballot last time, it would not have been a democratic outrage.
If the "leader" doesn't command the support of MPs, he (she) is not a leader. He is at best a figurehead.
'The jurisdiction of a domestic tribunal, such as the committee of the Showmen's Guild, must be founded on a contract, express or implied. Outside the regular courts of this country, no set of men can sit in judgment on their fellows except so far as Parliament authorizes it or the parties agree to it. The jurisdiction of the committee of the Showmen's Guild is contained in a written set of rules to which all the members subscribe. This set of rules contains the contract between the members and is just as much subject to the jurisdiction of these courts as any other contract.
...
The courts have never allowed a master to dismiss a servant except in accordance with the terms of the contract between them. So also they cannot permit a domestic tribunal to deprive a member of his livelihood or to injure him in it, unless the contract, on its true construction, gives the tribunal power to do so.
I repeat "on its true construction," because I desire to emphasize that the true construction of the contract is to be decided by the courts and by no one else. Sir Frank Soskice argued that it was for the committee of the guild to construe the rules, and that, so long as they put an honest construction on them, their construction was binding on the members, even though it was a wrong construction. I cannot agree with that contention. The rules are the contract between the members. The committee cannot extend their jurisdiction by giving a wrong interpretation to the contract, no matter how honest they may be. They have only such jurisdiction as the contract on its true interpretation confers on them, not what they think it confers. The scope of their jurisdiction is a matter for the courts, and not for the parties, let alone for one of them.'
per Denning LJ in Lee v Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329
It's perfectly obvious what happened and doesn't need repeating.
Oh...
To me, the rules appear to be written assuming that the leader is on the ballot (although to be fair no-one would have imagined a leader not being able to get the nominations anyway) - not least because the threshold of nominations needed is higher to challenge a leader than in an open contest, which can only be to deter challengers/underline that challenging a leader is a more serious business. To extend the higher hurdle to the leader also wouldn't make much sense.
On the other hand, there is the 1980s precedent. Which I suspect arose because, although (or even if) the leader doesn't need nominations, it is clearly in the interests of a challenged leader to collect and publish as many as s/he can. Regardless, if the NEC is lined up against Corbyn, which is my suspicion, it will be very difficult to challenge. The Corbynistas can only really respond either by leaving (which is what the moderates want) or through the grassroots organisations including in the constituencies of the plotters. I don't know enough about internal labour democracy to know how far this might get them; my impression is that during New Labour the grassroots ability to rock the boat was significantly curtailed.
Although there might be worse endings than that, the way this is going!
I've seen things like MMP and STV suggested and they come across as rather involved. Why not do it a bit more simply?
Do it proportionately by counties. Old traditional (and well understood) area divisions. So, say, Oxfordshire has 6 MPs. If 50% of Oxfordshire votes for Tories, they get 3 MPs. If 17% votes for UKIP, UKIP get 1 MP in Oxfordshire.
Representative, easy to count, minimum actual changes required to the ballot system, all MPs of the same type, most people get a (fairly) local MP they voted for...
(I looked in more depth and maybe we'd want to split the very largest counties in half, but that's a damn site easier than the arcane and eternally-arguable Boundaries system for artificial constituencies. London could go as per the GLA constituencies of a couple-of-boroughs-put-together). Pretty much all areas would be 3-8 MPs in size, and you could get a majority on 42-44% of the vote).
The basic question is whether the leader represents the party through direct election or it's somehow thought that indirect election via MPs is the way to go. That approach was explicitly rejected by one T. Blair among others.
Frankly the centre-right needs to win the argument, not try to exclude its opponents - even the current leader elected by an overall majority of members - by legal devices.
May in action.
Or rather, inaction.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/28/brexit-live-cameron-eu-leaders-brussels-corbyn-confidence?page=with:block-5772ac42e4b0dfa755915835#block-5772ac42e4b0dfa755915835
Without being an expert, I've always thought that multi-member STV might be a good compromise.
Perhaps we need a thread on AV and the alternatives to discuss?
http://www.andrealeadsom.com/downloads/201415-tax-return.pdf
Not the happiest name for her accountants.....
As above, the size of the components means that even getting a majority isn't completely out of the question.
How the hell is Angela Eagle going to win a general election, if she evidently thinks she can't even beat Corbyn in a proper election?
Labour members are not representative of Labour voters, is the theory
"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference."
be claimed to mean that all potential challengers FOR THE LEADERSHIP not the potential challengers TO THE LEADER. In that sense everyone who is standing, including the current leader, is a "challenger" for the position.
The test I would recommend is to assume that the NEC has been lined up to rule against Corbyn, and assume that Eagle knows this already. Then listen again to her interview, and in particular to her careful choice of words in response to the key questions.
I see it as a "short-term pain for long-term gain" scenario. They will take a big hit from the die hard lefties and perhaps the general electorate in the short term, but if it makes them more electable longer term it's a risk worth taking. It's winning those middle class center ground voters that wins elections and that is impossible under Corbyn.
I really am going to have to stop reading this thread or I will explode with my own pedantry. Have a good afternoon everyone.
I was horrified by the attempted power grab. Mine feels the same and is now actively asking existing members to renew directly/ensure all monies are retained locally and not via the centralised CAMS system.
I hope whomever takes over actually understands its members a whole lot better.
Powys would give the same result as under FPTP. It only has enough population for one MP.
It would probably need a small top-up list to make the H of C result proportional.
After all, Blair and Cameron had no problem getting through their own party electorates, despite their differences on some points of principle. An election is an election, and if Angela Eagle feels she doesn't have the skills to win a fair leadership election, then she quite clearly is not a very talented politician - and non-talented politicians don't win general elections.
That could arguably legally "invalidate" her candidacy in the leadership election? She can hardly put herself forward as a PM candidate if she's not even going to be in Parliament after the next election.