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

Jobabob said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Wasn't Maggie May a prostitute?

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/752616479032545281

I was just thinking that?!

Not sure putting Crabb in an picture like that is ideal given recent events

Pulpstar said:

TOPPING said:

Jobabob said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Jobabob said:

DaveDave said:

Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.

The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.

If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?

Well that's exactly the nub of the view of my former Corbyn-sympathetic wife and my numerous Corbynite friends (some of whom who are party members and actually voted for him, to my horror). They can't see why he shouldn't have to get nominations: anything less just looks like clinging on.

The difference with the Cons and with Lab is that in all likelihood someone with a some degree of pragmatism and common sense whispered into Andrea's ear that enough was enough.

The only people doing the whispering in Lab are Seumas Milne and John McDonnell.

Seumas Milne, McDonnell and Tom Watson without doubt - but the rules are clear !

The rules aren't stopping Jezza from stepping down.

@SouthamObserver I think you're excluded from the vote at the present time, but good on you for joining a cause you want to fight for anyway.

Charlie_Falconer said:

i am tomorrow putting my name forward to lead the Labour party...

I am resigning from the Lords henceforth and forthwith.

#charlie4apm

About time Charlie.

HYUFD said:

BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two

Great great poll. I hadn't actually watched the news tonight. Having esoteric arguments about rules on here!!

Jonathan said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/corbyn-supporters-protest-over-labour-nec-meeting?CMP=twt_gu

The coup leaders want Corbyn to be excluded from the meeting and a secret ballot

Extraordinary to what lengths they will go to.

Aint gonna end well for them IMO

There is now no way this can end well.

Yup

I have visions of a dap bag being passed around the table and afterwards seeing if there are any black balls within.

Jobabob said:

Pulpstar said:

TOPPING said:

Jobabob said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Jobabob said:

DaveDave said:

Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.

The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.

If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?

Well that's exactly the nub of the view of my former Corbyn-sympathetic wife and my numerous Corbynite friends (some of whom who are party members and actually voted for him, to my horror). They can't see why he shouldn't have to get nominations: anything less just looks like clinging on.

The difference with the Cons and with Lab is that in all likelihood someone with a some degree of pragmatism and common sense whispered into Andrea's ear that enough was enough.

The only people doing the whispering in Lab are Seumas Milne and John McDonnell.

Seumas Milne, McDonnell and Tom Watson without doubt - but the rules are clear !

RodCrosby said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/corbyn-supporters-protest-over-labour-nec-meeting?CMP=twt_gu

The coup leaders want Corbyn to be excluded from the meeting and a secret ballot

Extraordinary to what lengths they will go to.

Aint gonna end well for them IMO

Corbyn supporters should refuse any secret ballot, and insist on somehow recording and publishing their vote [e.g. photo/twitter], thereby revealing those who do want a secret ballot to be the plotters...

So now you are advocating undermining a secret ballot. You aren't even a member or supporter of the party. Yet you are obsessed.

It is true I have money on Corbyn surviving - but ... above all I believe rules should be followed !

Pulpstar said:

@SouthamObserver I think you're excluded from the vote at the present time, but good on you for joining a cause you want to fight for anyway.

I want to meet and debate with potential fellow travellers and learn more about the Corbynites. It's better to be in the thick of it than shouting from the sidelines.

If I am excluded from voting in the leadership ballot, so be it. That would mean an awful lot of Corbyn cultists will be too. Might be a good thing.

Danny565 said:

Have to say, I'm very impressed by Theresa May's speech today. Time will tell if she's actually going to follow through on what she promised (or indeed, whether her MPs let her follow through), but if she really does bring the big-business fat cats back into line and starts getting a better deal for the average worker, then she would be the best Tory PM of my lifetime.

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Net result, most divisive PM so far. Does not bode well.

blackburn63 said:

Danny565 said:

Have to say, I'm very impressed by Theresa May's speech today. Time will tell if she's actually going to follow through on what she promised (or indeed, whether her MPs let her follow through), but if she really does bring the big-business fat cats back into line and starts getting a better deal for the average worker, then she would be the best Tory PM of my lifetime.

