Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
It is remarkable to note that there is a poster on here who attempts to defend Corbyn by smearing Hodge's conduct as leader of Islington, without pausing to reflect what seat Corbyn sits for and whether any problems within the Labour Party there might also affect him.
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.
That's the real tragedy of it all. Even if the rebels regain the leadership, they don't have a better platform, nor someone more in touch with their core voters - their life is better because they don't have to sit in parliament behind Corbyn, but when it comes to the GE it doesn't seem to me that they will be any better off?
It's the same 200 odd seats whether its Eagle, Smith or Corbyn I reckon. Actually probably less if it is Eagle.
I agree of coUrse if there is an SDP2
Could be less as left of centre vote splits and 400+ Tories are returned.
Some talk about whether the "moderates" should be allowed in the Lib Dems. I said that we should think very carefully before allowing them in. Doubt Tim Farron will be overly keen to have the worst of the schemers in..
He'd be mad to. It would look ridiculous in the eyes of the public: Corbyn challenges own party because they say he needs 38 MPs to support his candidacy, just like every other candidate, and just like Lord Kinnock did in 1988.
To be clear, I don't think the NEC will see sense tomorrow. But if they do, Corbyn is finished.
Rachel Johnson @RachelSJohnson 14m14 minutes ago Dear @jonsnowC4 you know I love you and @Channel4News but I will say this just once. Never introduce me as sister of Boris again. Thank you
smear by association?
They inly have her on because of who her brother is.
I have some sympathy for her.
When I considered public service my mother protested in the strongest possible terms.
She's spent the first 20 years of her life as someone's daughter. The next 20 as someone's wife. Then she had 20 as someone's sister. Said she refused to be known for the rest of her life as someone's mother...
She should have considered it a noble sacrifice for the greater good of the country!
Noble sacrifice went out of fashion when the Lancastrians trounced the Yorkists.
Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.
1. Centrist electable Tory PM 2. Possible snap election
Hmm.
Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one. The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.
You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?
Yes.
That would require the Conservatives to have no confidence in themselves and their new Prime Minister.
Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.
1. Centrist electable Tory PM 2. Possible snap election
Hmm.
Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one. The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.
I mean I know they are not really one, but for a serious Opposition to decline such an opportunity would be an explicit admission not only that they could not provide a better government to the incumbent, but that the voting public thought the same.
Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.
1. Centrist electable Tory PM 2. Possible snap election
Hmm.
Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one. The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.
You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?
Yes.
That would require the Conservatives to have no confidence in themselves and their new Prime Minister.
Yeah, but it would be obvious why they are doing it, and it's not because they lack confidence, it's just the mechanism they are forced to go through.
Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.
1. Centrist electable Tory PM 2. Possible snap election
Hmm.
Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one. The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.
You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?
Yes. The Act is flawed because the PCP can just call a NCV on itself presumably?
I mean I know they are not really one, but for a serious Opposition to decline such an opportunity would be an explicit admission not only that they could not provide a better government to the incumbent, but that the voting public thought the same.
It would be a moment of sober realism from Labour.
But they've not been big on that lately, so I shouldn't worry too much.
Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.
1. Centrist electable Tory PM 2. Possible snap election
Hmm.
Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one. The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.
Why would the Conservatives want a snap election? More particularly, why would Theresa May? At best she'd gain a year in power -- except once you give up five-year terms, we will likely return to four year parliaments, which is where Theresa May came in.
I've said for months that a snap election was for the birds. One was mooted originally because it was felt that Boris would look ridiculous as PM amid the Brexit chaos, so had to get a mandate to stabilise his position. That doesn't apply to May, who's very much continuity-Cameron, so she'll serve out her allocated time.
Except that the argument moves at that point to the extent to which the NEC's constitutional role as interpreter of the rules means that their interpretation can be overturned?
That's clear, as I've shown many times.
There's no clause in the Labour Rules which purports to oust the Courts from being the final arbiter of questions of law. And if there was, it would in any case be contrary to public policy and void.
