politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another contender enters the LAB race which could be drawn

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jobabob said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

The Labour war might be solved rather quick than we imagine. NEC vote that Corbyn is off ballot without 51. He resigns. Can't even get the 38 needed in that case. Starts legal proceedings - gets nowhere as a court will rule that NEC is final decider of these matters.

Twitter breaks under the strain of howling Momentum (although bear in mind most of them will be away InterRailing in August) and goes off-line for a week. Deselections start in some local parties.

But, Party bigwigs and union bosses decide on a caretaker from Eagle or Owen, or maybe Benn or even Johnson or Lord Kinnock, anyone to get them through next 12 months. No election as only one candidate can meet the 38 MPs target. Crucially they take control of the branding again.

Corbyn forms own party - Momentum. Starts polling about 5%.

Thus, endeth the Corbyn era.

In your dreams.

If tomorrows NEC doesn't allow Jezza to stand.

Corbyn gets a 6-0 NEC result from members.

New NEC overules previous exclusion

Jezza wins SDP2 launches

Thus, endeth the Blairite era.

Fantasy. If the NEC says he needs nominations his goose is cooked. They probably won't. But if they do the game's up.

Which NEC the one in place by 5th August will cement the lefts control of the party.

SDP2 ensues no union funding bugger all membership.

I n the meantime 15 years of Tory Govt

As I say tomorrow's NEC says he is off the ballot. How fast can a leadership election be run in which only 1 candidate?

impossible to run an election by 5/8/16.

Legal challenge, nominations, ballot papers. etc

Emergency Conference are a certainty if Jezza denied a place

The Tories have shown how you don't need a ballot of members when only one candidate.

Legal challenge - yeh, I can see that would blow a hole in my predictions, but would things just continue whilst the proceedings happen or would everything be blocked?

bigjohnowls said:

Jobabob said:

rottenborough said:

Jobabob said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

The Labour war might be solved rather quick than we imagine. NEC vote that Corbyn is off ballot without 51. He resigns. Can't even get the 38 needed in that case. Starts legal proceedings - gets nowhere as a court will rule that NEC is final decider of these matters.

Twitter breaks under the strain of howling Momentum (although bear in mind most of them will be away InterRailing in August) and goes off-line for a week. Deselections start in some local parties.

But, Party bigwigs and union bosses decide on a caretaker from Eagle or Owen, or maybe Benn or even Johnson or Lord Kinnock, anyone to get them through next 12 months. No election as only one candidate can meet the 38 MPs target. Crucially they take control of the branding again.

Corbyn forms own party - Momentum. Starts polling about 5%.

Thus, endeth the Corbyn era.

In your dreams.

If tomorrows NEC doesn't allow Jezza to stand.

Corbyn gets a 6-0 NEC result from members.

New NEC overules previous exclusion

Jezza wins SDP2 launches

Thus, endeth the Blairite era.

What is the timetable for election of new NEC?

i received mine today

5th August it says for new NEC

Just under a month then to instigate a coup in which only 1 person is on the ballot and becomes leader of the Labour party. Branding secured.

Indeed. As soon as Corbyn goes, the new management will sweep through and clear up the mess and secure the legacy.

Never been a more important NEC meeting.

Should be live on Sky.

I'd watch that!

Anti Corbyn NEC reckon Jezza can be kept off iff the NEC vote is a secret ballot.

Probably not if its a normal vote.

FFS

Have I mentioned they are coward's?

Jobabob said:

rottenborough said:

Jobabob said:

rottenborough said:

Jobabob said:

rottenborough said:

The Labour war might be solved rather quick than we imagine. NEC vote that Corbyn is off ballot without 51. He resigns. Can't even get the 38 needed in that case. Starts legal proceedings - gets nowhere as a court will rule that NEC is final decider of these matters.

Twitter breaks under the strain of howling Momentum (although bear in mind most of them will be away InterRailing in August) and goes off-line for a week. Deselections start in some local parties.

But, Party bigwigs and union bosses decide on a caretaker from Eagle or Owen, or maybe Benn or even Johnson or Lord Kinnock, anyone to get them through next 12 months. No election as only one candidate can meet the 38 MPs target. Crucially they take control of the branding again.

