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 Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
I dislike Corbyn, but any reasonable interpretation of that puts him on the ballot automatically.
My bold. Nominations are by challengers only, and need the 20%. "In this case" can only apply to nominations in this "no vacancy" situation, which only refers to challengers nominations.
LOL, the fact the Labour "moderates" are now trying to fix the election by keeping Corbyn off the ballot says it all.
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?
You do realise that as 500,000 Labour members cheer Corbyn to the rafters, about 5 million potential Labour VOTERS are staring on, aghast?
There is no longer a functioning left or centre left opposition in England and Wales. The SNP should expand south.
Independence aside, Sturgeon would take most of the Labour votes, with ease.
Most of those 5m voters would be equally, if not more, aghast at an Eagle-led party. She and her platform would have all the flaws of Corbyn's party, without even any of his (few) strengths.
Where is there any mention of votes of confidence in the rules? You're making stuff up...
There is no mention. That's the point. The assumption is that any sitting leader has the confidence of the PLP. Which they don't. Which was my point.
The law has little to say on things left undone...
The whole point of rules is to cover all reasonable eventualities. Votes of Confidence are one of the most elementary, that you might find in the rules of your local crown-green bowling club.
I simply don't believe this alleged anecdote about a long-dead leader [and QC, no less].
If the Labour Party wanted its leadership to be determined by votes of confidence, there was no earthly reason why it couldn't have drafted its rules to include them.
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.
I'm a fan of natural/recognised boundaries, so it would make sense, although each unit should be a broadly similar size (i.e. each MP should have a similar number of constituents).
It's key, though, that parties can't game the system through a list approach: voters should be able to select their representatives.
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'm feeling rather sorry for Labour. Their PLP is so filled with bile for their leader - they're determined to dump him, but haven't even found a credible alternative frontman, nor a policy platform to convince the members with during the ballot.
It's insane. Rage is fine for 30 secs - if feels superb, and then you live with the consequences of it.
The PLP have been seeing red for months, and still haven't noticed that 30 secs after killing their leader, they've no idea what to do next.
They're going on the run with no money, no Party and a couple of hundred thousand Corbynistas are on their tail.
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.
Local associates are up their own arse.
The issue was always that there were incredibly wealthy associations that were unwilling to help those who needed financial resources more than them.
I really don't have a problem with centralising the party's resources
(Although, naturally, the Diocese can sod right off when they try to dip into our parish's funds)
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.
It's just not true. QMV determines the exit agreement only:
"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 on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
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'm feeling rather sorry for Labour. Their PLP is so filled with bile for their leader - they're determined to dump him, but haven't even found a credible alternative frontman, nor a policy platform to convince the members with during the ballot.
It's insane. Rage is fine for 30 secs - if feels superb, and then you live with the consequences of it.
The PLP have been seeing red for months, and still haven't noticed that 30 secs after killing their leader, they've no idea what to do next.
They're going on the run with no money, no Party and a couple of hundred thousand Corbynistas are on their tail.
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.
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
and John Mann.
I'm very liberal in most regards - and believe strongly in family life, strong defence, patriotism and personal responsibility. I detest identity politics with every fibre of my being.
I feel much more in common with fellow Brexiteers than many Remainers. It's really changed my perspective.
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.
There would only be a very few of these, which could be solved by placing related counties together (eg Hereford and Worcester). Dyfed and Powys together. It'd take some tweaking (as per British tradition), but it'd be far less arguable than the full-on review of the Boundaries Commission.
Actually, one other benefit is that you'd rarely need any sort of redrawing - when population changes make a change, you just add or subtract an MP from counties.
LOL, the fact the Labour "moderates" are now trying to fix the election by keeping Corbyn off the ballot says it all.
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?
It is not about winning a general election now it is about the very existence of the Labour Party, if Corbyn goes into the next election with most of his MPs against him and UKIP snapping at his heels and the LDs appealing for the moderate centre left vote there is now a very real possibility Labour could come third or worse. In 2003 it was such a doomsday scenario and the rising LDs which led Tory MPs to topple IDS and replace him with Michael Howard despite the fact IDS won over 60% of the members' vote, Howard was never a charismatic, popular election winner but he did win 33 seats in 2005
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.