Lee v Showmen's Guild of GB [1952] 2 QB 329, per Denning LJ 'Although the jurisdiction of a domestic tribunal is founded on contract, express or implied, nevertheless the parties are not free to make any contract they like. There are important limitations imposed by public policy. The tribunal must, for instance, observe the principles of natural justice. .. Another limitation arises out of the well-known principle that parties cannot by contract oust the ordinary courts from their jurisdiction. They can, of course, agree to leave questions of law, as well as questions of fact, to the decision of the domestic tribunal. They can, indeed, make the tribunal the final arbiter on questions of fact, but they cannot make it the final arbiter on questions of law. They cannot prevent its decisions being examined by the courts. If parties should seek, by agreement, to take the law out of the hands of the courts and put it into the hands of a private tribunal, without any recourse at all to the courts in case of error of law, then the agreement is to that extent contrary to public policy and void. ... '[the court] 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. [It was] 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.'
If Corbyn is kept off the ballot against the party rules, and an electable leader then wins a GE, could the left try to install him as PM through a legal challenge?
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.
That's the real tragedy of it all. Even if the rebels regain the leadership, they don't have a better platform, nor someone more in touch with their core voters - their life is better because they don't have to sit in parliament behind Corbyn, but when it comes to the GE it doesn't seem to me that they will be any better off?
It's the same 200 odd seats whether its Eagle, Smith or Corbyn I reckon. Actually probably less if it is Eagle.
I agree of coUrse if there is an SDP2
Could be less as left of centre vote splits and 400+ Tories are returned.
Some talk about whether the "moderates" should be allowed in the Lib Dems. I said that we should think very carefully before allowing them in. Doubt Tim Farron will be overly keen to have the worst of the schemers in..
Apparently Roy Jenkins was planning to become a Liberal in 1980, but the Liberals encouraged him to form a new party instead.
Impressed with the Tories being very clinical in electing a new Prime Minister less than 3 weeks after the last one resigned. They took less time than the NHS takes to appoint a health care assistant.
Labour just on self-destruct with the joker as leader. Are these guys for real?
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.
That's the real tragedy of it all. Even if the rebels regain the leadership, they don't have a better platform, nor someone more in touch with their core voters - their life is better because they don't have to sit in parliament behind Corbyn, but when it comes to the GE it doesn't seem to me that they will be any better off?
It's the same 200 odd seats whether its Eagle, Smith or Corbyn I reckon. Actually probably less if it is Eagle.
I agree of coUrse if there is an SDP2
Could be less as left of centre vote splits and 400+ Tories are returned.
Some talk about whether the "moderates" should be allowed in the Lib Dems. I said that we should think very carefully before allowing them in. Doubt Tim Farron will be overly keen to have the worst of the schemers in..
It didn't make sense for them to join the liberals in the 1980s and the same applies now.
If they form a new party I think it will be more difficult for the LibDems to move into a formal alliance than it was back then.
But this doesn't rule out agreements not to contest a limited range of seats on each side.
But a better scenario would be a broader agreement, involving as many of the non-Tory parties as possible, on a once-only basis around a common platform centred around constitutional reform.
One good thing Jeremy Corbyn has done is make sure that it's not only the female politicians who are being judged for their sartorial choices - which is of course a despicable relic of a chauvinist past.
Admittedly it's because he is one of only two men in history with less dress sense than me (Wossy being the other) but it's a start.
I've still not heard of any markets on Theresa's shoes, by the way. Maybe another sign of progress?
I mean I know they are not really one, but for a serious Opposition to decline such an opportunity would be an explicit admission not only that they could not provide a better government to the incumbent, but that the voting public thought the same.
It would be a moment of sober realism from Labour.
But they've not been big on that lately, so I shouldn't worry too much.
Yes true.
As my grandmother used to day, now is not the time for logic.
I mean I know they are not really one, but for a serious Opposition to decline such an opportunity would be an explicit admission not only that they could not provide a better government to the incumbent, but that the voting public thought the same.
It would be a moment of sober realism from Labour.
But they've not been big on that lately, so I shouldn't worry too much.
Yes true.
As my grandmother used to day, now is not the time for logic.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
Impressed with the Tories being very clinical in electing a new Prime Minister less than 3 weeks after the last one resigned. They took less time than the NHS takes to appoint a health care assistant.
