It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
In general, I think the site benefits from having a range of opinions put forward in a friendly and reasonably rational way, in the same way that we benefit from having David Kendrick and Richard Tyndall putting the view of not totally enchanted Kippers. Apart from anything else, I have a certain personal commitment to Jeremy, from long acquaintance and a very strong preference for his issue-oriented, level-headed style of politics.
In reply to rottenborough, I think that having been an MP inculcates a realistic view of the PLP - not nasty, not fanatical, but also not superior beings. Most are primarily concerned with holding their seats and promoting particular issues that they care about. I don't think that entitles them to a decisive role in deciding the direction and leadership of the party, or that (as you've suggested) a commitment to parliamentary democracy implies that MPs must decide internal party leadership.
I'm not even sure that they'd say that themselves. They are for the most part simply expressing honest worry that the causes that they favour won't flourish under Jeremy. It's an understandable view and they're entitled to put it as one consideration in the leadership election. But ultimately the members should decide (taking into account what the alternative candidates are like and how far they'd flourish), and it would be just silly evasion of the issue if one side weren't allowed to put up their candidate.
I would agree with this.
I think (whilst some of Jeremy’s supporters may be aggressive), Jeremy himself is not and always comes across as courteous & pleasant. I don’t agree with all of Jeremy’s views, but I do agree with some them.
I think -- at a personal level -- a lot of people basically think Jeremy is likeable (even if they don’t think he is PM material).
Jeremy has already been handed a rough deal from the PLP. I think excluding him from the ballot would crystallize the unfairness for many.
A ballot in which Jeremy is defeated by a candidate with vision and inspiration is the only way back for the Labour Party, given where it is.
I do think there are such candidates among the PLP (but not Eagle or Smith; and certainly not Kendall, Burnham and Cooper).
Perhaps he is courteous and pleasant one on one. Whenever he gets in front of a camera he seems to be prickly, defensive and passive-aggressive.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Really sorry to hear this. I wish you and your partner the very best for a speedy and full recovery. You will be missed.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
@AlastairMeeks Sorry for your partner's health, get well soon. I have parents in the last stage of life, one in hospital now for 4+ weeks and the other went in for a few days last week. Luckily they were on same floor of hospital in opposite wards.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
In politics.
In reply toleadership.
I'm not even sure that they'd say that themselves. They are for the most part simply expressing honest ar they'd flourish), and it would be just silly evasion of the issue if one side weren't allowed to put up their candidate.
Totally agree that the site benefits from range of opinions, that's one of its great attractions.
I guess we'll have to agree to differ over MPs role in leadership. I can't see how on earth a leader can be LOTO in Parliament if a vast chunk of his own MPs don't want him/her to be to the point where they all resign their posts. My point and opinion was its just not tenable, it really isn't.
It is not tenable if the party is primarily focused on winning power through Parliament. But if that is not the primary aim - and for Corbyn Labour it is not - then the support of MPs genuinely does not matter. It's worth saying time and again - the hard left, the Corbyn left, believes that the route to true socialism lies through the rising up of the proletariat and the seizing of the means of production. That will not happen through the ballot box, but on the streets. Having MPs is useful, but not as useful a having control of a party apparatus.
Whether intentionally or not, Nick and other Corbynistas are helping the hard left to achieve its long held goal. They have pursued it relentlessly and ruthlessly for decades and now they are just a few votes and a few months away from taking full and permanent control of the Labour party. That this may mean many more years of Tory government is not a problem, in fact the hard left welcomes it as it will inspire, so they believe, the workers to revolt. Seriously.
So what sort of May cabinet do we envisage? Grayling was her campaign manager but he's no always respected as a minister. Chancellor? I would guess Hammond but who knows?
@AlastairMeeks Sorry for your partner's health, get well soon. I have parents in the last stage of life, one in hospital now for 4+ weeks and the other went in for a few days last week. Luckily they were on same floor of hospital in opposite wards.
Sympathies and best wishes to you too.
Thank you. I made my father smile (90yrs) when I told him I had an application form for the circus after he somersaulted down a flight of stairs (refused to use safety belt in chairlift). Still in bed unable to get out himself and now has stopped reading, no radio and no tv. Just getting weaker.
Mr Meeks, sorry to hear your news. I hope he recovers quickly. And having gone through something similar with my other half last year, I hope you take care of yourself too.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
Snip
I would agree with this.
I think (whilst some of Jeremy’s supporters may be aggressive), Jeremy himself is not and always comes across as courteous & pleasant. I don’t agree with all of Jeremy’s views, but I do agree with some them.
I think -- at a personal level -- a lot of people basically think Jeremy is likeable (even if they don’t think he is PM material).
Jeremy has already been handed a rough deal from the PLP. I think excluding him from the ballot would crystalline the unfairness for many.
A ballot in which Jeremy is defeated by a candidate with vision and inspiration is the only way back for the Labour Party, given where it is.
I do think there are such candidates among the PLP (but not Eagle or Smith; and certainly not Kendall, Burnham and Cooper).