It's not a bad idea to use counties, although they do vary in size quite a lot. In Hampshire there are ten constituencies, so it would work here. However it's missing a trick to keep the old voting by 'X' system. Mark 1, 2, 3...to get a more nuanced result, allow the voters to express their preference. It's easy to understand and the vote counting process is not difficult.
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.
I'm a fan of natural/recognised boundaries, so it would make sense, although each unit should be a broadly similar size (i.e. each MP should have a similar number of constituents).
It's key, though, that parties can't game the system through a list approach: voters should be able to select their representatives.
That's the charm of it - you assign the number of MPs to each county (or natural/recognised boundary, like "Birmingham") such that the number of MPs reflects the electorate in the county.
And I'd agree with giving the electorate power of choice like that - how about insisting on open list, where the voters effectively determine the party order on the list (so the party can't get away with putting someone unpopular at the top of the list if the electorate view them last)?
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.
It's just not true. QMV determines the exit agreement only:
"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 on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
In that case a QVM exit would be better for us - the number of opposing groups we'd need to satisfy would likely be far fewer.
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.
It's just not true. QMV determines the exit agreement only:
"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 on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
In that case a QVM exit would be better for us - the number of opposing groups we'd need to satisfy would likely be far fewer.
QMV is something like 20 of 28 member states. Well, 27...
Going back to the Tories, the 2003 leader election.
Only nominating Mr Howard, was his title valid? The rules of the contest are for the MPs to nominate two candidates who then go forward to the members ballot.
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.
It's just not true. QMV determines the exit agreement only:
"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 on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
In that case a QVM exit would be better for us - the number of opposing groups we'd need to satisfy would likely be far fewer.
QMV is something like 20 of 28 member states. Well, 27...
55% of member states vote representing at least 65% of the total EU population. But only after 31st March 2017.
Going back to the Tories, the 2003 leader election.
Only nominating Mr Howard, was his title valid? The rules of the contest are for the MPs to nominate two candidates who then go forward to the members ballot.
Yes his title was valid, there's specific provisions in the Tory rules for there being only one candidate, it just needs ratification from the party board, which was received.
Should the Conservatives not trigger A50 and Labour MPs oust Corbyn against the wishes of their members, a party that majors on their lack of respect for democracy will do very well at the next General Election.
I saw Tim Farron on TV today using every weasel word possible to try and ignore the referendum vote, so its not going to be the Lib Dems while he is in charge. Maybe a new party of assorted Leavers will have to be set up.
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'm feeling rather sorry for Labour.
No you're not.
Your pity is entirely fake.
You joined up to labour on false pretences to deliberately get Corbyn elected as leader because you wanted labour to lose.
You're a troll.
Golly, you're bitter. The number of Tories who paid £3 were tiny. I was a Labour voter for three GEs, and almost joined. I made fun of the last Labour leadership vote to teach them a lesson about infiltration, and wouldn't play again.
I've stated several times that Labour should abide by their rules, as should the Tories. Why have them otherwise? If the PLP or PCP tries to subvert their members, well they deserve all they get. It totally breaks the entire covenant.
Also said that a GE should be called after a new PM is elected. Not taking any high-horse ticking off from you.
Should the Conservatives not trigger A50 and Labour MPs oust Corbyn against the wishes of their members, a party that majors on their lack of respect for democracy will do very well at the next General Election.
I saw Tim Farron on TV today using every weasel word possible to try and ignore the referendum vote, so its not going to be the Lib Dems while he is in charge. Maybe a new party of assorted Leavers will have to be set up.
Change is in the air, and almost everyone bar a few like Dan Hannan - that invited us to make him redundant - are clinging onto whatever flotsam floats by.
I hope this is just the death throes of the old guard. We were overdue a shakeout, and we're experiencing it. It's only been two or so weeks - many are still wondering what they're going to do now an EU gravy train job is off the menu.
Is it true that under Lisbon from 31 March 2017 triggering Article 50 falls under QMV and requires 14 members to approve it?
No.
Agreed. However the EU has other levers. They can start drafting laws designed to hurt us, if we don't get a shift on.
In the event I reckon cooler heads will prevail (as I said yesterday). May (if she wins) will move us to the EEA. Apocalypse will be averted. Nirvana will not arrive.