Labour just on self-destruct with the joker as leader. Are these guys for real?
The hard left is not interested in Parliamentary democracy. The workers will rise from the streets to instal a genuine socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. Corbyn, Milne etc genuinely believe this and as with all revolutionaries they have their useful idiot helpers!
"I won the support of 84 colleagues ..... nevertheless this is less than 25% of the Parliamentary party"
330 Con MPs
84/330 = 25.45%
I'd already posted on that. I have wondered since though if she found that there was tactical voting involved and her genuine level of support was lower.
It was too low, realistically. Even IDS got north of 30% and that was in a race where if I remember correctly three votes separated all the candidates on the final ballot.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
Liberal rules are that the last MP standing is entitled to be called the Glorious Prince of Orange?
And on that bombshell, I'm off to bed. Good night.
Edit- if you're really interested it's here, page 26:
Basically, a vote of no confidence triggers an election, but it looks as though the leader can stand again if nominated. No shortcuts allows for though.
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
"I won the support of 84 colleagues ..... nevertheless this is less than 25% of the Parliamentary party"
330 Con MPs
84/330 = 25.45%
I'd already posted on that. I have wondered since though if she found that there was tactical voting involved and her genuine level of support was lower.
It was too low, realistically. Even IDS got north of 30% and that was in a race where if I remember correctly three votes separated all the candidates on the final ballot.
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Awkward.
He would be the incumbent, not a challenger
The next stage is the NEC, which has now reputable legal opinions in support of both positions. Thus the decision is entirely political, and the only question right now is whether the rebels have the votes to rule that Corbyn needs nominations. Only if we get to that point does the possibility of legal challenge arise and, as with any legal action, there will be a a range of pros and cons not solely limited to objective assessment of the rules.
Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.
1. Centrist electable Tory PM 2. Possible snap election
Hmm.
Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one. The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.
You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?
Yes.
That would require the Conservatives to have no confidence in themselves and their new Prime Minister.
As long as it's with Theresa's support (would be a bit odd if it wasn't) that wouldn't be a problem.
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Awkward.
There are tons of grey areas, those you cite above plus the fact that the leader needs to command the support of the PLP. Indeed, the NCV was only never specified to be binding because it was assumed that any leader who lost one would immediately stand down. The rules have been drafted incredibly badly, but were done on the assumption that anyone leading a great British party of state would have a sense of honour. Fitalass's post up thread is worth reading - as she says, the Corbynistas have tested the rules to their very limits.
Impressed with the Tories being very clinical in electing a new Prime Minister less than 3 weeks after the last one resigned. They took less time than the NHS takes to appoint a health care assistant.
Labour just on self-destruct with the joker as leader. Are these guys for real?
The hard left is not interested in Parliamentary democracy. The workers will rise from the streets to instal a genuine socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. Corbyn, Milne etc genuinely believe this and as with all revolutionaries they have their useful idiot helpers!
Sad to see a major political party behave like a pack of loons. That idiot Ed Miliband has a lot to answer for with his 3 quid reform.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
"I won the support of 84 colleagues ..... nevertheless this is less than 25% of the Parliamentary party"
330 Con MPs
84/330 = 25.45%
I'd already posted on that. I have wondered since though if she found that there was tactical voting involved and her genuine level of support was lower.
It was too low, realistically. Even IDS got north of 30% and that was in a race where if I remember correctly three votes separated all the candidates on the final ballot.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
Liberal rules are that the last MP standing is entitled to be called the Glorious Prince of Orange?
And on that bombshell, I'm off to bed. Good night.
Edit- if you're really interested it's here, page 26:
Basically, a vote of no confidence triggers an election, but it looks as though the leader can stand again if nominated. No shortcuts allows for though.
So exactly what the PLP are proposing the Labour rules are. Fair enough
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Dream on.
Labour members and the unions would just not accept such an undemocratic move
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Did any clever person have an accumulator on Brexit, May and the destruction of the Labour Party? All in time for the summer holidays? We've been in uncharted territory so often in the last three weeks that the Ordnance Survey website now just says "Here be dragons."