I don't have a dog in the fight, apart from being a member of the public, oh and Cons Party member also, but...
I disagree!
Jezza's principle of my enemy's enemy is my friend has put him into the same company as many horrible, vile people. It shows at the very best a lack of judgement, and at worst, well, we all know what it shows.
There is no way the favourite uncle persona should be allowed to mask his deeply held beliefs which, if one looks at his fellow ideological travellers, and in the absence of a heartfelt mea culpa, are thoroughly repugnant.
This is what does it for him, his foreign affairs views. He is clearly in that reflexively 'anti-imperial' group of left wingers. things like the Israel Palestine conflict are his passion, fine, but it won't win elections. If he was more like Bernie Sanders who focuses on the economics he would have more of a chance.
So what sort of May cabinet do we envisage? Grayling was her campaign manager but he's no always respected as a minister. Chancellor? I would guess Hammond but who knows?
The interesting one for me is whether Gove gets a spot at the table. Have a sneaking suspicion Boris will get DCMS. Leadsom to Chief Secretary? Patel should get a promotion too though not sure where she'll fit best - something like Transport?
@AlastairMeeks Sorry for your partner's health, get well soon. I have parents in the last stage of life, one in hospital now for 4+ weeks and the other went in for a few days last week. Luckily they were on same floor of hospital in opposite wards.
Sympathies and best wishes to you too.
Thank you. I made my father smile (90yrs) when I told him I had an application form for the circus after he somersaulted down a flight of stairs (refused to use safety belt in chairlift). Still in bed unable to get out himself and now has stopped reading, no radio and no tv. Just getting weaker.
That sort of decline is very difficult to witness - but, of course, it doesn't define his whole 90 years. My thoughts are with you. Stay strong.
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
The wording of the Collins report is important because it nails the claim of Corbyn and the hard left generally that he should carry on despite having lost all support from his parliamentary party. It shows that the intention when the new system was designed was to ensure that the leader should at least be able to count on a substantive pool of parliamentary support if not necessarily a majority. My point is that the Collins report wording confirms that he has no moral authority to carry on having lost a vote of confidence by such an overwhelming margin. He should resign and if he wishes to run again would then be subject to the same 15% threshold as before - this time he wouldn't get into single figures.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
You're just theorizing... A judge could equally find the rules are clear, evisage the current scenario, and all that is required is for a challenger to find 20% [Corbyn auto on the ballot], and the matter is given back to the mass membership for determination.
Hardly an unreasonable or bizarre procedure, on the face of it...
Yes, on the matter of how it would be interpreted in court, I am. All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that the wording on the rationale for the PLP's role set out in the Collins Report would form part of the evidence presented. Whether the judge would decide to take any account of the intention behind the rules is another matter.
The problem with using the Collins Report as a solid basis for a case to require Corbyn to have to seek nominations is that it was only implemented in part. The threshold was indeed raised to 15%, as recommended, but the individuals with nominating rights was extended from the recommended PLP to also include the EPLP - who were explicitly excluded by Collins precisely because their support or opposition had little bearing on a leader's position. As such, it cannot be argued that Collins' rationale was fully accepted and if so, given that it wasn't, his reasoning can't carry all that much legal weight in interpreting the rules as passed.
Just to provide some good news: my eldest son has been awarded a 2.1 degree. (In History of Art from the Courtauld.) Nothing, you might think, remarkable in that.
But he became very ill a few years back and had to take time out to recover and then go back to complete his degree so it has been a very difficult and torrid time for him (and the rest of the family). I am very proud of him that he has finally achieved this.
I also wanted to mention this because the estimable Mr M provided me with some private wise advice when it all started going wrong, which really helped. And I want to take this occasion to pay a public tribute to him for that.
(Incidentally, sea air is brilliant for lungs but London air isn't. I really notice the difference. I may have to move to Amalfi permanently...... )
Totally agree that the site benefits from range of opinions, that's one of its great attractions.
I guess we'll have to agree to differ over MPs role in leadership. I can't see how on earth a leader can be LOTO in Parliament if a vast chunk of his own MPs don't want him/her to be to the point where they all resign their posts. My point and opinion was its just not tenable, it really isn't.
I think that's right, and I didn't approve of that form of pressure - I think they should simply have organised a leadership challenge behind a single preferred challenger. But if Corbyn wins, I'd expect the middle ground of MPs who wanted to express honest worries to accept the situation, probably on the basis of "Well, if that's what the members want, we'll do our best but I don't think it will end well". I can't see the mass refusal to serve continuing in that situation. There will be some who will leave, some (e.g. Danczuk) who will be deselected and some who will simply retire at the next election.
See how much Hills will let you have on Theresa May. They have not yet paid out on Cameron leaving in 2016.
They are waiting until tomorrow I believe
They should have settled on all Tory party bets by now.
Next PM is the market that settles tommorow.
There is still a finite chance that T May is not the next PM.
Betfair have already paid up in bucketfuls.
