@theteaboy this was discussed extensively at the time of the original leadership election. Senior party figure after senior party figure spoke of their experience of huge support from the party faithful but not from the wider electorate – this being a strategy that was totally pointless in their opinion

Principled opposition is what the Green Party do, to absolutely zero effect.

no one could lead a party acting as this bunch have.

He’s let it get to this position though. He came in with a large mandate from his electorate, early doors he could have laid down his ground rules and enforced them. But he’s let the internal opposition in the plp gain confidence to the point he’s lost control, all through his weakness. He might not like it but when you’re leading sometimes you have to lay down the law.

No the press hasn’t been particularly interested but his job is to go out there and make them have to report on things. If he was being difficult and causing problems for the government they’d be reporting it. It’s all a bit IDS ‘beware the quiet man’, and that turned out well.

Ok if you think that is ludicrous name your wager for the vote outcome ?

If we are talking a GE then £100 🙂

Obviously I hope he does stay Labour ‘leader’.

I think its worse than that
I think the PLP is blairte and way to the right of the membership
they don’t like what the members have chosen so they have chosen to undermine him to make him lose their support. When this failed they have tried to remove him from the ballot It a coup attempt basically as the PLP tries to assert it “right” to supremacy over the members

Whether corbyn I awesome or shit is not the issue he is the members choice and the PLP cannot juts ignore this and act like this. if they cannot respect the members wishes they need to leave not usurp them /the leader in this way.
Win in a ballot …..put up or shut up basically

So if they do ask him for 50 MPs, and he doesn’t get them – then what?

Does the party want to be principled opposition (but unelectable by anyone outside the party hardcore) or electable but slightly less principled (to appeal to the masses)

A competent party should be both – especially if they expect to be running the country in the future.

Why is this so difficult?

1. It was never intended that he would be leader
2. He didn’t want the job
3. He’s not very good at it
4. There are obvious alternatives – oops, sorry take it all back.

As you were…

In latest news neither ernie nor myself have become Tories since may became leader in waiting

Who was your favourite Labour leader then THM 😉

A good party should be principled and then persuade others that they are right.

After all, the Labour message – help the poor, help the working classes, invest in public services and so on – shouldn’t be a particularly difficult concept to sell, should it?

Indeed mol, and remind me what happened to the core labour vote in the last election?

molgrips – Member

After all, the Labour message – help the poor, help the working classes, invest in public services and so on – shouldn’t be a particularly difficult concept to sell, should it?

Maybe not but the Tories did a stunningly effective hatchet job on the government spending and undermined voter confidence in any Labour economic policies.

Labour seem to have responded to that by not actually having any economic policies.

Labour seem to have responded to that by not actually having any economic policies.

In the world of posttruthpolitics who needs actual policies? And economics??? Just look north of the border….

No one worries about reality, only rhetoric.

No one worries about reality, only rhetoric.

They could at least pretend.

yS
Trump
Brexit BS

…and the lessons are?

see the link that kimbers posted to the Guardian today (i think) and google the FT’s view on this 😉

jambalaya – Member

Principled opposition is what the Green Party do, to absolutely zero effect.

And Labour under Corbyn, it seems, to similar effect.

Edit: And it seems that the party members are happy with that.

Gosh, 17-15 vote to have secret ballot at NEC, assumption is anti Corbyns want secrecy so he wont get on ballot automatically.

On WatO today the chap who wrote the Labour Party leadership election rules was saying Corbyn needs 51 nominees. A lawyer came on and said he really doesn’t. The rules seem pretty clear to me, IMO he doesn’t need any nominees.

Corbyn told to leave room, refuses.

The Labour Party is playing an absolute blinder here at looking the like the most incompetent bunch of ****-wits ever to grace the political stage. The legacy of this utter debacle is that whoever ‘wins’ is going to look so utterly incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery that nobody would vote for them to run a ****ing bath, let alone the country.

Footage of the present NEC meeting just released…

The rules seem pretty clear to me, IMO he doesn’t need any nominees.

That’s my reading but apparently the NEC have an overiding right to amend the rules, which they can claim justifiable in view of the no confidence vote.