I think I've found the potential source of confusion. A new version of the QMV rules took effect in 2014. Until March, 2017 the old rules can be used if there's a quorum. After March, there is no such recourse.
Is it true that under Lisbon from 31 March 2017 triggering Article 50 falls under QMV and requires 14 members to approve it?
No.
Agreed. However the EU has other levers. They can start drafting laws designed to hurt us, if we don't get a shift on.
In the event I reckon cooler heads will prevail (as I said yesterday). May (if she wins) will move us to the EEA. Apocalypse will be averted. Nirvana will not arrive.
I think I've found the potential source of confusion. A new version of the QMV rules took effect in 2014. Until March, 2017 the old rules can be used if there's a quorum. After March, there is no such recourse.
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
Parenthetically, about a week ago I posted a (rather lengthy) excerpt from "Foundation" that predicted this. Nobody read it, did they? Pause. Prophets always go unheeded...
Is it true that under Lisbon from 31 March 2017 triggering Article 50 falls under QMV and requires 14 members to approve it?
No.
Agreed. However the EU has other levers. They can start drafting laws designed to hurt us, if we don't get a shift on.
In the event I reckon cooler heads will prevail (as I said yesterday). May (if she wins) will move us to the EEA. Apocalypse will be averted. Nirvana will not arrive.
I think I've found the potential source of confusion. A new version of the QMV rules took effect in 2014. Until March, 2017 the old rules can be used if there's a quorum. After March, there is no such recourse.
That's very helpful - what does it mean, if anything for other members invoking Article 50?
Article 50 is for us alone (in my view it's our economy that will make us press the button, not Hollande or Juncker posturing). If we really do look like we're filibustering, as others have said, the EU can do the equivalent of putting all the chairs up on the tables, turning the heat/lights off and essentially forcing the pace. That in itself would take time.
What's interesting is that the final agreement between the UK and EU27 requires Euro parliament approval and QMV EU Council. You learn something new every day.
Is it true that under Lisbon from 31 March 2017 triggering Article 50 falls under QMV and requires 14 members to approve it?
No.
Agreed. However the EU has other levers. They can start drafting laws designed to hurt us, if we don't get a shift on.
In the event I reckon cooler heads will prevail (as I said yesterday). May (if she wins) will move us to the EEA. Apocalypse will be averted. Nirvana will not arrive.
I think I've found the potential source of confusion. A new version of the QMV rules took effect in 2014. Until March, 2017 the old rules can be used if there's a quorum. After March, there is no such recourse.
That's very helpful - what does it mean, if anything for other members invoking Article 50?
Article 50 is for us alone (in my view it's our economy that will make us press the button, not Hollande or Juncker posturing). If we really do look like we're filibustering, as others have said, the EU can do the equivalent of putting all the chairs up on the tables, turning the heat/lights off and essentially forcing the pace. That in itself would take time.
What's interesting is that the final agreement between the UK and EU27 requires Euro parliament approval and QMV EU Council. You learn something new every day.
It's all rather like Labour leadership election rules - until you need to examine them in real life detail, they're just bookend fodder
The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.
If I were a judge ( which of course I am not ) that would be my interpretation . ONLY the CHALLENGERS need the required number of nominations .
If it came to court, the case would centre on the use of the word "any". And on why it is not followed by "such".
Not sure the court would rule on that. It's up to the NEC to decide what Labour's rules are, not a judge. A court gets involved if the process to decide those rules may not have been correctly adhered to, or if the rules are potentially discriminatory.
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.
I'm a fan of natural/recognised boundaries, so it would make sense, although each unit should be a broadly similar size (i.e. each MP should have a similar number of constituents).
It's key, though, that parties can't game the system through a list approach: voters should be able to select their representatives.
That's the charm of it - you assign the number of MPs to each county (or natural/recognised boundary, like "Birmingham") such that the number of MPs reflects the electorate in the county.
And I'd agree with giving the electorate power of choice like that - how about insisting on open list, where the voters effectively determine the party order on the list (so the party can't get away with putting someone unpopular at the top of the list if the electorate view them last)?
STV's explicit purpose is to elect a representative slate of people for a multi-member constituency where the choice of representatives sits with the electors, rather than any political party putting people on a list. Indeed it is superior to our current system since it offers non-floating supporters of a political party a choice between individuals within that party, allowing them to choose the type of Conservative or Labour politician they prefer, for example, rather than being stuck with whoever five people in a room have chosen as their candidate.