What is the next big political betting opportunity? I'm following the US Senate polls and have my spreadsheet ready but no betting opportunity yet.. Also the French opinion polls and I'm already on Juppe. This is a bit addictive. Must be careful (note to myself).
Is it just me that thinks Hammond is vastly overrated - CoTE ? really ?
I agree but given opposition he may be the least useless of the bunch
At least he's so boring even he knows he won't be PM, it will make a change from Chancellors like Brown and Osborne openly manoeuvring the treasury for their own ambitions!
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Best wishes to you and your partner. A sobering reminder of the really important things in life.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Completely unacceptable, hopefully the idiots are found and prosecuted.
Indeed. Might it have a bearing on the deselection process currently being started against her. There must be a few waverers who might have supported it wondering what sort of fellow travellers they'd be getting involved with?
So what sort of May cabinet do we envisage? Grayling was her campaign manager but he's no always respected as a minister. Chancellor? I would guess Hammond but who knows?
The interesting one for me is whether Gove gets a spot at the table. Have a sneaking suspicion Boris will get DCMS. Leadsom to Chief Secretary? Patel should get a promotion too though not sure where she'll fit best - something like Transport?
So what sort of May cabinet do we envisage? Grayling was her campaign manager but he's no always respected as a minister. Chancellor? I would guess Hammond but who knows?
The interesting one for me is whether Gove gets a spot at the table. Have a sneaking suspicion Boris will get DCMS. Leadsom to Chief Secretary? Patel should get a promotion too though not sure where she'll fit best - something like Transport?
I wouldn't put Boris in the cabinet. See if he can impress as a minister first. Probably in DCMS.
It is not tenable if the party is primarily focused on winning power through Parliament. But if that is not the primary aim - and for Corbyn Labour it is not - then the support of MPs genuinely does not matter. It's worth saying time and again - the hard left, the Corbyn left, believes that the route to true socialism lies through the rising up of the proletariat and the seizing of the means of production. That will not happen through the ballot box, but on the streets. Having MPs is useful, but not as useful a having control of a party apparatus.
Whether intentionally or not, Nick and other Corbynistas are helping the hard left to achieve its long held goal. They have pursued it relentlessly and ruthlessly for decades and now they are just a few votes and a few months away from taking full and permanent control of the Labour party. That this may mean many more years of Tory government is not a problem, in fact the hard left welcomes it as it will inspire, so they believe, the workers to revolt. Seriously.
I don't think that's right - it is as much the product of caricature as the lefties who think that anyone vaguely worried about immigration is a Nazi. Of course there are a few nutters around who thinkas you describe, but the normal left-wing view is simply to get the policies right as first priority, and then try to win an election: sooner or later you succeed.
The normal centrist view is to prioritise winning an election and then put through some nice policies. That's something I supported with Tony Blair - there were so many obvious things that needed doing from Northern Ireland to NHS funding to minimum wage to civil partnerships that it was plenty to be going on with. What I'm missing from the current centrist challenge is any sense that they have further interesting policies in mind. Seeking to win for the sake of winning is not in keeping with the spirit of democracy either.
I can't see those who left the Shadow Cabinet doing a u turn. Labour activists will be going into the next election, knocking on doors trying to persuade people that Corbyn should be PM, that McDonnell will be in charge of the country's finances and Diane Abbott will have responsibility for the NHS.
All those WWC Leavers who voted primarily on immigration are going to be mighty disappointed if Freedom of Movement is retained, and presumably even more so if there's an increase in 'commonwealth' immigration if FoM is dispensed with.
Just to provide some good news: my eldest son has been awarded a 2.1 degree. (In History of Art from the Courtauld.) Nothing, you might think, remarkable in that.
But he became very ill a few years back and had to take time out to recover and then go back to complete his degree so it has been a very difficult and torrid time for him (and the rest of the family). I am very proud of him that he has finally achieved this.
I also wanted to mention this because the estimable Mr M provided me with some private wise advice when it all started going wrong, which really helped. And I want to take this occasion to pay a public tribute to him for that.
(Incidentally, sea air is brilliant for lungs but London air isn't. I really notice the difference. I may have to move to Amalfi permanently...... )
Congratulations to your son, he must be thrilled. Nothing like getting one's life back on track to lift the spirits.
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
The wording of the Collins report is important because it nails the claim of Corbyn and the hard left generally that he should carry on despite having lost all support from his parliamentary party. It shows that the intention when the new system was designed was to ensure that the leader should at least be able to count on a substantive pool of parliamentary support if not necessarily a majority. My point is that the Collins report wording confirms that he has no moral authority to carry on having lost a vote of confidence by such an overwhelming margin. He should resign and if he wishes to run again would then be subject to the same 15% threshold as before - this time he wouldn't get into single figures.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
You're just theorizing... A judge could equally find the rules are clear, evisage the current scenario, and all that is required is for a challenger to find 20% [Corbyn auto on the ballot], and the matter is given back to the mass membership for determination.
Hardly an unreasonable or bizarre procedure, on the face of it...
