Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
That is why I think there might well be a legal challenge.
People paid to join with certain legitimate expectations as to what their membership allowed them to do. That, in essence, was the contract that existed between them and Labour.
Now I am absolutely sure that the rules are clear that the terms can be changed at the discretion of the NEC - but it is a question of whether that process was properly carried out and that is where I see the basis for a challenge.
There was no hint that such a material change was under consideration. The dates chosen appear arbitrary.
I am sure there are lawyers going over the detail of it. But I think there is scope for a challenge.
This is all most entertaining. What will we do once it's all over? UKIP's will surely be the final hurrah for leadership elections.
I must mug up on their election schedule. All I know so far is that any contender requires 5yrs membership. That excludes Evans [suspended], Reckless and Carswell.
What about Hamilton? James?
I can't see past Stephen Woolfe, got on at 5-1 for £3 and laid off £2 at evens. He's now about 4-7 on the exchanges, and though he's probably a lay there is little liquidity and he is the likely winner.
Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
Members who joined in the last six months should register as supporters to get a vote. Use a different address if necessary.
Last year Owen Smith accepted the need for austerity:
“I don’t think it’s realistic to say that they [public spending cuts] are wholly unnecessary. There is a very serious point that we don’t know what would happen to a government that failed to tackle its debts in the long run.”
If this is the best that the non-Corbynite left can put forwards then they are in serious trouble.
That's quite a list - privatising the NHS, Iraq, PFI and austerity. Guido's exaggerated a bit, but it's all there.
It's interesting to compare Theresa May with Gordon Brown.
Both dour leaders following telegenic charismatic ones. Both have a reputation for being uncollegiate and secretive. Both the children of religious ministers. Both faced with the challenge of needing their own mandate. Both go quiet when it suit them (Theresa was McCavity during the referendum).
That's not to say that Theresa will be Brown mark II - I'd be amazed if she had all is character flaws! But isn't it curious how after Cameron dubbed himself the heir to Blair, we have someone a little like Brown.
Both dining out on an utterly undeserved reputation for competence and prudence.
Personally I think what Labour need is a woman to go up against Corbyn. It would be a brave thing to do and would inevitably lead to defeat but the scale of misogynistic abuse she would get would do great deal to pull the rug from under the feet of the 'kinder, gentler politics' and expose the more unpleasant attitudes behind the Corbyn movement.
Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
That is why I think there might well be a legal challenge.
People paid to join with certain legitimate expectations as to what their membership allowed them to do. That, in essence, was the contract that existed between them and Labour.
Now I am absolutely sure that the rules are clear that the terms can be changed at the discretion of the NEC - but it is a question of whether that process was properly carried out and that is where I see the basis for a challenge.
There was no hint that such a material change was under consideration. The dates chosen appear arbitrary.
I am sure there are lawyers going over the detail of it. But I think there is scope for a challenge.
Yes, I'm not even sure the change actually hinders Corbyn - but that is besides the point. I know people go on about Corbyn being unelectable but the Labour right is just as bad with their machinations through the NEC.
Does anyone really want an organisation like that near to power at the top of the country ?
It's interesting to compare Theresa May with Gordon Brown.
Both dour leaders following telegenic charismatic ones. Both have a reputation for being uncollegiate and secretive. Both the children of religious ministers. Both faced with the challenge of needing their own mandate. Both go quiet when it suit them (Theresa was McCavity during the referendum).
That's not to say that Theresa will be Brown mark II - I'd be amazed if she had all is character flaws! But isn't it curious how after Cameron dubbed himself the heir to Blair, we have someone a little like Brown.
That's not to say that Theresa will be Brown mark II - I'd be amazed if she had all is character flaws! But isn't it curious how after Cameron dubbed himself the heir to Blair, we have someone a little like Brown.
Michael White this morning commented that he's much more relaxed with May taking over than he was Brown.....
From a betting PoV I have moved from long Smith to a position where he is roughly equal to the fair value of my book.