LOL, the fact the Labour "moderates" are now trying to fix the election by keeping Corbyn off the ballot says it all.
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?
You do realise that as 500,000 Labour members cheer Corbyn to the rafters, about 5 million potential Labour VOTERS are staring on, aghast?
There is no longer a functioning left or centre left opposition in England and Wales. The SNP should expand south.
Independence aside, Sturgeon would take most of the Labour votes, with ease.
Most of those 5m voters would be equally, if not more, aghast at an Eagle-led party. She and her platform would have all the flaws of Corbyn's party, without even any of his (few) strengths.
A fair point. But haven't we agreed, already, that Eagle is just on maneuvers? She doesn't expect to win, she's just trying to unblock the U-bend.
And rightly so. Labour, as we know it, cannot continue under Corbyn. If he won't go then a split is not only inevitable, but good and necessary.
Incidentally I am much less pessimistic about a Liberal Labour party than some lefties. Remember that Ed Balls (who would make a good leader) has already accepted that Free Movement must be modified.
Add that position to trad Labour principles and a centre left Lib-Labour could win, quite easily, against a Tory party which has just shot its reputation for sensible calm economic governance to pieces.
"Jeremy Corbyn threatens to sue his own party if they refuse to automatically put him on the ballot paper as Angela Eagle prepares to oust the Labour leader"
You're merely showing how disconnected you are from the communities you work in. Most people in manufacturing and construction have already factored in some pain. However they will simply roll their eyes and say well the buggers would have shut them anyways. Which of course is the case.
Sunil has gone post-factual: reality is now REMAIN propaganda
How do we know the EVIL factory owners aren't closing their factories to PUNISH those towns for voting LEAVE?
If we were in the EU, there would never, ever be any job losses, companies would never relocate, the economy would expand forever and every one would have a free unicorn. I hope you're ashamed of what you've done Sunil. Without your slogan, none of this would have happened.
1) You may wish to consider how politics is done in Poland. It is divided into about thirteen subdivisions, and the number of MPs each returns depends on the number of votes cast: if many votes, many MPs, if few, few. It's not PR and not a list, it's simple assignment. This would seem to meet your requirements.
2) Your adherence to traditional counties is poetic but a nonstarter: the votes will be administered by administrators and not you, so the administrative counties would be used, not the historic nor the ceremonial counties. This also gets 'round the use of counties in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which you have omitted to consider
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 Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
I dislike Corbyn, but any reasonable interpretation of that puts him on the ballot automatically.
My bold. Nominations are by challengers only, and need the 20%. "In this case" can only apply to nominations in this "no vacancy" situation, which only refers to challengers nominations.
But this is (high stakes) politics, not (yet) a courtroom. It doesn't matter (conclusively) what the objective position might or might not be. There are two potential interpretations and NEC members will mostly vote for the one that gives the outcome they prefer, or have somehow been persuaded to back. If the NEC bars Corbyn (without noms), as I expect, he faces the invidious choice of taking his own party to court, putting up with it, or finding some other way to fight back.
I may have to eat my words - but my view is that the so-called moderates now believe they have the NEC votes to keep Corbyn off the ballot. Once this is confirmed, the real movers and shakers will emerge and Eagle can return to her roost.
Sunil has gone post-factual: reality is now REMAIN propaganda
How do we know the EVIL factory owners aren't closing their factories to PUNISH those towns for voting LEAVE?
If we were in the EU, there would never, ever be any job losses, companies would never relocate, the economy would expand forever and every one would have a free unicorn. I hope you're ashamed of what you've done Sunil. Without your slogan, none of this would have happened.
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.
The centre-right!!
Every part of the PLP - apart from the hard left - now has no confidence in the Labour leader.
What does Clause One of the party's constitution say?
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
You're merely showing how disconnected you are from the communities you work in. Most people in manufacturing and construction have already factored in some pain. However they will simply roll their eyes and say well the buggers would have shut them anyways. Which of course is the case.
It's the same mindset who belittle the anger and disenfranchisement of posters like @Tykejohnno.
We're no longer explicitly divided by Labour vs Tory - but values/class. For an atheist, I'm a Methodist, who drinks a lot.