Corbyn forms own party - Momentum. Starts polling about 5%.

Thus, endeth the Corbyn era.

That would be the very likely outcome if the NEC sees sense tomorrow. It probably won't, and will put him on the ballot. My wife and many of my friends were Corbyn supporters. There view now? Time to go. The game's up.

I think the NEC will see sense.

Corbyn is finished.

My Corbynista friends (some of which are actually members and voted for him, to my horror) seem to wonder what he is trying to achieve by all this. Party comes first, they say. But we shall see what the NEC do.

Although it'll be a poor show for us popcorn addicts, I predict British politics will have returned to normality by the party conferences.

May in Downing Street, 'normal' LOTO in place, Socialist Alliance/Momentum holding mass rallies of at least a hundred people being addressed by Owen.

A brave call. But let's hope you are right.

Who knows? If the US sees a breakdown in civil society and the election of Trump, and Europe starts to disintegrate, we could be a beacon of stability and normality.

Is Len McCluskey for real, or is he on a colossal wind-up? His endorsement of Corbyn is moving from fulsome to adulatory.

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

Jobabob said:

"I'm here now with Rachel, sister of Jo Johnson..."

"We'll now be speaking with Rachel, great-granddaughter of Ali Kemal"

I don't have much truck with Boris, but if he'd never been born no one would give a **** about the views of the editor of The Lady.

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jobabob said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

The Labour war might be solved rather quick than we imagine. NEC vote that Corbyn is off ballot without 51. He resigns. Can't even get the 38 needed in that case. Starts legal proceedings - gets nowhere as a court will rule that NEC is final decider of these matters.

Twitter breaks under the strain of howling Momentum (although bear in mind most of them will be away InterRailing in August) and goes off-line for a week. Deselections start in some local parties.

But, Party bigwigs and union bosses decide on a caretaker from Eagle or Owen, or maybe Benn or even Johnson or Lord Kinnock, anyone to get them through next 12 months. No election as only one candidate can meet the 38 MPs target. Crucially they take control of the branding again.

Corbyn forms own party - Momentum. Starts polling about 5%.

Thus, endeth the Corbyn era.

In your dreams.

If tomorrows NEC doesn't allow Jezza to stand.

Corbyn gets a 6-0 NEC result from members.

New NEC overules previous exclusion

Jezza wins SDP2 launches

Thus, endeth the Blairite era.

Fantasy. If the NEC says he needs nominations his goose is cooked. They probably won't. But if they do the game's up.

Which NEC the one in place by 5th August will cement the lefts control of the party.

SDP2 ensues no union funding bugger all membership.

I n the meantime 15 years of Tory Govt

As I say tomorrow's NEC says he is off the ballot. How fast can a leadership election be run in which only 1 candidate?

impossible to run an election by 5/8/16.

Legal challenge, nominations, ballot papers. etc

Emergency Conference are a certainty if Jezza denied a place

The Tories have shown how you don't need a ballot of members when only one candidate.

Legal challenge - yeh, I can see that would blow a hole in my predictions, but would things just continue whilst the proceedings happen or would everything be blocked?

I think it likely that a Court would grant an injunction preventing a leadership election, pending a full hearing.

If the NEC breaches Labour's constitution, in order to keep Corbyn off the ballot, Corbyn will win any legal challenge.

The left have waited over 30 years to regain control.

They will not give this up without a fight to the death.

SDP2 AN 80% CHANCE IMO

ydoethur said:

Is Len McCluskey for real, or is he on a colossal wind-up? His endorsement of Corbyn is moving from fulsome to adulatory.

Think you call it solidarity

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.

FrankBooth said:

Monksfield said:

EdgwareJoel said:

Watching BBC News it is clear May will struggle to hold on to major chunks of the Leave vote if she backslides at all. Private polling must explain why she had been so strong on 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Just wait till the City starts its charm offensive! Talk about caught between the devil and the deep blue sea..

I'm not sure you can charm Theresa. One reason why in spite of myself I'm coming round to the idea of her as PM.

It's been said before, but Clarke did her no damage by calling her a "bloody woman"!

Has SeanT been on? How is he taking the news of PM May? Got the horn, or is he feeling a bit limp?