That's probably a bit timid, but taking @Surbiton and @Danny565 as my weathervanes I think he has some sort of a shot.
If Smith fails then the split occurs and McDonnell/Lewis come straight into play.
Gosh, that's a lot of pressure on me and Surbiton
I'm still far from being sure I'll vote for him, but I'll atleast consider him, whereas I've already considered Eagle enough to know she'd be worse than Corbyn.
Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
Members who joined in the last six months should register as supporters to get a vote. Use a different address if necessary.
A different address won't be necessary. Tories can still vote. Except the costs has gone up 733%.
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
I think 4 is huge.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
We also need keep that in mind through out negotiations. The one thing we have been very bad in doing is rigging tenders so that British companies win in the way that France / Germany does.... They could always use language restrictions to rule us out, we don't have that advantage
The United States does it by claiming a national security aspect to almost everything (and it also gives massive subsidies, often as R&D grants).
But there is also a local aspect. We should be wary of the trend to centralise purchasing in the name of efficiency. It helps support local economies if the Met Police buys pencils in London, and the Lancashire force in Lancashire, and so on.
I last wrote to a newspaper about the local council using a firm outside our council area, and even county, to carry out a household survey. Support local businesses wherever possible!
Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
That is why I think there might well be a legal challenge.
People paid to join with certain legitimate expectations as to what their membership allowed them to do. That, in essence, was the contract that existed between them and Labour.
Now I am absolutely sure that the rules are clear that the terms can be changed at the discretion of the NEC - but it is a question of whether that process was properly carried out and that is where I see the basis for a challenge.
There was no hint that such a material change was under consideration. The dates chosen appear arbitrary.
I am sure there are lawyers going over the detail of it. But I think there is scope for a challenge.
Yes, I'm not even sure the change actually hinders Corbyn - but that is besides the point. I know people go on about Corbyn being unelectable but the Labour right is just as bad with their machinations through the NEC.
Does anyone really want an organisation like that near to power at the top of the country ?
Their idea of what is democratically legitimate is very skewed indeed. Labour is in an utter, utter, utter mess. And one entirely of their own creation.
"Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman."
I wonder if the reverse (misandry) is covered too, but shan't be holding my breath. Intriguing we now have a crime only one gender can commit
Still not pleased about this aspect, though: "It means abuse or harassment which might not be a crime can be reported to and investigated by the police, and support for the victim put in place."
Things that aren't crimes shouldn't be investigated by the police. Someone being a tosser is unpleasant, but the police are there to enforce the law, not to try and make the world lovely.
If someone calls me a silly bitch in a Nottingham street, the police [according to this] would not do anything. If I were a woman, they would. That's just daft.
From a betting PoV I have moved from long Smith to a position where he is roughly equal to the fair value of my book.
That's probably a bit timid, but taking @Surbiton and @Danny565 as my weathervanes I think he has some sort of a shot.
If Smith fails then the split occurs and McDonnell/Lewis come straight into play.
Gosh, that's a lot of pressure on me and Surbiton
I'm still far from being sure I'll vote for him, but I'll atleast consider him, whereas I've already considered Eagle enough to know she'd be worse than Corbyn.
Would you vote for Eagle if she came out and said she was going to do it as a caretaker, reform the leadership rules and then stand down for a full contest in two years once the hard left have given up?
From a betting PoV I have moved from long Smith to a position where he is roughly equal to the fair value of my book.
That's probably a bit timid, but taking @Surbiton and @Danny565 as my weathervanes I think he has some sort of a shot.
If Smith fails then the split occurs and McDonnell/Lewis come straight into play.
Gosh, that's a lot of pressure on me and Surbiton
I'm still far from being sure I'll vote for him, but I'll atleast consider him, whereas I've already considered Eagle enough to know she'd be worse than Corbyn.
I too am a bit worried that odds are being affected by my posts. Until two days ago, I would not even have recognised Owen.