The referendum didn't change the fundamental problems - it just exposed them. Those who've done very nicely thankyou without much practical concern for their fellows are now running about - worrying for themselves. Yet again.
Sunil has gone post-factual: reality is now REMAIN propaganda
How do we know the EVIL factory owners aren't closing their factories to PUNISH those towns for voting LEAVE?
If we were in the EU, there would never, ever be any job losses, companies would never relocate, the economy would expand forever and every one would have a free unicorn. I hope you're ashamed of what you've done Sunil. Without your slogan, none of this would have happened.
There are no cats in America! There is no unemployment in the EU!
1) You may wish to consider how politics is done in Poland. It is divided into about thirteen subdivisions, and the number of MPs each returns depends on the number of votes cast: if many votes, many MPs, if few, few. It's not PR and not a list, it's simple assignment. This would seem to meet your requirements.
2) Your adherence to traditional counties is poetic but a nonstarter: the votes will be administered by administrators and not you, so the administrative counties would be used, not the historic nor the ceremonial counties. This also gets 'round the use of counties in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which you have omitted to consider
Administrative counties are fine by me - they're now-recognised divisions.
You're merely showing how disconnected you are from the communities you work in. Most people in manufacturing and construction have already factored in some pain. However they will simply roll their eyes and say well the buggers would have shut them anyways. Which of course is the case.
The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.
If I were a judge ( which of course I am not ) that would be my interpretation . ONLY the CHALLENGERS need the required number of nominations .
If it came to court, the case would centre on the use of the word "any". And on why it is not followed by "such".
Not sure the court would rule on that. It's up to the NEC to decide what Labour's rules are, not a judge. A court gets involved if the process to decide those rules may not have been correctly adhered to, or if the rules are potentially discriminatory.
The correct construction of the Labour Party rulebook, is, like any other contract, a question which a court is well placed to answer.
"Jeremy Corbyn threatens to sue his own party if they refuse to automatically put him on the ballot paper as Angela Eagle prepares to oust the Labour leader"
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
Restaurant critics: the unspeakable in full pursuit of the eatable...
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.
The AMS / Scottish system is fine for Westminster use. The only real downsides are that it "creates 2 tiers of MPs", and that just doesn't seem like a real downside, it doesn't materially change anything. it retains constituency links, broadly proportional, simple system. Hard to see why it's suitable for Scotland, Wales, London, but not the UK as a whole!
You're merely showing how disconnected you are from the communities you work in. Most people in manufacturing and construction have already factored in some pain. However they will simply roll their eyes and say well the buggers would have shut them anyways. Which of course is the case.
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
Restaurant critics: the unspeakable in full pursuit of the eatable...
Bungay is quite a way from London! A nice place, actually, but shame about the name.
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.
The centre-right!!
Every part of the PLP - apart from the hard left - now has no confidence in the Labour leader.
What does Clause One of the party's constitution say?
But in terms of the party as a whole someone like Eagle is now on the right of the party.
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.
I'm a fan of natural/recognised boundaries, so it would make sense, although each unit should be a broadly similar size (i.e. each MP should have a similar number of constituents).
It's key, though, that parties can't game the system through a list approach: voters should be able to select their representatives.
That's the charm of it - you assign the number of MPs to each county (or natural/recognised boundary, like "Birmingham") such that the number of MPs reflects the electorate in the county.
And I'd agree with giving the electorate power of choice like that - how about insisting on open list, where the voters effectively determine the party order on the list (so the party can't get away with putting someone unpopular at the top of the list if the electorate view them last)?
STV's explicit purpose is to elect a representative slate of people for a multi-member constituency where the choice of representatives sits with the electors, rather than any political party putting people on a list. Indeed it is superior to our current system since it offers non-floating supporters of a political party a choice between individuals within that party, allowing them to choose the type of Conservative or Labour politician they prefer, for example, rather than being stuck with whoever five people in a room have chosen as their candidate.
It's true, but the move from an x in a box to ranking all candidates of each party is a noticeable one. The details of the STV procedure are easily subject to being portrayed as arcane, and require lengthy and repeated counting.
And starting from the point of a multi-member country constituency where the outcome is intended to be proportional by administrative area would mean that if, in the fullness of time, we desired it, moving to STV would be not so big a single step.