FrankBooth said:

Monksfield said:

EdgwareJoel said:

Watching BBC News it is clear May will struggle to hold on to major chunks of the Leave vote if she backslides at all. Private polling must explain why she had been so strong on 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Just wait till the City starts its charm offensive! Talk about caught between the devil and the deep blue sea..

I'm not sure you can charm Theresa. One reason why in spite of myself I'm coming round to the idea of her as PM.

That's as may be so, but the City *needs* the free market in services and we all know what comes with that.

The City Boys won't fancy a future of living on bratwurst and dunkel in Frankfurt.

BBC 2 now
My journey to Europe.

Illegals paying up. To 12000 euro to get transferred by dinghy into a European country. Even fitting kids our with life jackets in the street. One in a pram FFS

Why can't the security people get access like these fly on the wall cameras

Disappointed from a betting perspective that Lisa Nandy hasn't thrown her hat into the ring. Maybe there's still enough uncommitted Labour MPs & MEPs to enable a third candidate to enter the contest.

EdgwareJoel said:

Watching BBC News it is clear May will struggle to hold on to major chunks of the Leave vote if she backslides at all. Private polling must explain why she had been so strong on 'Brexit means Brexit'.

I don't think you quite understand.

The PB Leaver secretariat has decided we will have EEA/EFTA, free movement an' all. And we will kick ass in the negotiations.

bigjohnowls said:

The left have waited over 30 years to regain control.

They will not give this up without a fight to the death.

SDP2 AN 80% CHANCE IMO

You would rather split the party than see Corbyn stand down. Telling.

Moses_ said:

Could be a 300,000 million Euro fine allegedly?

"Voters in Hungary are on a collision course with the European Union as they look certain to reject a refugee quota scheme being imposed on them by Brussels bureaucrats.A referendum is being held on October 2 and the result is expected to be an overwhelming victory for the country's hard-line Prime Minister Viktor Orbán who is leading the 'keep them out' campaign."

He has urged the country to say 'no' to all migrants – and polls suggest he is in tune with the nation with over 75 per cent of the population set to reject the EU imposed quota of 1,294 refugees.

Mr Orbán, the most vociferous anti-immigrant leader among the 28 EU nations, announced the date of the referendum days after the UK Brexit vote.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3684113/How-DARE-Brussels-tell-migrants-live-country-Hungary-vote-no-Brexit-inspired-referendum-EU-demands-1-294-refugees-pay-300million-fine-instead.

is that Eur300m net or gross?

May looking weirder than EICIPM

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/people-britain-deserve-more-tory-8400680#ICID=sharebar_twitter

RodCrosby said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.

It's crystal clear now that the rules were amended by conference in 2010 to remove the very ambiguity the plotters are now claiming to rely on...
https://twitter.com/MadMazTotalRock/status/752085081947250688

I assume intent matters when lawyers interpret stuff?

Charles said:

nunu said:

RobD said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

oops

Rachel Johnson ‏@RachelSJohnson 14m14 minutes ago
Dear @jonsnowC4 you know I love you and @Channel4News but I will say this just once. Never introduce me as sister of Boris again. Thank you

smear by association?

They inly have her on because of who her brother is.

I have some sympathy for her.

When I considered public service my mother protested in the strongest possible terms.

She's spent the first 20 years of her life as someone's daughter. The next 20 as someone's wife. Then she had 20 as someone's sister. Said she refused to be known for the rest of her life as someone's mother...

She should have considered it a noble sacrifice for the greater good of the country!

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.

Sean_F said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.

A party has to adhere to its own rules. That's a contractual matter. The rules may be badly drafted, but they are the rules. So, Corbyn has to be on the ballot.

How many three quids will it take to pay the legal fees?

Sean_F said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.

A party has to adhere to its own rules. That's a contractual matter. The rules may be badly drafted, but they are the rules. So, Corbyn has to be on the ballot.

Given the change in the rules, which someone posted on here the other day, it seems to be crystal clear that the rule-change was to avoid the leader-in-post needing to obtain nominations.

Even if there might be two views on the present rules as a stand-alone set, taken in conjunction with the history, I don't see how there can be any other conclusion.