I still want Yvette !!!! Do the nominators have to be mutually exclusive ? Or, can some of Owen and Eagle's nominators also nominate Yvette.
Personally I think what Labour need is a woman to go up against Corbyn. It would be a brave thing to do and would inevitably lead to defeat but the scale of misogynistic abuse she would get would do great deal to pull the rug from under the feet of the 'kinder, gentler politics' and expose the more unpleasant attitudes behind the Corbyn movement.
Seems quite an ask – ritual abuse, no chance of winning and a good chance of your family home being vandalised or burnt to the ground. – A brave move as Sir Humph would say.
Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
That is why I think there might well be a legal challenge.
People paid to join with certain legitimate expectations as to what their membership allowed them to do. That, in essence, was the contract that existed between them and Labour.
Now I am absolutely sure that the rules are clear that the terms can be changed at the discretion of the NEC - but it is a question of whether that process was properly carried out and that is where I see the basis for a challenge.
There was no hint that such a material change was under consideration. The dates chosen appear arbitrary.
I am sure there are lawyers going over the detail of it. But I think there is scope for a challenge.
Yes, I'm not even sure the change actually hinders Corbyn - but that is besides the point. I know people go on about Corbyn being unelectable but the Labour right is just as bad with their machinations through the NEC.
Does anyone really want an organisation like that near to power at the top of the country ?
Their idea of what is democratically legitimate is very skewed indeed. Labour is in an utter, utter, utter mess. And one entirely of their own creation.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 9m9 minutes ago Unless Corbyn and McCluskey can manage a stitch up to get those votes back I now think Corbyn will lose the leadership election.
For all the subtleties of AV I do think it is important that labour members are given a simple binary choice with one opposing candidate. Survival v death, relevance v irrelevance, a future v pointlessness, someone everyone of any ability in the party will rally around to help v someone they will not serve under.
What is at stake here is the very existence of the party and everyone sane in Labour should be doing everything possible to maximise the sanity vote. Having 2 opposing candidates complicates this and does not address the urgency of the situation.
@FrankBooth One important difference between May and Brown, is that May did not spend 10+ years undermining the PM for the top job and destabilising her party in the process. I actually think a lot of Labour's problems trace back to Gordon Brown. After defeating the Blairites, the ascent of Brown led to a vacuum of ideas within Labour. Brown, and much of his followers who controlled the Labour party after 2010, had little idea what the purpose of the Labour party is when there isn't that much money to go around.
From a betting PoV I have moved from long Smith to a position where he is roughly equal to the fair value of my book.
That's probably a bit timid, but taking @Surbiton and @Danny565 as my weathervanes I think he has some sort of a shot.
If Smith fails then the split occurs and McDonnell/Lewis come straight into play.
Gosh, that's a lot of pressure on me and Surbiton
I'm still far from being sure I'll vote for him, but I'll atleast consider him, whereas I've already considered Eagle enough to know she'd be worse than Corbyn.
I too am a bit worried that odds are being affected by my posts. Until two days ago, I would not even have recognised Owen.
I still want Yvette !!!! Do the nominators have to be mutually exclusive ? Or, can some of Owen and Eagle's nominators also nominate Yvette.
It is just a shame that being called Yvette is the most interesting thing about her.
Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
That is why I think there might well be a legal challenge.
People paid to join with certain legitimate expectations as to what their membership allowed them to do. That, in essence, was the contract that existed between them and Labour.
Now I am absolutely sure that the rules are clear that the terms can be changed at the discretion of the NEC - but it is a question of whether that process was properly carried out and that is where I see the basis for a challenge.
There was no hint that such a material change was under consideration. The dates chosen appear arbitrary.
I am sure there are lawyers going over the detail of it. But I think there is scope for a challenge.
Yes, I'm not even sure the change actually hinders Corbyn - but that is besides the point. I know people go on about Corbyn being unelectable but the Labour right is just as bad with their machinations through the NEC.