Yes, on the matter of how it would be interpreted in court, I am. All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that the wording on the rationale for the PLP's role set out in the Collins Report would form part of the evidence presented. Whether the judge would decide to take any account of the intention behind the rules is another matter.
I don't think that would fly either.
Judge: "It's obvious they gave the matter great consideration, and decided that 15% support was 'substantial'. This court has no power or rationale to displace that opinion."
It is not tenable if the party is primarily focused on winning power through Parliament. But if that is not the primary aim - and for Corbyn Labour it is not - then the support of MPs genuinely does not matter. It's worth saying time and again - the hard left, the Corbyn left, believes that the route to true socialism lies through the rising up of the proletariat and the seizing of the means of production. That will not happen through the ballot box, but on the streets. Having MPs is useful, but not as useful a having control of a party apparatus.
Whether intentionally or not, Nick and other Corbynistas are helping the hard left to achieve its long held goal. They have pursued it relentlessly and ruthlessly for decades and now they are just a few votes and a few months away from taking full and permanent control of the Labour party. That this may mean many more years of Tory government is not a problem, in fact the hard left welcomes it as it will inspire, so they believe, the workers to revolt. Seriously.
I don't think that's right - it is as much the product of caricature as the lefties who think that anyone vaguely worried about immigration is a Nazi. Of course there are a few nutters around who thinkas you describe, but the normal left-wing view is simply to get the policies right as first priority, and then try to win an election: sooner or later you succeed.
The normal centrist view is to prioritise winning an election and then put through some nice policies. That's something I supported with Tony Blair - there were so many obvious things that needed doing from Northern Ireland to NHS funding to minimum wage to civil partnerships that it was plenty to be going on with. What I'm missing from the current centrist challenge is any sense that they have further interesting policies in mind. Seeking to win for the sake of winning is not in keeping with the spirit of democracy either.
If politicians simply return to a narrow debate about how much control the UK can secure over migration in return for continued trade access to the EU’s single market, which was also the crux of Mr Cameron’s negotiations, it is difficult to see how there will be a different result other than further stalemate.
Although the article is an argument for more strategic thinking I think it is also confirmation that Brexit negotiations will probably be about damage limitation and the end result will be a stalemate. It was a stalemate before and so will continue in a recast form. Neither Remainers nor Leavers have presented any compelling vision for their case.
I said before that the EEA is carefully calibrated to give nobody what they want. I think that, or whatever alternative is eventually agreed on will be in that vein.
''All those WWC Leavers who voted primarily on immigration are going to be mighty disappointed if Freedom of Movement is retained, and presumably even more so if there's an increase in 'commonwealth' immigration if FoM is dispensed with. ''
May's answer appears to be socialism in the boardroom.
The tories have taken the easy way out. As Lord Tebbit writes today - they will pay, big time.
All those WWC Leavers who voted primarily on immigration are going to be mighty disappointed if Freedom of Movement is retained, and presumably even more so if there's an increase in 'commonwealth' immigration if FoM is dispensed with.
It's the latter that is going to cause problems I fear.
Lets be clear about Corbyn and his mate John McDonnell, who is propping him up like Corbyn is some aging Soviet leader who may well be dead but no one is quite sure.
I compared McDonnell to Ernst Rohm the other night. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but not as much as you might think. McDonnell understands the politics of the street all to well. You see those far right politicians in Europe who look well urbane but you dig a bit underneath and you see the reality is somewhat unpleasant? McDonnell, all over. The man is a problem.
Corbyn, isn't well meaning, he is a weed who supports his causes out of some kind of principle. That inability to filter for plain commonsense is a bad sign.
The PLP are right to get rid, but they put him there, the witless wonders, and he got elected under the rules.
Theresa May calling for workers to be put on company boards, new government bonds for infrastructure, crackdown on tax avoidance, businesses to pay fair taxes, binding votes for shareholders on CEO pay (not advisory), more house building...
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Lets be clear about Corbyn and his mate John McDonnell, who is propping him up like Corbyn is some aging Soviet leader who may well be dead but no one is quite sure.
I compared McDonnell to Ernst Rohm the other night. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but not as much as you might think. McDonnell understands the politics of the street all to well. You see those far right politicians in Europe who look well urbane but you dig a bit underneath and you see the reality is somewhat unpleasant? McDonnell, all over. The man is a problem.
Corbyn, isn't well meaning, he is a weed who supports his causes out of some kind of principle. That inability to filter for plain commonsense is a bad sign.
The PLP are right to get rid, but they put him there, the witless wonders, and he got elected under the rules.
The attack on Eagle's constituency offices indicate to me the direction in which this is going. It is not going to be pretty.
Theresa May calling for workers to be put on company boards, new government bonds for infrastructure, crackdown on tax avoidance, businesses to pay fair taxes, binding votes for shareholders on CEO pay (not advisory), more house building...
Completely unacceptable, hopefully the idiots are found and prosecuted.