Iterative change through evolution rather than big step-change is the best way to achieve change.
Sunil has gone post-factual: reality is now REMAIN propaganda
How do we know the EVIL factory owners aren't closing their factories to PUNISH those towns for voting LEAVE?
If we were in the EU, there would never, ever be any job losses, companies would never relocate, the economy would expand forever and every one would have a free unicorn. I hope you're ashamed of what you've done Sunil. Without your slogan, none of this would have happened.
A free unicorn? I thought an owl was enough...
I demand a My Little Pony. With a rainbow tail. And her own sparkly stable with glitter on the roof.
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.
The centre-right!!
Every part of the PLP - apart from the hard left - now has no confidence in the Labour leader.
What does Clause One of the party's constitution say?
But in terms of the party as a whole someone like Eagle is now on the right of the party.
Genuine question. If the Labour rules had managed to exclude the 3 quidders, what would likely be the real level of support for Jeremy Corbyn in the real membership.
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
I was amazed to learn (or relearn) that he was married to Amber Rudd.
You're merely showing how disconnected you are from the communities you work in. Most people in manufacturing and construction have already factored in some pain. However they will simply roll their eyes and say well the buggers would have shut them anyways. Which of course is the case.
Dave and George were right, 'twas ever this.
No if Dave and George had been right they would have built more houses in which case we'd be using bricks.
It's that they didn't give a shit about it that they have lost the referendum and their careers are dust.
The Labour rule book looks cut and shut to me. There is no vacancy - the CHALLENGERS need the noms.
If I were a judge ( which of course I am not ) that would be my interpretation . ONLY the CHALLENGERS need the required number of nominations .
If it came to court, the case would centre on the use of the word "any". And on why it is not followed by "such".
Not sure the court would rule on that. It's up to the NEC to decide what Labour's rules are, not a judge. A court gets involved if the process to decide those rules may not have been correctly adhered to, or if the rules are potentially discriminatory.
The court will have to decide for itself what the rules are, in order to determine whether they have been correctly adhered to. Courts really, really dislike attempts to fetter the scope of their power to decide issues between the parties to a contract - you need a proper arbitration clause to do that, and even they don't always work.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
That's my position at least. Both sides talk a lot of rubbish, so its hard not to be repelled.
For example, the UK contribution to the EU, in the great scheme of things, is peanuts. Literally not worth arguing over. We're going to be paying £68 billion p.a. in debt servicing costs by 2020. But we never, ever, talk about debt payment. Just the increase from 2015 to 2020 is more than our annual EU contribution.
The UK economy has generated about 400k jobs per year since 2010. Obviously it's not been evenly distributed by year. Over 600k businesses started up last year. Around a quarter of a million failed.
We talk about being a large economy without really considering what that means. We're into behavioural economics and changes to frequency distribution curves now. I can't stop people posting 'ahah! Look at this bad thing Brexit has wrought' type posts, but it's going to be fucking tedious if it carries on.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
Must have been incredibly well run business's if they collapse within two weeks of the EU vote.
Still will have to go some to reach 2009 figures of 1,100 business's a day collapsing.
''How 1,100 businesses collapse every day: For the first time more ... www.dailymail.co.uk/.../How-1-100-businesses-collapse-day-For-time-small-firms-bu...
2 Dec 2010 - Closed down: More than 1,100 businesses collapsed every working ... Last week, MPs on the Business Innovation and Skills Select ... at the Federation of Small Businesses, said there are too many poorly ... of 13.7 per cent, compared with a national average of 11.9 per cent. .... Toby, England, 5 years ago.
You're merely showing how disconnected you are from the communities you work in. Most people in manufacturing and construction have already factored in some pain. However they will simply roll their eyes and say well the buggers would have shut them anyways. Which of course is the case.
Dave and George were right, 'twas ever this.
Where is Dave? Where is George?
filled their pockets and went on extended holidays
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
I was amazed to learn (or relearn) that he was married to Amber Rudd.
Umm, before the referendum - I rather liked AA Gill's determination to offend. Since it started, I've found him very unattractive - being married to Ms Rudd doesn't help.