Does anyone really want an organisation like that near to power at the top of the country ?
Their idea of what is democratically legitimate is very skewed indeed. Labour is in an utter, utter, utter mess. And one entirely of their own creation.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 9m9 minutes ago Unless Corbyn and McCluskey can manage a stitch up to get those votes back I now think Corbyn will lose the leadership election.
Given Hodges' recent record, that means Corbyn will win the leadership election then.
Personally I think what Labour need is a woman to go up against Corbyn. It would be a brave thing to do and would inevitably lead to defeat but the scale of misogynistic abuse she would get would do great deal to pull the rug from under the feet of the 'kinder, gentler politics' and expose the more unpleasant attitudes behind the Corbyn movement.
She's already been name-called/described a number of times. TBH, we've seen acres and acres of this stuff from a certain section of the Labour membership. Eagles needs to stand on her merits - not because she's got ovaries.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
The question is whether the lack of confidence becomes self-fulfilling. Snip.
May had no means to get immigration down..... She knew she was King Canute commanding the tide and probably spent longer working out how to not answer the question than trying to fix it.
Only now can she do anything about it and I will be curious as to what they do... We need big structural changes in our benefits system to solve anything...
It depends whether May takes a minimalist approach. Least change while formally leaving the EU, as is required by the referendum result. Or whether she sees a need to recast our relationship with the EU in particular directions. That route is highly uncertain and is more likely than not to get bogged down. Even committed Bexiteers have to be conscious of the economy, unemployment levels and so on. She isn't in full control of the situation either. The EU and member countries are involved. Beyond avoiding a basket case on its periphery, they don't care too much about what happens to Britain, which is now out of the picture as far as they are concerned.
Well the Eastern Europeans want the money flowing back from the people who have emigrated here. Germany wants to still sell cars and other things to us.. The French are the french and I don't have a clue what Spain and Italy will want out of things...
But unless we do that benefit reform immigration ain't going to change and that's a problem
I think you are wrong that the East European countries want their nationals to be discriminated against so they remain at home. It is certainly the exact opposite of their position with Switzerland where this issue has already come up. The UK as a useful market is card that the UK can play in the negotiations. On the whole the EU is in a stronger negotiating position because it doesn't have the same sense of urgency to get a deal that the UK has, and as is demonstrated by the chart RCS put up. There will be a deal. The more favourable it is to the EU side, the quicker it will be agreed. But the longer it drags on, the worse the overall outcome will be for the UK. That's why there's a strong case to get a minimum change deal agreed quickly and move on from this issue. But that means squaring some big political circles. I'm not sure the government is prepared do that.
What percentage of people in the UK are regular church goers? Is it 1 in 10? If so consider this. We have now had four consecutive Prime ministers who are regular church attendees. In theory the odds of that happening are 1 in 10000.
I've played Smith badly. Now red, having originally backed at 7/1. Even if he drifts I could have done a lot better.
I backed Smith at 7/1 with the bookies then cancelled all my stakes with Betfair at 7.86 when Eagle wouldn't cooperate with a unity candidate. Grrrhh! Small arb profit if he wins but what might have been .....
Personally I think what Labour need is a woman to go up against Corbyn. It would be a brave thing to do and would inevitably lead to defeat but the scale of misogynistic abuse she would get would do great deal to pull the rug from under the feet of the 'kinder, gentler politics' and expose the more unpleasant attitudes behind the Corbyn movement.
She's already been name-called/described a number of times. TBH, we've seen acres and acres of this stuff from a certain section of the Labour membership. Eagles needs to stand on her merits - not because she's got ovaries.
Problem is she has no merits so it can only be ovaries or stupidity
I've played Smith badly. Now red, having originally backed at 7/1. Even if he drifts I could have done a lot better.
I backed Smith at 7/1 with the bookies then cancelled all my stakes with Betfair at 7.86 when Eagle wouldn't cooperate with a unity candidate. Grrrhh! Small arb profit if he wins but what might have been .....