Indeed. Might it have a bearing on the deselection process currently being started against her. There must be a few waverers who might have supported it wondering what sort of fellow travellers they'd be getting involved with?
It absolutely should not have any bearing at all. If Eagle's opponents were opposed to her before, they still should be now. If Eagle's friends are still going to vote for her then they should still do so. And if say above all they were changing their mind this morning, then they should change their mind !
I'd expect most people to hold their previous position and I think recent events have shown this is the case in the country at large.
I personally found it difficult to change my mind recently, and not feel that I was being somehow manipulated into doing so with the poisonous atmosphere around.
Shitty events like this just reinforce previously held views for the most part I think.
I wonder if Eagle has police protection. I hope so.
Not at the moment. I followed her out of Parliament yesterday immediately behind her through the rotating security doors and out into Parliament Square, where she was immediately accosted by a supporter, as it happens. She was on her own - literally and metaphorically. Could have been worse.
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
The wording of the Collins report is important because it nails the claim of Corbyn and the hard left generally that he should carry on despite having lost all support from his parliamentary party. It shows that the intention when the new system was designed was to ensure that the leader should at least be able to count on a substantive pool of parliamentary support if not necessarily a majority. My point is that the Collins report wording confirms that he has no moral authority to carry on having lost a vote of confidence by such an overwhelming margin. He should resign and if he wishes to run again would then be subject to the same 15% threshold as before - this time he wouldn't get into single figures.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
You're just theorizing... A judge could equally find the rules are clear, evisage the current scenario, and all that is required is for a challenger to find 20% [Corbyn auto on the ballot], and the matter is given back to the mass membership for determination.
Hardly an unreasonable or bizarre procedure, on the face of it...
Yes, on the matter of how it would be interpreted in court, I am. All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that the wording on the rationale for the PLP's role set out in the Collins Report would form part of the evidence presented. Whether the judge would decide to take any account of the intention behind the rules is another matter.
I don't think that would fly either.
Judge: "It's obvious they gave the matter great consideration, and decided that 15% support was 'substantial'. This court has no power or rationale to displace that opinion."
English law is traditionally very adamant that when you interpret a document you look only at the document, not at any evidence of the intention of the parties you might get from other sources, such as the negotiations leading up to the document's existence. The principle is crumbling a bit, but that is still the basic rule.
Theresa May calling for workers to be put on company boards, new government bonds for infrastructure, crackdown on tax avoidance, businesses to pay fair taxes, binding votes for shareholders on CEO pay (not advisory), more house building...
All of this is Ed Miliband 2015 no?
Ed Miliband actually had some pretty good ideas in the fine details - workers in boards and more power to shareholders is years overdue - but he was clearly clueless on macroeconomic policy (not surprising, being an Oxford and Harvard trained economist) behaved like an arrogant fool and always talked down to the voters as though he could not believe we did not see his brilliance and that being the son of a wealthy university lecturer who went to a nice state school before a smooth ride into top universities made him One of Us. It didn't help that he sounded weird and didn't know how to avoid being snapped at inopportune moments.
For some reason this was not an effective voting pitch.
Theresa May calling for workers to be put on company boards, new government bonds for infrastructure, crackdown on tax avoidance, businesses to pay fair taxes, binding votes for shareholders on CEO pay (not advisory), more house building...
All of this is Ed Miliband 2015 no?
Yes.
So does she really mean it?
Is she trying to pick up some Labour defectors to boost her majority if Corbyn wins his challenge?
I think she would only get some of that stuff through HoC with Labour votes...
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
Which would be a stupid "argument" its not about number of this section of society vs. number of that, its about what policies you put in place for the population as a whole not a few who get to be token MP's
I don't think that's right - it is as much the product of caricature as the lefties who think that anyone vaguely worried about immigration is a Nazi. Of course there are a few nutters around who thinkas you describe, but the normal left-wing view is simply to get the policies right as first priority, and then try to win an election: sooner or later you succeed.
The normal centrist view is to prioritise winning an election and then put through some nice policies. That's something I supported with Tony Blair - there were so many obvious things that needed doing from Northern Ireland to NHS funding to minimum wage to civil partnerships that it was plenty to be going on with. What I'm missing from the current centrist challenge is any sense that they have further interesting policies in mind. Seeking to win for the sake of winning is not in keeping with the spirit of democracy either.
It's great that you don't think that there's too much that obviously needs sorting out right now, Nick. From where I sit I see a country that has just taken a monumental decision and a new Prime Minister who has yet to share with us her Brexit vision and who will need to be held to account for the deal that does end up being done. I also see millions of voters on the verge of giving up on Labour forever, a creaking infrastructure, the Union in peril, massive inequality and a housing crisis. I also see a Labour leader incapable of connecting with non-believers, and actually unwilling to try to do so.
The simple fact is that in a Parliamentary democracy the leader of a Parliamentary party has to command the confidence of the party he/she leads in Parliament. I am afraid that there is absolutely no getting around this. However, the leader of a party that just so happens to have MPs is not in that position. And that is where Labour is heading: a large movement of like-minded people that just so happens to have a few MPs but does not actually aspire to govern.