One consolation of Labour's impending split is that Knowsley council might finally go No Overall Control.
So let me just get this clear in my mind - since the referendum the pro-remain Prime Minister has resigned and is replaced by a pro-remain minister who isn't half as competent as he was. Meanwhile the Labour Party are forcing their leader to have an election so that they can elect a new leader...who will probably be the leader they have now.
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Awkward.
There are tons of grey areas, those you cite above plus the fact that the leader needs to command the support of the PLP. Indeed, the NCV was only never specified to be binding because it was assumed that any leader who lost one would immediately stand down. The rules have been drafted incredibly badly, but were done on the assumption that anyone leading a great British party of state would have a sense of honour. Fitalass's post up thread is worth reading - as she says, the Corbynistas have tested the rules to their very limits.
That's all supposition, and trying to replace the actual rules with ones you would prefer...
Impressed with the Tories being very clinical in electing a new Prime Minister less than 3 weeks after the last one resigned. They took less time than the NHS takes to appoint a health care assistant.
Labour just on self-destruct with the joker as leader. Are these guys for real?
The hard left is not interested in Parliamentary democracy. The workers will rise from the streets to instal a genuine socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. Corbyn, Milne etc genuinely believe this and as with all revolutionaries they have their useful idiot helpers!
Sad to see a major political party behave like a pack of loons. That idiot Ed Miliband has a lot to answer for with his 3 quid reform.
Yep, only one leader of a major political party has been worse than Ed: the man who succeeded him.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
A Conservative MP only needs the support of two MPs to enter a party leadership contest.
"I won the support of 84 colleagues ..... nevertheless this is less than 25% of the Parliamentary party"
330 Con MPs
84/330 = 25.45%
I'd already posted on that. I have wondered since though if she found that there was tactical voting involved and her genuine level of support was lower.
It was too low, realistically. Even IDS got north of 30% and that was in a race where if I remember correctly three votes separated all the candidates on the final ballot.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
A Conservative MP only needs the support of two MPs to enter a party leadership contest.
Yes but not when they are a leader who has lost a NCV - can't run
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
1. Leadership election rules Leadership elections are called when the Leader of the Liberal Democrats resigns, dies, or loses his seat in Parliament; or if a vote of no confidence in the Leader is passed by a majority of Liberal Democrat MPs, or at least 75 local parties. Nominations must be of Members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and need the support of 10% of Liberal Democrat MPs, as well as 200 party members drawn from no less than 20 local parties. A postal ballot of all party members is held to determine who will become the next leader.
Very very clear. Quite similiar to the Conservative rules in some ways.
Corbyn would be out under these rules of course - but each party must respect its own rules and he undoubtedly should be IN under Labour rules.
Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.
I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.
They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Awkward.
There are tons of grey areas, those you cite above plus the fact that the leader needs to command the support of the PLP. Indeed, the NCV was only never specified to be binding because it was assumed that any leader who lost one would immediately stand down. The rules have been drafted incredibly badly, but were done on the assumption that anyone leading a great British party of state would have a sense of honour. Fitalass's post up thread is worth reading - as she says, the Corbynistas have tested the rules to their very limits.
That's all supposition, and trying to replace the actual rules with ones you would prefer...
I'm not trying to replace anything. I am merely saying that there are lots of grey areas. You are the only making concrete claims (which are based on the rules you would prefer)
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
There's also the matter of due process. As a leadership election is only declared if a candidate submits a properly-documented challenge, with all the MPs/MEPs supporting it, then a leader is always placed in a reactive position. True, he or she could be obliged to secure the 20% each year as a failsafe but I'm pretty sure that the precedent will be that leaders never have in the past. If that's the case then a challenger could simply wait until just before the deadline before submitting, leaving the leader stranded simply by playing the timetable. That consideration doesn't apply to any other MP, only the leader. As such, due process would have to be - as is implied in the rules anyway - automatic entry to the ballot.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
I would expect most of the Tory arguments to be over, now, at least until the shape of Brexit becomes clear. Which leaves Labour very exposed with potentially months of wrangling to come.
Having seen Eagle on tv a couple of times I thought she was awful so googled her.