Did she mention a cure for blindness and a crime free society too?

She has to save something for her second speech of course.

Although given the paroxysms of ecstatic approval fanatics get at hints from their leaders all over the spectrum, a little over expectation before she even takes over the country formally is par for the course.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

david_herdson said:

JohnLilburne said:

nunu said:

MikeL said:

Leadsom statement today:

"I won the support of 84 colleagues ..... nevertheless this is less than 25% of the Parliamentary party"

330 Con MPs

84/330 = 25.45%

Does that include the speaker?

deputy speakers?

330 excludes the speaker but includes Eleanor Laing (who voted) and David Cameron (who didn't).

Is Bercow still a Tory member (as opposed to a Tory MP, of course)?

He shouldn't be. Speakers are expected to give up all party alliegance for life, once elected.

MikeO said:

I just watched the BBC News at 10.

I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...

Hello and welcome. What do u mean?

Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg repeatedly mentioning that Theresa May didn't have a personal mandate.
We are a Parliamentary Democracy - all you need to be Prime Minister is to be able to form a government and carry a vote of confidence in the HoC...

Jobabob said:

david_herdson said:

RodCrosby said:

Moses_ said:

Sean_F said:

Moses_ said:

RodCrosby said:

Monksfield said:

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?

A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.

I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".

Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.

Awkward.

The courts will look for plain meanings...

"challenger
noun [ C ] UK /ˈtʃæl.ɪn.dʒər/ US /ˈtʃæl.ɪn.dʒɚ/
someone who tries to win a competition, fight, or sports event from someone who has previously won it"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/challenger

Quite.

There's also the matter of due process. As a leadership election is only declared if a candidate submits a properly-documented challenge, with all the MPs/MEPs supporting it, then a leader is always placed in a reactive position. True, he or she could be obliged to secure the 20% each year as a failsafe but I'm pretty sure that the precedent will be that leaders never have in the past. If that's the case then a challenger could simply wait until just before the deadline before submitting, leaving the leader stranded simply by playing the timetable. That consideration doesn't apply to any other MP, only the leader. As such, due process would have to be - as is implied in the rules anyway - automatic entry to the ballot.

Kinnock had to find the nominations when challenged by Benn in 1988.

Had to, or just did?

And in any event haven't the rules been amended since?

To happen in 2016?

A new GE: 22%
Article 50 triggered: 33%

(Betfair)

Can anyone explain to me (Who is supporting @Watto 's interpretations of the rules why a LEADER of the party would require more nominations than a random MP going for a vacant position ?)

Jonathan said:

Danny565 said:

Have to say, I'm very impressed by Theresa May's speech today. Time will tell if she's actually going to follow through on what she promised (or indeed, whether her MPs let her follow through), but if she really does bring the big-business fat cats back into line and starts getting a better deal for the average worker, then she would be the best Tory PM of my lifetime.

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Net result, most divisive PM so far. Does not bode well.

Greatest post war PM. Bodes very well.

Jonathan said:

Danny565 said:

Have to say, I'm very impressed by Theresa May's speech today. Time will tell if she's actually going to follow through on what she promised (or indeed, whether her MPs let her follow through), but if she really does bring the big-business fat cats back into line and starts getting a better deal for the average worker, then she would be the best Tory PM of my lifetime.

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Net result, most divisive PM so far. Does not bode well.

Well yes, but May did come out with some concrete proposals, rather than just some woolly rhetoric about "bringing harmony". Though I totally concede that we're yet to see whether she actually delivers on the promises (I may be giving her too much benefit of the doubt, since I've always quite liked her as far as Tories go -- if someone I really hated like Osborne had given May's speech, I probably would've taken it with a LOT more salt).

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

@SouthamObserver I think you're excluded from the vote at the present time, but good on you for joining a cause you want to fight for anyway.

