politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today Labour MPs are set to vote for return of shadow cabin
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today Labour MPs are set to vote for return of shadow cabinet elections, but are they headed into a trap?
Labour MPs are to vote on restoring Shadow Cabinet elections after a stark warning that they risk losing the party’s heartlands unless they unite behind the party’s leader.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Ordered more popcorn, it should arrive in time for Conference.
"This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Corbyn, and will soon see the end of the rebellion."
But alas no strategist at all.
Very much in the Stalin line. Being able to control your party doesn't make you good at running a country.
"It is not tenable for Jeremy Corbyn to take no position on the allegations against Keith Vaz"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/it-is-not-tenable-for-jeremy-corbyn-to-take-no-position-on-the-a/
Reading between the lines, I think that means he thinks Labour is done for whichever way it turns...
No, I'm not wrong, and everything you posted in that fullfact link is entirely correct and compatible with what I said.
Of course, he needs a by-election, and to be selected, first.
Italy are fecked in or out of the EU
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/british-airways-apologises-for-delays-after-worldwide-computer-outage/ar-AAixGfX?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp
Im sure uncle Vladimir will be happy to give them two fronts to fight on as well.
1. The elections will take place and Corbyn will ignore the results.
2. He will then suggest a new way to elect shadow cabinet members, which will get bogged down in party process.
What MPs will say is that we have elected the people we think should serve, they are all willing to do so, Jeremy does not want them, who is interested in unity now?
Basically, it's all part of the longer running war.
The Italian trade war threat in response shows how rattled the EU are. They didnt think we had the balls to do it.
Secondly, the point of being in the shadow cabinet is to have a role in developing and setting party policy in a particular area in consultation with the various interest groups in the party. And, once again, Corbyn has made it clear that he is not going to allow that.
So even if the members of the Shadow Cabinet are elected by the PLP and once again become the anti-Corbynites we will have the same impasse. If Hilary Benn was elected, for example, Corbyn is simply not going to listen to him or agree with what he said and they risk having another Syria type vote. So its progress Jim, but not as we know it.
Restricting my freedom. I’d driven for thousands of miles with no problem.
Overall, I’m safer now, though.
ECJ rules which incorporate the ECHR have priority over UK law.
If we are outside the ECHR the government is supposed to implement ECHR rulings but there are no consequences of not doing so.
The HRA requires UK courts to "take into account" ECHR rulings.
So while in the EU we have no say. Outside the EU but with the HRA we have some flexibility but it is at the court's discretion. Outside the EU and with an amended HRA it reverts to Parliament's discretion whether to amend our laws in response to a judgement. That's called "sovereignty"
I expect this will be settled as the HMG position first, as its absolute "red line", and all else negotiated after around it.
For the party to be in a position to start afresh in June 2020, with moderate leadership, then Corbyn and co have to lose it all themselves, with no possibilities of blaming moderates.
When a deal is close then there may be some real cut into the bone concessions but only when you are sure that you will get a worthwhile deal from management in return.
Then everyone emerges all smiles before licking their wounds when they get home, the winner being the one with the best loot to wounds ratio.
Not for Corbyn, it seems. It could appear to me to be just as much of a trap for Corbyn, allowing him to show at the very first opportunity that by opposing this he is anything but a bridge builder. If he wants a continued PLP boycott of ministerial posts, this is the way for him to go about inviting one. Moreover, if the rather ludicrous idea of members electing the shadow cabinet ever came to pass, it would also provide a ready excuse for an annual series of elections by Labour members which would then be used as a means of challenging Corbyn's authority.
In the meantime while the torpedoing is going on, the PLP has a much more effective option at its disposal. It could change the PLP departmental committees so that they are no longer operate as backbench committees in nature. The chair of each is already elected by the PLP and could be tasked with taking on the shadow secretary of state role and then nominating other members to take on roles shadowing the various ministerial roles within each department. Members of the committees could meet just as shadow teams did previously to decide upon how to respond to government proposals, ignoring Corbyn. If Corbyn is still unable to put together a coherent front bench team, but the PLP did through this vehicle, it would pose an interesting dilemma for Bercow.
And your premise only works if members blame Corbyn for stymieing it. Why would they? They are transparently making a move to undermine him, he is supposedly countering with another populist escalation like a latter day grachii, surely if further dispute arises only those members already opposed to him will back the rebels?
If Belarus and Russia can cope with being signatories to the ECHR I'm sure we can.
We just need to learn a bit more about the art of making pious noises while ignoring them. Prisoner votes was a good start.
What he keeps to himself and May is keeping to herself is how far she is willing to compromise that red line - and in return for what.
It was Cameron who gave away his position before negotiations started by making clear he was for remain whatever so he got a crap deal.
Disappointing lack of an Admiral Ackbar picture in the article.
Even if they accept this change and then by surprise even manage to unseat Jez at the conference then the civil war that ensues could be terminal. Jez with a bunch of people not in line with his own thinking is also likely to result in mass fall outs and acrimony.
At this point in the proceedings it is probably better to let the fever run its course applying cold compress where needed and let it break in 2020. The risk is of course there is little left to save at that point or common sense still does not prevail and the body dies anyway.
** from back benches so less impact than as a front bencher / leader
The outcome when we leave the EU is going to be unclear. Would our courts have regard to a decision of the CJE on the extent of, say, an Article 6 issue or not? Even if they don't directly I suspect that they will end up doing so indirectly in the manner I have described.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3775517/Protesters-storm-runway-London-City-Airport-bringing-flights-standstill-stranding-thousands-passengers.html
I'm surprised there hasn't been an #everydaysexism critique of why everyone remembers Ackbar saying it, but not Leia.
"We are on scene at the moment and the incident is ongoing.' The spokesman added that officers need to assess the situation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3775517/Protesters-storm-runway-London-City-Airport-bringing-flights-standstill-stranding-thousands-passengers.html#ixzz4JSRT5ML7
Assess what situation?
They entered a restricted secure zone illegally, they are on a main runway causing massive disruption , the sky's above London are busy enough anyway and are now busier. The risk factor has now gone up for thousands of travellers in the air. Aircraft have to be diverted and landed, major disruption will ensue elsewhere in London airports business and trade will be interrupted.
At the very least a good jail term is required plus some financial cost of the disruption so they get to understand they don't do this.
When it is decided at supranational level they are too remote to be got at.
You want to have a government that can be 'got at'.
Our MPs are much more vulnerable to the electorate now that they can no longer say 'Sorry it is an EU regulation we have no choice under the treaties other than to implement'
Article 46 of the Convention states that signatories, ie Parliament, must abide by, ie follow, the judgements of the ECtHR. However, as you say, our courts must only take into account the ECtHR judgements so can effectively ignore them.
But our courts cannot ignore Parliament!
So if Parliament passes a law that incorporates an ECHR measure (as the HRA did!) , the Supreme Court cannot strike it down.
All of which of course has nothing to do with the EU, but is a consequence of our adherence to the ECHR. It also has a lot to do, however, with a supranational body interfering with our lives and I would have thought was the thing which would have driven Brexiters bonkers.
Taking into account the previous seats roughly covering its boundaries, the Society considers that the seat has been held continuously by the Conservative Party since the 1837 general election.