Off topic - just listened to an excellent item on the Brexit vote; Point of View Roger Scruton R4 0945. Well worth a catch-up for anyone interested, only 15 mins.
@trawl Thanks for the tip. Yes, it was very good. A thought provoking piece for everyone, regardless of how they voted.
"Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman."
I wonder if the reverse (misandry) is covered too, but shan't be holding my breath. Intriguing we now have a crime only one gender can commit
Still not pleased about this aspect, though: "It means abuse or harassment which might not be a crime can be reported to and investigated by the police, and support for the victim put in place."
Things that aren't crimes shouldn't be investigated by the police. Someone being a tosser is unpleasant, but the police are there to enforce the law, not to try and make the world lovely.
If someone calls me a silly bitch in a Nottingham street, the police [according to this] would not do anything. If I were a woman, they would. That's just daft.
What will be interesting is the first time a woman gets charged for a mysogynist offence!
Totally agree on police not investigating non crimes. If they are there to enforce good behaviour, not just prevent or catch criminal behaviour, they are moral police not just police.
What percentage of people in the UK are regular church goers? Is it 1 in 10? If so consider this. We have now had four consecutive Prime ministers who are regular church attendees. In theory the odds of that happening are 1 in 10000.
Ed Miliband and Clegg were both atheists and atheists are still a minority
Comments
That's probably a bit timid, but taking @Surbiton and @Danny565 as my weathervanes I think he has some sort of a shot.
If Smith fails then the split occurs and McDonnell/Lewis come straight into play.
People paid to join with certain legitimate expectations as to what their membership allowed them to do. That, in essence, was the contract that existed between them and Labour.
Now I am absolutely sure that the rules are clear that the terms can be changed at the discretion of the NEC - but it is a question of whether that process was properly carried out and that is where I see the basis for a challenge.
There was no hint that such a material change was under consideration. The dates chosen appear arbitrary.
I am sure there are lawyers going over the detail of it. But I think there is scope for a challenge.
A teeny market !
Does anyone really want an organisation like that near to power at the top of the country ?
Here are some comments from colleagues:
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/14059/ministers-reflect-on-theresa-may/
What is your thinking on this or is it betting *dark arbts* ?
I'm still far from being sure I'll vote for him, but I'll atleast consider him, whereas I've already considered Eagle enough to know she'd be worse than Corbyn.
Plato can afford it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398
"Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman."
I wonder if the reverse (misandry) is covered too, but shan't be holding my breath. Intriguing we now have a crime only one gender can commit
Still not pleased about this aspect, though:
"It means abuse or harassment which might not be a crime can be reported to and investigated by the police, and support for the victim put in place."
Things that aren't crimes shouldn't be investigated by the police. Someone being a tosser is unpleasant, but the police are there to enforce the law, not to try and make the world lovely.
If someone calls me a silly bitch in a Nottingham street, the police [according to this] would not do anything. If I were a woman, they would. That's just daft.
I still want Yvette !!!! Do the nominators have to be mutually exclusive ? Or, can some of Owen and Eagle's nominators also nominate Yvette.
Unless Corbyn and McCluskey can manage a stitch up to get those votes back I now think Corbyn will lose the leadership election.
What is at stake here is the very existence of the party and everyone sane in Labour should be doing everything possible to maximise the sanity vote. Having 2 opposing candidates complicates this and does not address the urgency of the situation.
If Eagle eliminated first would her second votes go to Smith or Corbyn?
If Smith eliminated first would his second votes go to Eagle or Corbyn?
Remember most people won't fill in the form correctly to transfer their vote to the other none-Corbyn candidate...
Thanks for the tip. Yes, it was very good. A thought provoking piece for everyone, regardless of how they voted.
If it were Smith in last place, I'm not so sure his support would break so much for Eagle.
Totally agree on police not investigating non crimes. If they are there to enforce good behaviour, not just prevent or catch criminal behaviour, they are moral police not just police.