I want to meet and debate with potential fellow travellers and learn more about the Corbynites. It's better to be in the thick of it than shouting from the sidelines.

If I am excluded from voting in the leadership ballot, so be it. That would mean an awful lot of Corbyn cultists will be too. Might be a good thing.

Some research on the origin of the phrase 'fellow traveller' would be an interesting place to start...?

OllyT said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Jobabob said:

DaveDave said:

Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.

The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.

If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?

Corbyn genuinely doesn't care about Parliament.

I think he should be on the ballot and I will rejoin to give it one last shot but if he wins again I genuinely believe Labour is finished as a potential,future government. I say that because there will be an exodus of non-Corbynites and the Momentum crowd will gain control of the NEC and stitch up the party rules to ensure no-one but a hard leftie can win again, we'll get annual mandatory reselections etc et.

There will be a split because 170 MPs will have nothing to lose because they know they will be deselected before the next GE. It is a very different scenario to SDP1 when only about a dozen MPs defected. If Corbyn Labour ceases to be the official opposition for the next 4 years and are just a rump of 40 MPs (4th largest grouping behind the SNP} they will wither from public view. They have no god-given right to exist and could easily disappear from the political scene in England/Wales as fast as they did in Scotland.

Most of the MPs seem to insist they don't have a problem with Corbyn's views, per se, but with his leadership. A few also have a problem with his views, but by and large the objections don't seem focused on it. That being the case, I expect we'll be surprised how many of the plotters go back to be quiet, pliant MPs - maybe they'll get deselected, maybe they won't, but lacking policy reasons to go elsewhere, even if they are facing deselection I expect most would let that happen rather than set up a new party.

MikeO said:

MikeO said:

I just watched the BBC News at 10.

I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...

Hello and welcome. What do u mean?

Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg repeatedly mentioning that Theresa May didn't have a personal mandate.
We are a Parliamentary Democracy - all you need to be Prime Minister is to be able to form a government and carry a vote of confidence in the HoC...

Yep. This mandate idea is nonsense. Brown, Major, Callaghan plus at least a Baker's dozen of others put the kibosh on the whole concept.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pop quiz hot shots,

Q: Who in 2000 said Ted Heath was one of Britain's greatest prime ministers?

A: The answer will surprise you

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36745875

Easy. Maggie. Though I suspect she was being kind. Magnanimous in victory etc.

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two

The public are mad.

No, that feels about right. That 66% will be made up of all the 48%, plus a further 18% who voted Leave but whose favoured outcome is the Norway model or something similar AND and who interpret the question as being a choice between EFTA or WTO. (I think the question is a bit ambiguous - is it offering a hypothetical question of full EU or WTO, or is it offering EFTA or WTO?)
It shows there are probably at least a third of Leave voters who favour a Norway style outcome - which seems about right. There may be a few more who didn't get picked up because they interpreted the question differently, but that may be cancelled out by Leave voters with Bregrets.

Of course, we may be vastly overestimating the understanding of the various nuances and options that those sampled have!

I'm curiously hopeful for a May government. Let's hope the likes of Damien Green, Crispin Blunt (currently on Newsnight) Rory Stewart, Dominic Grieve, Sarah Wollaston and others are in line for promotion.

NCM for Eagles on 22nd.

Tykejohnno said:

Jobabob said:

HYUFD said:

BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two

Great great poll. I hadn't actually watched the news tonight. Having esoteric arguments about rules on here!!

What do polls make ?

Surprises?

blackburn63 said:

HYUFD said:

blackburn63 said:

HYUFD said:

BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two

Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.

It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority

We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.
.

You think you know what the public think, there was not a vote on the question of accepting the single market rather than cutting immigration.

It's fine to disagree with the suggestion, and there's a case to be made cutting immigration and free movement would be the most popular option, but this obsession people have with pretending the referendum vote explicitly answered those questions baffles me (or would do, if it were not apparent that in most instances it is a case of people insisting their version of Leave is the only version that is acceptable).