Angela Eagle MP (born 17 February 1961) is a British Labour Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Wallasey since the 1992 general election. Eagle was born in Yorkshire and studied PPE at Oxford University, before working for the CBI and then a trade union.
She's even more predictably awful than I thought.
No idea what May will be like as PM, if the opposition is going to be of this standard she'll have more problems from within her own party.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
A Conservative MP only needs the support of two MPs to enter a party leadership contest.
Yes but not when they are a leader who has lost a NCV - can't run
It is remarkable to note that there is a poster on here who attempts to defend Corbyn by smearing Hodge's conduct as leader of Islington, without pausing to reflect what seat Corbyn sits for and whether any problems within the Labour Party there might also affect him.
Now she has led an attempt to destroy the entire Labour party
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?
Well that's exactly the nub of the view of my former Corbyn-sympathetic wife and my numerous Corbynite friends (some of whom who are party members and actually voted for him, to my horror). They can't see why he shouldn't have to get nominations: anything less just looks like clinging on.
The coup leaders want Corbyn to be excluded from the meeting and a secret ballot
Extraordinary to what lengths they will go to.
Aint gonna end well for them IMO
Do you think Tom Watson should be allowed to continue as Deputy ? He is clearly at the heart of these shennanigans imo. A vote on his deputyship should be called - if one of the Corbynistas can gather the neccesary signatures of course...
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Dream on.
Labour members and the unions would just not accept such an undemocratic move
What do you think they would do if the NEC did rule to require Corbyn to garner nominations, and the courts upheld that decision?
Were it not for the expectation that the courts would rule the other way - i.e. in Corbyn's favour - it would make a great deal of sense to keep him off the ballot precisely in order to rid the party of the infiltrators and nutcases.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?
Well that's exactly the nub of the view of my former Corbyn-sympathetic wife and my numerous Corbynite friends (some of whom who are party members and actually voted for him, to my horror). They can't see why he shouldn't have to get nominations: anything less just looks like clinging on.
The difference with the Cons and with Lab is that in all likelihood someone with a some degree of pragmatism and common sense whispered into Andrea's ear that enough was enough.
The only people doing the whispering in Lab are Seumas Milne and John McDonnell.
Just had dinner with somebody who was sat next to Theresa May at a formal dinner a couple of weeks back. Never one to flinch from the direct question, he asked her "why did you change from Leave to Remain?" She bristled. "I was undecided..." was her reply.
The coup leaders want Corbyn to be excluded from the meeting and a secret ballot
Extraordinary to what lengths they will go to.
Aint gonna end well for them IMO
Corbyn supporters should refuse any secret ballot, and insist on somehow recording and publishing their vote [e.g. photo/twitter], thereby revealing those who do want a secret ballot to be the plotters...
Having seen Eagle on tv a couple of times I thought she was awful so googled her.
Angela Eagle MP (born 17 February 1961) is a British Labour Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Wallasey since the 1992 general election. Eagle was born in Yorkshire and studied PPE at Oxford University, before working for the CBI and then a trade union.
She's even more predictably awful than I thought.
No idea what May will be like as PM, if the opposition is going to be of this standard she'll have more problems from within her own party.
"Angela Eagle" is an Old English phrase meaning "extremely lighweight"
I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Dream on.
Labour members and the unions would just not accept such an undemocratic move
You throw this word undemocratic an awful lot. You don't seem to grasp its meaning. Here are the facts:
A) the PLP 172 are elected by millions on a centre-left platform They are only asking Corbyn to find 50 nominations, the same as any other candidate C) Corbyn has lost a NCV. Were he bound by Tory rules he wouldn't even be able to run, never mind seek nominations
I don't see why seeking 50 nominations from those with a mandate of their electorate is in any way undemocratic.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?
Well that's exactly the nub of the view of my former Corbyn-sympathetic wife and my numerous Corbynite friends (some of whom who are party members and actually voted for him, to my horror). They can't see why he shouldn't have to get nominations: anything less just looks like clinging on.
The difference with the Cons and with Lab is that in all likelihood someone with a some degree of pragmatism and common sense whispered into Andrea's ear that enough was enough.