After all, the Labour message – help the poor, help the working classes, invest in public services and so on – shouldn’t be a particularly difficult concept to sell, should it?

I actually think it is more difficult than you think, particularly in England where a larger % of the population work in the private sector.

The better message is this party will ensure a secure country in which people can grow the economy and so everyone has opportunity and is better off.

yS
Trump
Brexit BS

…and the lessons are?

I got in huge trouble for suggesting that which you are insinuating.

Yay,THM is getting in the digs at Scotland! Remember,we aren’t interested in economics up here,we just hate the English.

If you say so duckie – i was actually referring specifically to the yS strategy, but feel free to generalise if appropriate, you will know better than me.

4. There are obvious alternatives – oops, sorry take it all back.

This is the real problem. The blairites, comfortable in their hubris and arrogance, thought they’d cracked the problem of governing forever, and populated the PLP with a bunch of careerist, principle free, obedient automatons straight from an Oxford debating chamber. Then they asked them to run the country. When the likes of Cooper, Balls, Burnham, Reeves, Miliband and the like proved to be completely out of their depth and unable to inspire anyone other than a guardian hack, the party faithful turned to someone who actually had something to say about the state of the world and how it affects normal people. He may say it in woolly language and look a bit unkempt, but at least he had something to say, unlike the rest of the idiots banging on about ‘aspiration’ and ‘changing the narrative’.

Hilarious some are trying to stop JC being on the ballot paper…what does that say about democracy and even worse..what do they think their role is if it’s not to be serving their supporters interests/wishes…you couldn’t make it up… 😀

Secret ballott – definitely not in JC’s favour

No one is stopping him standing, he just needs 50 MPs or even MEP’s – he could be saved by Europe 🙂

Why does he need 50 MPs to nominate him now when he is in post and there isn’t a leadereship contest but only needed 30 last time when there was? Rules seem a bit odd.

Are they really trying to lawyer him off the ballot paper? What a gang of shithouses – just grasp the nettle and put him to bed fair and square.

I actually think it is more difficult than you think, particularly in England where a larger % of the population work in the private sector.

Well that illustrates my point. It’s got nothing to do with public vs private sector employment. The private sector has a lot of low and middle income people who aren’t self employed or entrepreneurs, and everyone uses public services.

Most people support the taxing of the filthy rich businesses and people for spending on public services, I’m sure. So how come no-one wants to make that manifesto commitment?

The Labour party hasn’t been able to get its message across for years. Blair’s message wasn’t nt really one of Labour.

This is really going to liven things up.

ost people support the taxing of the filthy rich businesses and people for spending on public services, I’m sure. So how come no-one wants to make that manifesto commitment?

Because most people know it doesn’t work.

Why does he need 50 MPs to nominate him now when he is in post and there isn’t a leadereship contest but only needed 30 last time when there was? Rules seem a bit odd.

Not sure he will need 50, 50 applies to challengers, 30 odd when there is a vacancy. If he resigns then he would reduce his requirement to 30 odd immediately.

Most people support the taxing of the filthy rich businesses and people for spending on public services, I’m sure. So how come no-one wants to make that manifesto commitment?

Courageous.

Because most people know it doesn’t work.

Cos most people have fallen for Tory bullshit. Impressive, isn’t it?

Or they understand the concept of tax income elasticity, perhaps?

Even labour in power got this until they set their little trap for their Tory friends

Hardly see what happened in France recently.

IME a lot of people start getting twitchy with tax rates greater than 50%.

Most people support the taxing of the filthy rich businesses and people for spending on public services, I’m sure. So how come no-one wants to make that manifesto commitment?

“We vote when we go to the poll
And think we have final control
But really we dance
To the tune of finance
We have pawned ourselves body and soul.”

Tax income elasticity…is that the thing you call it that makes people rich whilst child poverty remains static, increases food bank need, closes spaces for learning, increases the numbers of suicides etc etc..is tbat what you mean @thm…people knowingly vote for that and it’s called income tax income elasticity…I call it it something else…

“I call it it something else…”

Laffer Curve.

“ii: Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.”

I can only read this as the sitting candidate requires no nomination and no 20pc support. Only challengers require it. I’m amazed there’s a debate about it.