I voted Leave, I'd rather keep the single market than cut immigration. I've no doubt that puts me in a minority of Leavers, and some Remainers will have or now would not want to keep access to the single market as the price for not cutting immigration. It isn't as clear as 52 vs 48 is the point, and no matter how many times people point out the proportions of Leave vs Remain, that doesn't clear up that issue definitively, at best the result was suggestive on that point given the primary campaigning points.

The only definitive answer was Leave. The rest is up for grabs, and it wouldn't even be undemocratic to explore what type of Leave most people want, in fact it is essential to figure that out.

HYUFD said:

blackburn63 said:

HYUFD said:

blackburn63 said:

HYUFD said:

BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two

Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.

It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority

We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.

The sooner the BBC is canned the better.

A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/749880938813722624?lang=en-gb

People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help observing that the intersection of the set of nutjobs who were convinced that Cameron wouldn't deliver on his promise of a referendum, and the set of nutjobs who think Theresa May won't deliver on her promise that Brexit means Brexit, is close to 100%.

They were the ones with the pens. MI5 may have failed on 23 June but they could do a lot worse than go through the papers now and note down the numbers of all those completed in ink.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help observing that the intersection of the set of nutjobs who were convinced that Cameron wouldn't deliver on his promise of a referendum, and the set of nutjobs who think Theresa May won't deliver on her promise that Brexit means Brexit, is close to 100%.

Definitely true. Whatever anyone says about Dave, he delivered the referendum he said he would and we've got what many of us wanted. May will deliver Brexit and take us out of the EU in the same way. Those who have moved from Labour to Tory and now to UKIP seem never to be satisfied.

RodCrosby said:

Moses_ said:

Sean_F said:

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

However....

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

Or not?

A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.

I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".

Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.

Awkward.

The courts will look for plain meanings...

"challenger
noun [ C ] UK /ˈtʃæl.ɪn.dʒər/ US /ˈtʃæl.ɪn.dʒɚ/
someone who tries to win a competition, fight, or sports event from someone who has previously won it"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/challenger

As the Labour party is treated in law as a private members club I think the courts will take the view that it is up to the NEC to determine how its rules are interpreted. Whilst they will hear the case (if it is brought) I think the courts will only overturn the NEC's decision if it is discriminatory (e.g. Corbyn being excluded due to age) or illegal. That would be in line with precedents.

All gone, all gone, all gone. All those Tory Brexiteers, gone, gone gone. A merry, plucky, shameless band, who scaled the heights of the greasy pole, surveyed the view, and then threw themselves off. First Boris Johnson, visibly wobbling with vertigo, then shoved from the platform by Michael Gove. Then Gove himself, somehow unable to balance on his own. And now, finally, Andrea Leadsom; a woman who perhaps had simply never before climbed so high, and didn’t have the coat for it, and couldn’t stand the weather.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/andrea-leadsoms-demise-signals-the-end-of-the-nasty-party-h3k3nbwsz

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help observing that the intersection of the set of nutjobs who were convinced that Cameron wouldn't deliver on his promise of a referendum, and the set of nutjobs who think Theresa May won't deliver on her promise that Brexit means Brexit, is close to 100%.

Definitely true. Whatever anyone says about Dave, he delivered the referendum he said he would and we've got what many of us wanted. May will deliver Brexit and take us out of the EU in the same way. Those who have moved from Labour to Tory and now to UKIP seem never to be satisfied.

Indeed, one wonders what is next for such people. Britain First?

Scott_P said:

All gone, all gone, all gone. All those Tory Brexiteers, gone, gone gone. A merry, plucky, shameless band, who scaled the heights of the greasy pole, surveyed the view, and then threw themselves off. First Boris Johnson, visibly wobbling with vertigo, then shoved from the platform by Michael Gove. Then Gove himself, somehow unable to balance on his own. And now, finally, Andrea Leadsom; a woman who perhaps had simply never before climbed so high, and didn’t have the coat for it, and couldn’t stand the weather.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/andrea-leadsoms-demise-signals-the-end-of-the-nasty-party-h3k3nbwsz

They said they would leave, and they all did. With perfect timing in every case.