The only people doing the whispering in Lab are Seumas Milne and John McDonnell.
Seumas Milne, McDonnell and Tom Watson without doubt - but the rules are clear !
BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two
Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Awkward.
The sitting leader remains the leader during the contest unless he has resigned or otherwise been removed from office. So long as he is leader he is not a challenger. That flows from the accepted meanings of "leader" and "challenger".
Ok That means he has to be on the ballot as he hasn't resigned and hasn't been removed from office unless a NCV means removal from office?
I can see how lawyers earn their mullah now arguing about a single word for days on end.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Dream on.
Labour members and the unions would just not accept such an undemocratic move
What do you think they would do if the NEC did rule to require Corbyn to garner nominations, and the courts upheld that decision?
Were it not for the expectation that the courts would rule the other way - i.e. in Corbyn's favour - it would make a great deal of sense to keep him off the ballot precisely in order to rid the party of the infiltrators and nutcases.
They will write in for Corbyn on the ballot paper. It will be clear he has won a landslide....
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Time will tell. Corbyn should be ballot
If he can find 50 MPs to support his candidacy then yes he should
The coup leaders want Corbyn to be excluded from the meeting and a secret ballot
Extraordinary to what lengths they will go to.
Aint gonna end well for them IMO
Do you think Tom Watson should be allowed to continue as Deputy ? He is clearly at the heart of these shennanigans imo. A vote on his deputyship should be called - if one of the Corbynistas can gather the neccesary signatures of course...
I think it looks like he could be in trouble.
Of course Dennis Skinner gave his views on this earlier "Deselection"
In my view if Corbyn is kept off the ballot all bets are off.
Comments
http://election-data.co.uk/poll-of-trade-union-members
He'd be mad to. It would look ridiculous in the eyes of the public: Corbyn challenges own party because they say he needs 38 MPs to support his candidacy, just like every other candidate, and just like Lord Kinnock did in 1988.
To be clear, I don't think the NEC will see sense tomorrow. But if they do, Corbyn is finished.
But they've not been big on that lately, so I shouldn't worry too much.
There's no clause in the Labour Rules which purports to oust the Courts from being the final arbiter of questions of law.
And if there was, it would in any case be contrary to public policy and void.
Lee v Showmen's Guild of GB [1952] 2 QB 329, per Denning LJ
'Although the jurisdiction of a domestic tribunal is founded on contract, express or implied, nevertheless the parties are not free to make any contract they like. There are important limitations imposed by public policy. The tribunal must, for instance, observe the principles of natural justice. .. Another limitation arises out of the well-known principle that parties cannot by contract oust the ordinary courts from their jurisdiction. They can, of course, agree to leave questions of law, as well as questions of fact, to the decision of the domestic tribunal. They can, indeed, make the tribunal the final arbiter on questions of fact, but they cannot make it the final arbiter on questions of law. They cannot prevent its decisions being examined by the courts. If parties should seek, by agreement, to take the law out of the hands of the courts and put it into the hands of a private tribunal, without any recourse at all to the courts in case of error of law, then the agreement is to that extent contrary to public policy and void.
...
'[the court] 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. [It was] 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.'
See also
Baker v Jones [1954] 1 WLR 1005
Teresa May does wear nice heels.
Labour just on self-destruct with the joker as leader. Are these guys for real?
If they form a new party I think it will be more difficult for the LibDems to move into a formal alliance than it was back then.
But this doesn't rule out agreements not to contest a limited range of seats on each side.
But a better scenario would be a broader agreement, involving as many of the non-Tory parties as possible, on a once-only basis around a common platform centred around constitutional reform.
Admittedly it's because he is one of only two men in history with less dress sense than me (Wossy being the other) but it's a start.
I've still not heard of any markets on Theresa's shoes, by the way. Maybe another sign of progress?
As my grandmother used to day, now is not the time for logic.
"I won the support of 84 colleagues ..... nevertheless this is less than 25% of the Parliamentary party"
330 Con MPs
84/330 = 25.45%
(Sorry to steal a Trekkie pun, @TheScreamingEagles but I couldn't resist!)