The whole referendum has exposed many for their true selves. And many in the media aren't winning too many friends. I can think of at least a dozen or so I've stopped following on Twitter for their anti-democratic, rude or frankly snotty views of 52% of the population.
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
I was amazed to learn (or relearn) that he was married to Amber Rudd.
Umm, before the referendum - I rather liked AA Gill's determination to offend. Since it started, I've found him very unattractive - being married to Ms Rudd doesn't help.
The whole referendum has exposed many for their true selves. And many in the media aren't winning too many friends. I can think of at least a dozen or so I've stopped following on Twitter for their anti-democratic, rude or frankly snotty views of 52% of the population.
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
I was amazed to learn (or relearn) that he was married to Amber Rudd.
Umm, before the referendum - I rather liked AA Gill's determination to offend. Since it started, I've found him very unattractive - being married to Ms Rudd doesn't help.
The whole referendum has exposed many for their true selves. And many in the media aren't winning too many friends. I can think of at least a dozen or so I've stopped following on Twitter for their anti-democratic, rude or frankly snotty views of 52% of the population.
Total eye-opener.
So basically your opinion of virtually every and any individual is determined solely by their position on Leave versus Remain. No news there.
What's amazing is how you laughably continue to try to portray yourself as some sort of neutral observer.
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.
The centre-right!!
Every part of the PLP - apart from the hard left - now has no confidence in the Labour leader.
What does Clause One of the party's constitution say?
But in terms of the party as a whole someone like Eagle is now on the right of the party.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Comments
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 Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
I dislike Corbyn, but any reasonable interpretation of that puts him on the ballot automatically.
My bold. Nominations are by challengers only, and need the 20%. "In this case" can only apply to nominations in this "no vacancy" situation, which only refers to challengers nominations.
He will lose yoooge.
The whole point of rules is to cover all reasonable eventualities. Votes of Confidence are one of the most elementary, that you might find in the rules of your local crown-green bowling club.
I simply don't believe this alleged anecdote about a long-dead leader [and QC, no less].
If the Labour Party wanted its leadership to be determined by votes of confidence, there was no earthly reason why it couldn't have drafted its rules to include them.
It's key, though, that parties can't game the system through a list approach: voters should be able to select their representatives.
It's insane. Rage is fine for 30 secs - if feels superb, and then you live with the consequences of it.
The PLP have been seeing red for months, and still haven't noticed that 30 secs after killing their leader, they've no idea what to do next.
They're going on the run with no money, no Party and a couple of hundred thousand Corbynistas are on their tail.
The issue was always that there were incredibly wealthy associations that were unwilling to help those who needed financial resources more than them.
I really don't have a problem with centralising the party's resources
(Although, naturally, the Diocese can sod right off when they try to dip into our parish's funds)
"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 on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Labour Party Members != British Electorate
Your pity is entirely fake.
You joined up to labour on false pretences to deliberately get Corbyn elected as leader because you wanted labour to lose.
You're a troll.
Or it the title vacated at the start of the competition?
[ but yes, I see what you are doing there ]
I feel much more in common with fellow Brexiteers than many Remainers. It's really changed my perspective.
Actually, one other benefit is that you'd rarely need any sort of redrawing - when population changes make a change, you just add or subtract an MP from counties.
However it's missing a trick to keep the old voting by 'X' system. Mark 1, 2, 3...to get a more nuanced result, allow the voters to express their preference.
It's easy to understand and the vote counting process is not difficult.
And I'd agree with giving the electorate power of choice like that - how about insisting on open list, where the voters effectively determine the party order on the list (so the party can't get away with putting someone unpopular at the top of the list if the electorate view them last)?
Only nominating Mr Howard, was his title valid? The rules of the contest are for the MPs to nominate two candidates who then go forward to the members ballot.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/
I saw Tim Farron on TV today using every weasel word possible to try and ignore the referendum vote, so its not going to be the Lib Dems while he is in charge. Maybe a new party of assorted Leavers will have to be set up.
I've stated several times that Labour should abide by their rules, as should the Tories. Why have them otherwise? If the PLP or PCP tries to subvert their members, well they deserve all they get. It totally breaks the entire covenant.
Also said that a GE should be called after a new PM is elected. Not taking any high-horse ticking off from you.