I have no doubt that most Labour members are not hard left fanatics, but in choosing to follow the extra-Parliamentary route they are doing exactly as the hard left wants them to do. People who worry about immigration are not Nazis, but people who worry about immigration and do not call out Nazis and turn a blind eye to them because of their anti-immigration views are very much part of the problem.
The FTPA has a clause for a supermajority in the house to override itself (Was it 2/3rds ?) - with Labour seemingly for it, it could be passed and in view of the extraordinary political circumstances at the moment, Tim's position is entirely justified.
The one person who probably doesn't want a GE right now is Corbyn...
Would Her Majesty agree to a dissolution when the governing party was elected with a working majority just over a year ago, and does not appear, at present, to be having a difficulty getting its programme through? If that changes, and one assumes there could be difficult votes to come on Brexit, then fine, an election may be justified. But not now.
I think Corbyn will give a fullsome speech with praise and critisicm of David Cameron, but there is not a 30% chance of him actually applauding - has he ever applauded anyone as its not his style.
Theresa May calling for workers to be put on company boards, new government bonds for infrastructure, crackdown on tax avoidance, businesses to pay fair taxes, binding votes for shareholders on CEO pay (not advisory), more house building...
All of this is Ed Miliband 2015 no?
A couple of those were in Tory manifestos and couple of others don't really mean anything until we see some policies to with them but the stuff about employees on boards in from Ed, yes.
The FTPA has a clause for a supermajority in the house to override itself (Was it 2/3rds ?) - with Labour seemingly for it, it could be passed and in view of the extraordinary political circumstances at the moment, Tim's position is entirely justified.
The one person who probably doesn't want a GE right now is Corbyn...
Would Her Majesty agree to a dissolution when the governing party was elected with a working majority just over a year ago, and does not appear, at present, to be having a difficulty getting its programme through? If that changes, and one assumes there could be difficult votes to come on Brexit, then fine, an election may be justified. But not now.
Eh ?
The Queen has zip to do with this and would never stop a GE if May called for one. Of course she would agree - it is her duty and this precedent has been established for the last few hundred years........................
May is going to be a catastrophe for the tories. And its a catastrophe their socialist in conservative clothing MPs richly deserve.
The criticism comes from the Adam Smith institute, libertarian and free market zealots.
I have no idea whether May's ideas will work in practice. They do seem somewhat dated. However, I found the article's argument wanting. The link between share price and executive reward isn't always there. Punishing the company is not the same as punishing the leadership. We see time and again business people who preside over failure walking away with their personal fortunes enriched.
I don't think May will be a catastrophe. I do wonder, given her reputation for being a detail-oriented micro-manager whether she'll do the visionary thing well. Her speech yesterday could have been given by Clinton. We're going to need some radicalism in an era where our politicians are, by and large, managerial in outlook.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Stay strong and all good thoughts for you and he.
Yes - very best wishes to Alastair and his other half.
Just to provide some good news: my eldest son has been awarded a 2.1 degree. (In History of Art from the Courtauld.) Nothing, you might think, remarkable in that.
But he became very ill a few years back and had to take time out to recover and then go back to complete his degree so it has been a very difficult and torrid time for him (and the rest of the family). I am very proud of him that he has finally achieved this.
I also wanted to mention this because the estimable Mr M provided me with some private wise advice when it all started going wrong, which really helped. And I want to take this occasion to pay a public tribute to him for that.
(Incidentally, sea air is brilliant for lungs but London air isn't. I really notice the difference. I may have to move to Amalfi permanently...... )
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
You're just theorizing... A judge could equally find the rules are clear, evisage the current scenario, and all that is required is for a challenger to find 20% [Corbyn auto on the ballot], and the matter is given back to the mass membership for determination.
Hardly an unreasonable or bizarre procedure, on the face of it...
Yes, on the matter of how it would be interpreted in court, I am. All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that the wording on the rationale for the PLP's role set out in the Collins Report would form part of the evidence presented. Whether the judge would decide to take any account of the intention behind the rules is another matter.
I don't think that would fly either.
Judge: "It's obvious they gave the matter great consideration, and decided that 15% support was 'substantial'. This court has no power or rationale to displace that opinion."
English law is traditionally very adamant that when you interpret a document you look only at the document, not at any evidence of the intention of the parties you might get from other sources, such as the negotiations leading up to the document's existence. The principle is crumbling a bit, but that is still the basic rule.
Yes, I understand that. But even if the court chose to delve into the whys and wherefores there's nothing to be done. The argument "they didn't know what they were doing, or didn't do what they wanted to do" is just infantile.
The complainers are really just saying:- "I wish the rules weren't the way they are. I can't believe this [political outcome] was intended. It's intolerable! Please, save us. Anyone? The Courts?"
Nope. You'll have to get rid of Corbyn under the existing rules if you can, then change them to prevent a repetition. Or find a different party...
It's going to be great having remain tories defend May in the next few months. Really great.