And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.

Scott_P said:

All gone, all gone, all gone. All those Tory Brexiteers, gone, gone gone. A merry, plucky, shameless band, who scaled the heights of the greasy pole, surveyed the view, and then threw themselves off. First Boris Johnson, visibly wobbling with vertigo, then shoved from the platform by Michael Gove. Then Gove himself, somehow unable to balance on his own. And now, finally, Andrea Leadsom; a woman who perhaps had simply never before climbed so high, and didn’t have the coat for it, and couldn’t stand the weather.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/andrea-leadsoms-demise-signals-the-end-of-the-nasty-party-h3k3nbwsz

Would be funny if all were in May's cabinet,it worked out well then ;-)

blackburn63 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help observing that the intersection of the set of nutjobs who were convinced that Cameron wouldn't deliver on his promise of a referendum, and the set of nutjobs who think Theresa May won't deliver on her promise that Brexit means Brexit, is close to 100%.

I think the last month showed who the nutjobs are, at least in terms of political awareness and judgement.

Well I thought Leave would win a referendum and said so years ago, and backed Leave, and I think Mr Nabavi is right on that one. So if I'm a nutjob, then I'm afraid some Leavers are nutjobs at least.

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help observing that the intersection of the set of nutjobs who were convinced that Cameron wouldn't deliver on his promise of a referendum, and the set of nutjobs who think Theresa May won't deliver on her promise that Brexit means Brexit, is close to 100%.

Definitely true. Whatever anyone says about Dave, he delivered the referendum he said he would and we've got what many of us wanted. May will deliver Brexit and take us out of the EU in the same way. Those who have moved from Labour to Tory and now to UKIP seem never to be satisfied.

The only sensible position is to wait and see. We've probably all got our own little internal version of Brexit. I know I have.

However, there's a very complex dynamic at play, which doesn't just involve the UK, the individual EU27 countries and the EU Institutions. We know that the USA has skin the game as well. There will be others.

At the moment, we have battlin' slogans. "Brexit means Brexit" vs "no à la carte Single Market".

Let's see what happens. What we collectively want and what we can practically achieve might be two different things.

Danny565 said:

And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities"

Are these communities particularly out of reach? Sounds like a mistake made by property developers, or the local authority not ensuring infrastructure requirements are in place before occupation.

CamForce One to be renamed TherEasy Jet.

Ok, let's RON

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

blackburn63 said:

HYUFD said:

blackburn63 said:

HYUFD said:

BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two

Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.

It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority

We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.

The sooner the BBC is canned the better.

A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/749880938813722624?lang=en-gb

People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.

No, the BBC question asked them if they wanted to cut immigration and even then the single market had a majority. The City will force us to stay in the single market in the end and we will, the economy demands it, Hartlepool and Basildon can go hang as far as they are concerned!

John_M said:

MikeO said:

MikeO said:

I just watched the BBC News at 10.

I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...

Hello and welcome. What do u mean?

Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg repeatedly mentioning that Theresa May didn't have a personal mandate.
We are a Parliamentary Democracy - all you need to be Prime Minister is to be able to form a government and carry a vote of confidence in the HoC...

Yep. This mandate idea is nonsense. Brown, Major, Callaghan plus at least a Baker's dozen of others put the kibosh on the whole concept.

Not quite. The record of PM's being chosen by internal party mechanism while in post at the subsequent election is rather poor:

Brown lost, Callaghan lost, Douglas Home lost.

Major won the election, but lost seats in 92

I think that the last PM who assumed office this way who increased their majority in the subsequent election was MacMillan in 1959.

Of course none of them had to face an opposition as chaotic and hopeless as the current Labour party!

Jobabob said:

Moses_ said:

Sean_F said:

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

However....