Jobabob said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jobabob said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

The Labour war might be solved rather quick than we imagine. NEC vote that Corbyn is off ballot without 51. He resigns. Can't even get the 38 needed in that case. Starts legal proceedings - gets nowhere as a court will rule that NEC is final decider of these matters.

Twitter breaks under the strain of howling Momentum (although bear in mind most of them will be away InterRailing in August) and goes off-line for a week. Deselections start in some local parties.

But, Party bigwigs and union bosses decide on a caretaker from Eagle or Owen, or maybe Benn or even Johnson or Lord Kinnock, anyone to get them through next 12 months. No election as only one candidate can meet the 38 MPs target. Crucially they take control of the branding again.

Corbyn forms own party - Momentum. Starts polling about 5%.

Thus, endeth the Corbyn era.

In your dreams.

If tomorrows NEC doesn't allow Jezza to stand.

Corbyn gets a 6-0 NEC result from members.

New NEC overules previous exclusion

Jezza wins SDP2 launches

Thus, endeth the Blairite era.

Fantasy. If the NEC says he needs nominations his goose is cooked. They probably won't. But if they do the game's up.

Which NEC the one in place by 5th August will cement the lefts control of the party.

SDP2 ensues no union funding bugger all membership.

I n the meantime 15 years of Tory Govt

As I say tomorrow's NEC says he is off the ballot. How fast can a leadership election be run in which only 1 candidate?

impossible to run an election by 5/8/16.

Legal challenge, nominations, ballot papers. etc

Emergency Conference are a certainty if Jezza denied a place

The Tories have shown how you don't need a ballot of members when only one candidate.

Legal challenge - yeh, I can see that would blow a hole in my predictions, but would things just continue whilst the proceedings happen or would everything be blocked?

I think it likely that a Court would grant an injunction preventing a leadership election, pending a full hearing.

If the NEC breaches Labour's constitution, in order to keep Corbyn off the ballot, Corbyn will win any legal challenge.

It has two separate pieces of legal advice. I suspect the NEC will put him on the ballot (which will destroy the party) but if it does see sense then Corbyn is done for. I doubt he would even go through with a legal challenge.

I think he would. And there are plenty of socialist lawyers who would act for him.

Looks like Theresa WILL be Prime Minister

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Given the Star Wars mini meme is it time for a return of @BobaFett ?

I think the mods need to be given emergency powers to counter the increasing threat from multi-accounters

Please no disintegrations!

Jobabob said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jobabob said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

The Labour war might be solved rather quick than we imagine. NEC vote that Corbyn is off ballot without 51. He resigns. Can't even get the 38 needed in that case. Starts legal proceedings - gets nowhere as a court will rule that NEC is final decider of these matters.

Twitter breaks under the strain of howling Momentum (although bear in mind most of them will be away InterRailing in August) and goes off-line for a week. Deselections start in some local parties.

But, Party bigwigs and union bosses decide on a caretaker from Eagle or Owen, or maybe Benn or even Johnson or Lord Kinnock, anyone to get them through next 12 months. No election as only one candidate can meet the 38 MPs target. Crucially they take control of the branding again.

Corbyn forms own party - Momentum. Starts polling about 5%.

Thus, endeth the Corbyn era.

In your dreams.

If tomorrows NEC doesn't allow Jezza to stand.

Corbyn gets a 6-0 NEC result from members.

New NEC overules previous exclusion

Jezza wins SDP2 launches

Thus, endeth the Blairite era.

Fantasy. If the NEC says he needs nominations his goose is cooked. They probably won't. But if they do the game's up.

Which NEC the one in place by 5th August will cement the lefts control of the party.

SDP2 ensues no union funding bugger all membership.

I n the meantime 15 years of Tory Govt

As I say tomorrow's NEC says he is off the ballot. How fast can a leadership election be run in which only 1 candidate?

Emergency Conference are a certainty if Jezza denied a place

The Tories have shown how you don't need a ballot of members when only one candidate.

Legal challenge - yeh, I can see that would blow a hole in my predictions, but would things just continue whilst the proceedings happen or would everything be blocked?

I think it likely that a Court would grant an injunction preventing a leadership election, pending a full hearing.

If the NEC breaches Labour's constitution, in order to keep Corbyn off the ballot, Corbyn will win any legal challenge.