Just pull up the last year or two of posts by the usual party loyalist, do a search and replace of "Dave" for "Theresa" and you can skip the majority of their posts for at least the medium term.
I am sure we will be told she is a "near perfect" PM before her backside even touches it's new place behind the dispatch box, possibly even when she is pushing through the latest draconian implementation of the Snooper's Charter.
Theresa May calling for workers to be put on company boards, new government bonds for infrastructure, crackdown on tax avoidance, businesses to pay fair taxes, binding votes for shareholders on CEO pay (not advisory), more house building...
All of this is Ed Miliband 2015 no?
It's easy to identify problems and make a list of nice things we'd all like. Miliband was quite good at doing those things, but not so good at convincing the public he had any idea on how to solve the problems. I don't expect May to be much better.
The FTPA has a clause for a supermajority in the house to override itself (Was it 2/3rds ?) - with Labour seemingly for it, it could be passed and in view of the extraordinary political circumstances at the moment, Tim's position is entirely justified.
The one person who probably doesn't want a GE right now is Corbyn...
Would Her Majesty agree to a dissolution when the governing party was elected with a working majority just over a year ago, and does not appear, at present, to be having a difficulty getting its programme through? If that changes, and one assumes there could be difficult votes to come on Brexit, then fine, an election may be justified. But not now.
It's not HM's call any more.
But she did in 1966, for what it's worth, as did her father in 1951, as well as there being earlier precedent too.
The FTPA has a clause for a supermajority in the house to override itself (Was it 2/3rds ?) - with Labour seemingly for it, it could be passed and in view of the extraordinary political circumstances at the moment, Tim's position is entirely justified.
The one person who probably doesn't want a GE right now is Corbyn...
Would Her Majesty agree to a dissolution when the governing party was elected with a working majority just over a year ago, and does not appear, at present, to be having a difficulty getting its programme through? If that changes, and one assumes there could be difficult votes to come on Brexit, then fine, an election may be justified. But not now.
HMQ is out of the picture. The whole point and consequence of the FPTA was to abrogate that Royal Prerogative...
Comments
Starting to sound like Newspeak.
https://twitter.com/misterhsk/status/752604343262646276
Whether intentionally or not, Nick and other Corbynistas are helping the hard left to achieve its long held goal. They have pursued it relentlessly and ruthlessly for decades and now they are just a few votes and a few months away from taking full and permanent control of the Labour party. That this may mean many more years of Tory government is not a problem, in fact the hard left welcomes it as it will inspire, so they believe, the workers to revolt. Seriously.
RIP Jo Cox.
https://www.politicos.co.uk/books/kind-of-blue
But he became very ill a few years back and had to take time out to recover and then go back to complete his degree so it has been a very difficult and torrid time for him (and the rest of the family). I am very proud of him that he has finally achieved this.
I also wanted to mention this because the estimable Mr M provided me with some private wise advice when it all started going wrong, which really helped. And I want to take this occasion to pay a public tribute to him for that.
(Incidentally, sea air is brilliant for lungs but London air isn't. I really notice the difference. I may have to move to Amalfi permanently......
What is the next big political betting opportunity? I'm following the US Senate polls and have my spreadsheet ready but no betting opportunity yet.. Also the French opinion polls and I'm already on Juppe. This is a bit addictive. Must be careful (note to myself).
http://openeurope.org.uk/impact/britain-must-think-grander-terms-reach-new-european-settlement/
Everyone knows Yorkshire air is the best
On that, and linking back to China, the air quality in Shanghai was notable poor when I visited in 2001. One suspects it may be even worse now.
Yesterdays man.
The normal centrist view is to prioritise winning an election and then put through some nice policies. That's something I supported with Tony Blair - there were so many obvious things that needed doing from Northern Ireland to NHS funding to minimum wage to civil partnerships that it was plenty to be going on with. What I'm missing from the current centrist challenge is any sense that they have further interesting policies in mind. Seeking to win for the sake of winning is not in keeping with the spirit of democracy either.
https://twitter.com/jvankooy/status/752649683844014080
All those WWC Leavers who voted primarily on immigration are going to be mighty disappointed if Freedom of Movement is retained, and presumably even more so if there's an increase in 'commonwealth' immigration if FoM is dispensed with.
Judge: "It's obvious they gave the matter great consideration, and decided that 15% support was 'substantial'. This court has no power or rationale to displace that opinion."
Angela Eagle's constituency office has had brick thrown through window. Police called.
If politicians simply return to a narrow debate about how much control the UK can secure over migration in return for continued trade access to the EU’s single market, which was also the crux of Mr Cameron’s negotiations, it is difficult to see how there will be a different result other than further stalemate.
Although the article is an argument for more strategic thinking I think it is also confirmation that Brexit negotiations will probably be about damage limitation and the end result will be a stalemate. It was a stalemate before and so will continue in a recast form. Neither Remainers nor Leavers have presented any compelling vision for their case.