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

Or not?

A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.

I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".

Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.

Awkward.

There are tons of grey areas, those you cite above plus the fact that the leader needs to command the support of the PLP. Indeed, the NCV was only never specified to be binding because it was assumed that any leader who lost one would immediately stand down. The rules have been drafted incredibly badly, but were done on the assumption that anyone leading a great British party of state would have a sense of honour. Fitalass's post up thread is worth reading - as she says, the Corbynistas have tested the rules to their very limits.

No. The rules are silent because otherwise it would give the PLP a veto over the leader.

kle4 said:

OllyT said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Jobabob said:

DaveDave said:

Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.

The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.

If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?

Corbyn genuinely doesn't care about Parliament.

I think he should be on the ballot and I will rejoin to give it one last shot but if he wins again I genuinely believe Labour is finished as a potential,future government. I say that because there will be an exodus of non-Corbynites and the Momentum crowd will gain control of the NEC and stitch up the party rules to ensure no-one but a hard leftie can win again, we'll get annual mandatory reselections etc et.

There will be a split because 170 MPs will have nothing to lose because they know they will be deselected before the next GE. It is a very different scenario to SDP1 when only about a dozen MPs defected. If Corbyn Labour ceases to be the official opposition for the next 4 years and are just a rump of 40 MPs (4th largest grouping behind the SNP} they will wither from public view. They have no god-given right to exist and could easily disappear from the political scene in England/Wales as fast as they did in Scotland.

Most of the MPs seem to insist they don't have a problem with Corbyn's views, per se, but with his leadership. A few also have a problem with his views, but by and large the objections don't seem focused on it. That being the case, I expect we'll be surprised how many of the plotters go back to be quiet, pliant MPs - maybe they'll get deselected, maybe they won't, but lacking policy reasons to go elsewhere, even if they are facing deselection I expect most would let that happen rather than set up a new party.

I have no doubt that Momentum will set about deselecting anyone who is not 100% of the true faith. The atmosphere is poison at the moment, far worse than in 1982.

foxinsoxuk said:

John_M said:

MikeO said:

MikeO said:

I just watched the BBC News at 10.

I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...

Hello and welcome. What do u mean?

Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg repeatedly mentioning that Theresa May didn't have a personal mandate.
We are a Parliamentary Democracy - all you need to be Prime Minister is to be able to form a government and carry a vote of confidence in the HoC...

Yep. This mandate idea is nonsense. Brown, Major, Callaghan plus at least a Baker's dozen of others put the kibosh on the whole concept.

Not quite. The record of PM's being chosen by internal party mechanism while in post at the subsequent election is rather poor:

Brown lost, Callaghan lost, Douglas Home lost.

Major won the election, but lost seats in 92

I think that the last PM who assumed office this way who increased their majority in the subsequent election was MacMillan in 1959.

Of course none of them had to face an opposition as chaotic and hopeless as the current Labour party!

foxinsoxuk said:

John_M said:

MikeO said:

MikeO said:

I just watched the BBC News at 10.

I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...

Hello and welcome. What do u mean?

Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg repeatedly mentioning that Theresa May didn't have a personal mandate.
We are a Parliamentary Democracy - all you need to be Prime Minister is to be able to form a government and carry a vote of confidence in the HoC...

Yep. This mandate idea is nonsense. Brown, Major, Callaghan plus at least a Baker's dozen of others put the kibosh on the whole concept.

Not quite. The record of PM's being chosen by internal party mechanism while in post at the subsequent election is rather poor:

Brown lost, Callaghan lost, Douglas Home lost.

Major won the election, but lost seats in 92

I think that the last PM who assumed office this way who increased their majority in the subsequent election was MacMillan in 1959.

Of course none of them had to face an opposition as chaotic and hopeless as the current Labour party!

To be fair how often do government's increase their majority?

I thought 2015 was the first modern era time a government increased both its share of the vote and seats albeit even then that is only if you exclude the Lib Dems.