Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
NEC have overriding right to amend rules if they see fit.
Or they understand the concept of tax income elasticity, perhaps?
Hmm.. so it's not possible to tax any more than we currently do? And therefore have better public services than we currently do?
Not sure that's correct. If there's a sweet spot, we haven't hit it.
I agree its pretty clear it mean challengers have to hit a threshold
I assume the reason was to stop a left wing firebrand with no hope challenge the leader each year with no prospect of winning
If the NEC rule otherwise then most will see it as a stitch up and it then the PLP and the NEC v the members
this is a terrible scenario for the party.
It smells like a Blairite coup to me at the expense of the members
FWIW I am fairly agnostic on Corbyn and can see both sides - its electoral suicide ..the alternative might work. What is clear though is the view of the labour party. They need to be listened to. If you cannot listen to your party members then you have to consider that you are in the wrong party rather than elaborate anti democratic methods of bypassing them
All Labour needs is a third alternative - not Corbyn and not the Blairites....
Or they understand the concept of tax income elasticity, perhaps?
Read this and then come back and tell us all that tax cuts spur growth....
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9
The evidence points the other way...
If you cannot listen to your party members then you have to consider that you are in the wrong party rather than elaborate anti democratic methods of bypassing them
I think they'd be happy to see them go. Anyone who support Corbyn is painted as a modern day Militant, who needs to be driven from the party. They want to carry on as a Pro Blair party....
All Labour needs is a third alternative - not Corbyn and not the Blairites....
Isn't the problem that anyone who doesn't support Corbyn is a Blairite, even though as Chuka pointed out Blair has been gone 10 years now.
I thought what Eagle said was very poignant, gentler politics isn't just a slogan. Corbyn needs to "call out" those who abuse and intimidate. He certainly didn't do that with OULB or the Chakrabati report so I don't hold out much hope.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/12/legal-letter-to-nec-chief-over-labour-leadership-rules?CMP=share_btn_tw ]It's hotting up.[/url]
Legal action threatened over any attempt to exclude Corbyn.
TurnerGuy - Member"You should chill out on the Corbyn attacks, Binners. Not really a good look. You're arguing against, what you see as common room politics, but acting like an angry student".
I thought he was giving a pretty fair assessment.
Well there's no doubt that binners ranting on this thread in recent weeks (he was a big Corbyn supporter at the start of the thread) has gone down very well with the Tory supporters like yourself, Stoner was really impressed yesterday, but then that's hardly surprising.
The highly destructive actions of the PLP have obviously also been a huge hit with Tory supporters. No surprise there either.
The problem with binners though, is not only does he rant like a sixth-former who thinks he's an expert on politics but he is also as ill-informed as a ranting sixth-former.
Binners in true Tory fashion keeps banging on how terrible things were in the 1970s, but he's so clueless that he thought the 3 day week occurred under a Labour government.
Also in the 1970s great reforms were introduced by Labour governments, such as Equal Pay and Health and Safety at Work legislation, these were real reforms which changed and benefited the lives of ordinary working people in a real and meaningful way.
That'll be the same working class people which binners purports to be concerned about, from the reassuring comfort of his middle-class bubble.
Still, ill-informed gibberish aside, binners rants do have an entertainment value. And if with the help of a rigged ballot paper Angela Eagle does indeed win the the leadership "election", then I'm sure that filled with incandescent rage he will use all his literature skills, which he honed at his posh middle-class school (a former cabinet member went to it dontcha know), to rant endlessly about Angela Eagle.
That's something to look forward to at least.
🙂
molgrips - Member
All Labour needs is a third alternative - not Corbyn and not the Blairites....
A split is the only possible solution, I wished they'd hurry up and get on with it.
My instinct is this is just a fight to see who inhereits the family silverwear.
Corbyn needs to "call out" those who abuse and intimidate.
In what way is he responsible for them?
or the Chakrabati report
That will be the one which directly contradicts you and found that "The Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism"?
Are you claiming this coup is not being done by Blairites?
Perhaps you are saying you cannot be Marxist because its more than 10 years ago
What are you trying to say with that "point"?
As for call them out he does you just dont care as you hate lefties and wish to portray them as nasty
Clearly you wont look at the way you spoke of immigration and the death of the MP nor your attitude to Islam you will just see your faults in others.