It has two separate pieces of legal advice. I suspect the NEC will put him on the ballot (which will destroy the party) but if it does see sense then Corbyn is done for. I doubt he would even go through with a legal challenge.

At least you get to vote SDP2 for a couple of elections.

As Tories get thumping majorities.

PLP started a civil war they could not win

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

I think the prospect of an early GE being called is virtually nil. For a newly elected, untried Tory leader to risk everything, simply in the hope of gaining a further 14 months in office just doesn't stack up on any sensible basis.

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one.
The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.

Pulpstar said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

I'm not a Corbynite but I think he has been treated terribly by the Labour and wider establishment. Like it or not, he earned a mandate that should have entitled him to put a prospectus to the public in a GE. If that crashed and burnt then so be it. But the Labour Party has to get away from the relentless on-messaging and meaningless sloganizing that it descended into after 2001.

That's the real tragedy of it all. Even if the rebels regain the leadership, they don't have a better platform, nor someone more in touch with their core voters - their life is better because they don't have to sit in parliament behind Corbyn, but when it comes to the GE it doesn't seem to me that they will be any better off?

DeClare said:

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one.
The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.

You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?

RodCrosby said:

RobD said:

RodCrosby said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.

It's crystal clear now that the rules were amended by conference in 2010 to remove the very ambiguity the plotters are now claiming to rely on...
https://twitter.com/MadMazTotalRock/status/752085081947250688

I assume intent matters when lawyers interpret stuff?

It's evidence of intent. The court would have to find that the words in the clause don't actually give effect to that intent, which I just can't see happening.

Except that the argument moves at that point to the extent to which the NEC's constitutional role as interpreter of the rules means that their interpretation cannot be overturned?

RobD said:

DeClare said:

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one.
The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.

You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?

Yes.

TwistedFireStopper said:

Has SeanT been on? How is he taking the news of PM May? Got the horn, or is he feeling a bit limp?

I think he was generally happy with her, an EFTA type deal is fine with him

John_M said:

RobD said:

DeClare said:

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one.
The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.

You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?

Yes.

FTPA is stupid. If we do have an election this year, the next GE will be in 2021 which is the same year as the Scottish general, precisely the situation the Act was designed to avoid.

IanB2 said:

RodCrosby said:

RobD said:

RodCrosby said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.

It's crystal clear now that the rules were amended by conference in 2010 to remove the very ambiguity the plotters are now claiming to rely on...
https://twitter.com/MadMazTotalRock/status/752085081947250688

I assume intent matters when lawyers interpret stuff?

It's evidence of intent. The court would have to find that the words in the clause don't actually give effect to that intent, which I just can't see happening.

Except that the argument moves at that point to the extent to which the NEC's constitutional role as interpreter of the rules means that their interpretation can be overturned?

The NEC must give effect to the Labour Party rules. They aren't free to interpret them.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

I often think people like teachers would have far better pay and conditions if they took a leaf out of the RMTs book.

Extracurricular work - forget it without payment. Marking at home? Not without overtime. Sats and DfE/Ofsted paperwork - just black it indefinitely. If they all do it then no one could touch them - Unity is Strength.

We did try those Paul. Extra-curricular has almost disappeared from the state sector in the last five years. Emails are not answered out of school hours. OFSTED is unfortunately not something that anything can be done about, because even if everyone ignored them they just label everyone inadequate and scream and bully and harass people until they get what they want. They are also very sneaky about making things 'advisory' and then making hell when schools ignore their advice.

The real problem is with things like marking that if you don't do it, it really makes your job much more difficult because you don't know what they have and haven't understood. So that's kind of non-negotiable, and the only way to sort it out is to radically reduce class sizes so there is less of it.

But the other problem is that if we did behave like that it would hurt the children. And whatever people may think, anyone who lasts any length of time in my profession is somebody who really wants to do their best by those children. Those who are in it for themselves (Woodhead, for example) get weeded out very fast.

This is why we're less militants than the RMT, who clearly don't care about passengers.

Freggles said:

It's like 2015 never happened.

YOU CANNOT WIN AN ELECTION UNLESS YOU HAVE A CLEAR LEAD ON "IS A STRONG LEADER" , THE ECONOMY OR "BEST PM"

Caps lock broken? Italics looks better for emphasis, this just looks like you're shouting (which maybe you are out of frustration!)