I said before that the EEA is carefully calibrated to give nobody what they want. I think that, or whatever alternative is eventually agreed on will be in that vein.
May's answer appears to be socialism in the boardroom.
The tories have taken the easy way out. As Lord Tebbit writes today - they will pay, big time.
@AlistairMeeks, very sorry to hear your news. Best wishes to the both of you and as others have said, take care of yourself too.
I compared McDonnell to Ernst Rohm the other night. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but not as much as you might think. McDonnell understands the politics of the street all to well. You see those far right politicians in Europe who look well urbane but you dig a bit underneath and you see the reality is somewhat unpleasant? McDonnell, all over. The man is a problem.
Corbyn, isn't well meaning, he is a weed who supports his causes out of some kind of principle. That inability to filter for plain commonsense is a bad sign.
The PLP are right to get rid, but they put him there, the witless wonders, and he got elected under the rules.
All of this is Ed Miliband 2015 no?
No wonder May supporters were desperate not for her to have to go to the members.
May is going to be a catastrophe for the tories. And its a catastrophe their socialist in conservative clothing MPs richly deserve.
If Eagle's opponents were opposed to her before, they still should be now.
If Eagle's friends are still going to vote for her then they should still do so.
And if say above all they were changing their mind this morning, then they should change their mind !
I'd expect most people to hold their previous position and I think recent events have shown this is the case in the country at large.
I personally found it difficult to change my mind recently, and not feel that I was being somehow manipulated into doing so with the poisonous atmosphere around.
Shitty events like this just reinforce previously held views for the most part I think.
Re tomorrow's PMQs
Corbyn to stand and applaud Cameron 7/4
Corbyn not to stand and applaud Cameron 2/5
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/prime-ministers-questions/cameron-pmq-specials/222322838/
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
For some reason this was not an effective voting pitch.
Is she trying to pick up some Labour defectors to boost her majority if Corbyn wins his challenge?
I think she would only get some of that stuff through HoC with Labour votes...
The simple fact is that in a Parliamentary democracy the leader of a Parliamentary party has to command the confidence of the party he/she leads in Parliament. I am afraid that there is absolutely no getting around this. However, the leader of a party that just so happens to have MPs is not in that position. And that is where Labour is heading: a large movement of like-minded people that just so happens to have a few MPs but does not actually aspire to govern.
I have no doubt that most Labour members are not hard left fanatics, but in choosing to follow the extra-Parliamentary route they are doing exactly as the hard left wants them to do. People who worry about immigration are not Nazis, but people who worry about immigration and do not call out Nazis and turn a blind eye to them because of their anti-immigration views are very much part of the problem.
£20 on for me.
As half the tory members go to UKIP in disgust.
In three months it will dawn on complacent conservative MPs and the mainstream media what a stupefying bad choice May is.
The Queen has zip to do with this and would never stop a GE if May called for one. Of course she would agree - it is her duty and this precedent has been established for the last few hundred years........................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBq1dZGrR3c
I have no idea whether May's ideas will work in practice. They do seem somewhat dated. However, I found the article's argument wanting. The link between share price and executive reward isn't always there. Punishing the company is not the same as punishing the leadership. We see time and again business people who preside over failure walking away with their personal fortunes enriched.
I don't think May will be a catastrophe. I do wonder, given her reputation for being a detail-oriented micro-manager whether she'll do the visionary thing well. Her speech yesterday could have been given by Clinton. We're going to need some radicalism in an era where our politicians are, by and large, managerial in outlook.
LOL best of luck with that.
May for me is the anti-candidate. The almost perfect opposite of the person we need.
And as the tories will soon find out.
It's going to be great having remain tories defend May in the next few months. Really great.
The complainers are really just saying:- "I wish the rules weren't the way they are. I can't believe this [political outcome] was intended. It's intolerable! Please, save us. Anyone? The Courts?"
Nope. You'll have to get rid of Corbyn under the existing rules if you can, then change them to prevent a repetition. Or find a different party...
https://twitter.com/pewglobal/status/752802520234328064
I am sure we will be told she is a "near perfect" PM before her backside even touches it's new place behind the dispatch box, possibly even when she is pushing through the latest draconian implementation of the Snooper's Charter.
- Brexit means that the free-trade/free-market EU bloc no longer musters the votes for a blocking minority under QMV.
- Therefore, the Mare Nostrum countries will gradually prevail.
- Osborne (strategic genius that he is) is threatening to park a tax haven right off this more dirigiste, protectionist EU whale.
- Something something something (I fail to see the leap of logic, myself)
- Profit!
Leaving that aside, we're about to conduct an experiment to see exactly why the UK attracts so much FDI.
*edit* PS I see that our corporation tax plans have already pissed off the French - per the FT story.
So effing what? That's the fault of the shareholders, and the tax payer benefits.
I notice few people shout when it happens in the public sector, and it is our money.
But she did in 1966, for what it's worth, as did her father in 1951, as well as there being earlier precedent too.
Crying with laughter throughout.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36771595
Am told Momentum backing Tony Lloyd.