I hope this is just the death throes of the old guard. We were overdue a shakeout, and we're experiencing it. It's only been two or so weeks - many are still wondering what they're going to do now an EU gravy train job is off the menu.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/
Of course, the tweets referenced are just batshit crazy talk. Nothing new there.
Parenthetically, about a week ago I posted a (rather lengthy) excerpt from "Foundation" that predicted this. Nobody read it, did they? Pause. Prophets always go unheeded...
What's interesting is that the final agreement between the UK and EU27 requires Euro parliament approval and QMV EU Council. You learn something new every day.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/10/labour-party-leader-jeremy-corbyn-faces-angela-eagle-leadership/
@Andy_Cooke
@Charles
@logical_song
Regarding your discussion about use of counties.
1) You may wish to consider how politics is done in Poland. It is divided into about thirteen subdivisions, and the number of MPs each returns depends on the number of votes cast: if many votes, many MPs, if few, few. It's not PR and not a list, it's simple assignment. This would seem to meet your requirements.
2) Your adherence to traditional counties is poetic but a nonstarter: the votes will be administered by administrators and not you, so the administrative counties would be used, not the historic nor the ceremonial counties. This also gets 'round the use of counties in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which you have omitted to consider
They probably worried if they gave promotions to staff they would resign the sight of responsibility like Boris and Nigel!
I may have to eat my words - but my view is that the so-called moderates now believe they have the NEC votes to keep Corbyn off the ballot. Once this is confirmed, the real movers and shakers will emerge and Eagle can return to her roost.
A free unicorn? I thought an owl was enough...
Every part of the PLP - apart from the hard left - now has no confidence in the Labour leader.
What does Clause One of the party's constitution say?
He's learnt how to turn the steering wheel to make the car go around corners....
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
We're no longer explicitly divided by Labour vs Tory - but values/class. For an atheist, I'm a Methodist, who drinks a lot.
The referendum didn't change the fundamental problems - it just exposed them. Those who've done very nicely thankyou without much practical concern for their fellows are now running about - worrying for themselves. Yet again.
There is no unemployment in the EU!
(edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
Where is George?
And starting from the point of a multi-member country constituency where the outcome is intended to be proportional by administrative area would mean that if, in the fullness of time, we desired it, moving to STV would be not so big a single step.
Iterative change through evolution rather than big step-change is the best way to achieve change.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
It's that they didn't give a shit about it that they have lost the referendum and their careers are dust.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
F1: will commence the post-race piece presently.
1. Lose to Corbyn.
2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles.
3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour.
4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over.
5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence.
6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status.
7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
For example, the UK contribution to the EU, in the great scheme of things, is peanuts. Literally not worth arguing over. We're going to be paying £68 billion p.a. in debt servicing costs by 2020. But we never, ever, talk about debt payment. Just the increase from 2015 to 2020 is more than our annual EU contribution.
The UK economy has generated about 400k jobs per year since 2010. Obviously it's not been evenly distributed by year. Over 600k businesses started up last year. Around a quarter of a million failed.
We talk about being a large economy without really considering what that means. We're into behavioural economics and changes to frequency distribution curves now. I can't stop people posting 'ahah! Look at this bad thing Brexit has wrought' type posts, but it's going to be fucking tedious if it carries on.
'htps://twitter.com/alastair_hill/status/752118356476563456'
Must have been incredibly well run business's if they collapse within two weeks of the EU vote.
Still will have to go some to reach 2009 figures of 1,100 business's a day collapsing.
''How 1,100 businesses collapse every day: For the first time more ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../How-1-100-businesses-collapse-day-For-time-small-firms-bu...
2 Dec 2010 - Closed down: More than 1,100 businesses collapsed every working ... Last week, MPs on the Business Innovation and Skills Select ... at the Federation of Small Businesses, said there are too many poorly ... of 13.7 per cent, compared with a national average of 11.9 per cent. .... Toby, England, 5 years ago.
Apparently, believing that parroting "It's the economy stupid" would resonate was one of their major misjudgements
The whole referendum has exposed many for their true selves. And many in the media aren't winning too many friends. I can think of at least a dozen or so I've stopped following on Twitter for their anti-democratic, rude or frankly snotty views of 52% of the population.
Total eye-opener.
https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/745703472314617856
What's amazing is how you laughably continue to try to portray yourself as some sort of neutral observer.