John_M said:

RobD said:

DeClare said:

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one.
The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.

You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?

Yes.

So all that happens is a tory backbencher moves a vote of no confidence and all the tories abstain. Lib and Lab and everyone else troop through the No lobby or they also abstain and Douglas Carswell troops through No on his own and it passes 1-0.

No more unrealistic than what we have seen the last few weeks.

Freggles said:

It's like 2015 never happened.

YOU CANNOT WIN AN ELECTION UNLESS YOU HAVE A CLEAR LEAD ON "IS A STRONG LEADER" , THE ECONOMY OR "BEST PM"

But you can win a referendum with any old bollocks

So vis that John Rentoul tweet about possible May cabinet my thought is:

Grayling as Minister for Brexit? Clear evidence that May doesn't want us to leave as the first thing he'd do when organising a piss up in a brewery would be to ban alcohol.

RobD said:

John_M said:

RobD said:

DeClare said:

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Jobabob said:

Timing of NEC meeting is interesting. Coronation of May might concentrate minds.

1. Centrist electable Tory PM
2. Possible snap election

Hmm.

Snap election not possible, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a two thirds majority of the House of Commons to vote for one.
The Conservatives might all vote for one, but why would Labour or the SNP? Labour are having a civil war and the SNP already have 56 out of a possible 59 seats and so have nothing to gain.

You can have a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, can't you?

Yes.

FTPA is stupid. If we do have an election this year, the next GE will be in 2021 which is the same year as the Scottish general, precisely the situation the Act was designed to avoid.

Surely the next SP/WA elections will be in 2021 only if there is no general election in 2020? Otherwise they will be held then.

Or has that rule been changed and they are now officially five year terms?

RodCrosby said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.

It's crystal clear now that the rules were amended by conference in 2010 to remove the very ambiguity the plotters are now claiming to rely on...
https://twitter.com/MadMazTotalRock/status/752085081947250688

I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.

However....

If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.

Or not?

foxinsoxuk said:

bigjohnowls said:

The left have waited over 30 years to regain control.

They will not give this up without a fight to the death.

SDP2 AN 80% CHANCE IMO

The death of the Labour Party?

He would rather see the party destroyed than let the Rebellion win. The fact that the Rebellion comprises MPs from the soft left, centre-left, old right, blairite, and union right presumably means he thinks everyone is out of step but the hard left.

RobD said:

RodCrosby said:

Monksfield said:

theakes said:

Re NEC: There is other legal opinion that says the opposite, my reading is that the nomination issue only applies to challengers. However it will I presume end up in the Courts, heaven knows how long that will take, what with the need to adjourn so that the matter can be given consideration and then there are the prospect of appeals, hey ho sometime next year then.

I have to say, based on the rules posted here the PLP will lose. As far as I can see the PLP is relying entirely on precedent.

They're relying on nothing, but a tortured reading of the rules, and wishful thinking for words that are not even there.

It's crystal clear now that the rules were amended by conference in 2010 to remove the very ambiguity the plotters are now claiming to rely on...
https://twitter.com/MadMazTotalRock/status/752085081947250688

I assume intent matters when lawyers interpret stuff?

Changing "shall" to "may" seems to me to be significant. The drafting is appalling, changing one kind of ambiguity to another kind of ambiguity.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/DMcCaffreySKY/status/752556850319679488

Hello - have sent you an ordinary mail.

Alistair said:

So vis that John Rentoul tweet about possible May cabinet my thought is:

Grayling as Minister for Brexit? Clear evidence that May doesn't want us to leave as the first thing he'd do when organising a piss up in a brewery would be to ban alcohol.

I always thought of May and Hammond as two of the more Eurosceptic members of the cabinet, who supported Remain unenthusiastically in a bid to preserve a semblance of unity among the senior cabinet figures.

I don't think that the hype about a rethink will move either of them, and since with Osborne's fall and Johnson's descent into self-parody will leave them unchallenged at the top I really don't know why so many leavers are nervous. You've a far better hope of Brexit unde May than you would have done under Gove, Leadsom or Johnson.