Whether he could win a By-Election is doubtful but not absolutely necessary
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
Awkward.
Money for old rope.
BTW did you rejoin before 24/6/16?
It was too low, realistically. Even IDS got north of 30% and that was in a race where if I remember correctly three votes separated all the candidates on the final ballot.
Never seen such a mess since Abu Hamza agreed to help his neighbour catch the pet Budgie
In which case it would be 83/329 [25.22%] as you can't really win your own support
And on that bombshell, I'm off to bed. Good night.
Edit- if you're really interested it's here, page 26:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/376/attachments/original/1457978310/LD_Federal_Constitution.pdf?1457978310
Basically, a vote of no confidence triggers an election, but it looks as though the leader can stand again if nominated. No shortcuts allows for though.
"challenger
noun [ C ] UK /ˈtʃæl.ɪn.dʒər/ US /ˈtʃæl.ɪn.dʒɚ/
someone who tries to win a competition, fight, or sports event from someone who has previously won it"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/challenger
Clarke 59
IDS 54
Portillo 53
Full details
Labour members and the unions would just not accept such an undemocratic move
One consolation of Labour's impending split is that Knowsley council might finally go No Overall Control.
It all makes perfect sense
But we probably would never have had any Great British Railway journeys....
(PS. I did Southampton to Weymouth for the first time today:)
Leadership elections are called when the Leader of the Liberal Democrats resigns, dies, or loses his seat in Parliament; or if a vote of no confidence in the Leader is passed by a majority of Liberal Democrat MPs, or at least 75 local parties. Nominations must be of Members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and need the support of 10% of Liberal Democrat MPs, as well as 200 party members drawn from no less than 20 local parties. A postal ballot of all party members is held to determine who will become the next leader.
Very very clear. Quite similiar to the Conservative rules in some ways.
Corbyn would be out under these rules of course - but each party must respect its own rules and he undoubtedly should be IN under Labour rules.
There's also the matter of due process. As a leadership election is only declared if a candidate submits a properly-documented challenge, with all the MPs/MEPs supporting it, then a leader is always placed in a reactive position. True, he or she could be obliged to secure the 20% each year as a failsafe but I'm pretty sure that the precedent will be that leaders never have in the past. If that's the case then a challenger could simply wait until just before the deadline before submitting, leaving the leader stranded simply by playing the timetable. That consideration doesn't apply to any other MP, only the leader. As such, due process would have to be - as is implied in the rules anyway - automatic entry to the ballot.
Angela Eagle MP (born 17 February 1961) is a British Labour Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Wallasey since the 1992 general election. Eagle was born in Yorkshire and studied PPE at Oxford University, before working for the CBI and then a trade union.
She's even more predictably awful than I thought.
No idea what May will be like as PM, if the opposition is going to be of this standard she'll have more problems from within her own party.
The coup leaders want Corbyn to be excluded from the meeting and a secret ballot
Extraordinary to what lengths they will go to.
Aint gonna end well for them IMO
Were it not for the expectation that the courts would rule the other way - i.e. in Corbyn's favour - it would make a great deal of sense to keep him off the ballot precisely in order to rid the party of the infiltrators and nutcases.
The battle for the NEC is where its at.
Hence all the shananagans re tomorrows meeting.
The only people doing the whispering in Lab are Seumas Milne and John McDonnell.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2004/12/30/our-election-prediction-competition/
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/752616479032545281
I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...
A) the PLP 172 are elected by millions on a centre-left platform
C) Corbyn has lost a NCV. Were he bound by Tory rules he wouldn't even be able to run, never mind seek nominations
I don't see why seeking 50 nominations from those with a mandate of their electorate is in any way undemocratic.
That means he has to be on the ballot as he hasn't resigned and hasn't been removed from office unless a NCV means removal from office?
I can see how lawyers earn their mullah now arguing about a single word for days on end.
Of course Dennis Skinner gave his views on this earlier "Deselection"
In my view if Corbyn is kept off the ballot all bets are off.
Many Many CLPs will call for deselections.
SDP2 only likely outcome in my view
Hello to all Sun journo headline writers lurking...