It is extremely concerning that Angela Eagle has been the victim of a threatening act and that other MPs are receiving abuse and threats.
As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour Party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.
I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.
– JEREMY CORBYN
I admire eagles cheek to talk about being bullied as she attempts to usurp a democratically elected leader and make sure he cannot even stand in her challenge. It hardly like she is being "nice" or her supporters are.
mefty - MemberNEC have overriding right to amend rules if they see fit.
I'm fairly sure that's not true. The role of the NEC is to implement the rules.
Standing orders requires no rule changes for 5 years (IIRC) which leaves another 2 years before any further rule changes.
However amendments to existing rules can be introduced at Party Conference if the delegates vote in favour.
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...
No.
Actually mol, we have found the sweatpsot give or take a few p in the £
FF - have a word with the HRMC. Perhaps they can also become disciples of Blodget. amusing to chose him as a source, you are aware of his background I assume.
Anyway, have been out, how is old Jezza doing? Racking up legal fees yet?
@footflaps even I didn't acuse the Labour Party of being overrun. Shami's report is a blatant cover-up, you can see that in the terms of reference. I am hopeful a new leader with clear decks on this issue in particular. Chucka was incadescent at the Home Affairs Committee, I think the PLP and a new leader will get it dealt with as soon as Corbyn has gone.
In what way is he responsible for them?
He is the leader and Momentum supporters are largely responsible for the abuse, he can say powerfully "not in my name". See above Chucka's comments at the Home Affairs commitee about the conduct of Momentum
If the NEC can just make up new rules that would be extraordinary. If the Tories could do that there wouod be accusations of facism.
Clause II.
Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party1. General
A. The following procedures provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC, shall be followed when conducting elections for Party officers.
Chapter 4 Clause II - my terminology was imprecise but there is certainly an argument they can consent to a change. All very messy.
ouod be accusations of facism.
It's certainly arse-about-facism.
"Corbyn needs to "call out" those who abuse and intimidate".In what way is he responsible for them?
His long history of supporting violence ?
We know that Corbyn is actually a racist, all that talk about peace and opposing war is probably a smokescreen to hide his violent tendencies.
I expect soon to be told that despite all his alleged commitment to LGBT rights he's actually a anti-lesbian homophobe, why else would he hate Angela Eagle so much and try to stop her becoming Labour leader?
Chapter 4 Clause II - my terminology was imprecise but there is certainly an argument they can consent to a change.
Yes, that certainly appears to back up your claim.
And to be fair the NEC did exclude Corbyn from the meeting which took place today, despite the fact that under existing rules the party leader has an automatic right to be at all NEC meetings.
anti-lesbian homophobe
double negative...surely?
Actually mol, we have found the sweatpsot give or take a few p in the £
But that's based on public opinion, isn't it?
No, on the rather unfashionable foundation known as facts/emipirical evidence albeit with some degree of error around the exact p in the £.
No, on the rather unfashionable foundation known as facts, albeit with some degree of error around the exact p in the £.
Pray tell, what facts?
@footflaps even I didn't acuse the Labour Party of being overrun
Yes you did...
My accusation is that the problem with anti-semitism is endemic in the Labour Party.
Hmm, lets see...how about the relationship between changes in tax revenue earned and change in marginal rate of tax....the clue is in the name "elasticity" and loads of work done on it and quoted many times in the past.
Much more reliable that dear old Henry B and uk based too!
A bit of light relief. I feel the thread needs it.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-angela-eagles-awkward-moment-11601221
Hmm, lets see...how about the relationship between changes in tax revenue earned and change in marginal rate of tax....the clue is in the name "elasticity" and loads of work done on it and quoted many times in the past.
Hardly a fact, it's a hypothesis from a widely discredited economic model....
Oh I see, good job our tax collectors don't make any reference to it.
It's not a model by the way - its a simple concept, but dont let that worry you.
@thm...er yes. Policies do not act in a vacuum. I know your an economist but even you should understand that... 🙄
very true evb and hopefully they dont act in an evidence vacuum either
He is on the ballot.
Probably the best outcome. A legal challege would have been a disaster either way it worked out
It's not a model by the way - its a simple concept, but dont let that worry you.
Yes, if you chose to believe that the economy is a simple open loop system, with no feedback loops; then yes you are 100% correct. Well done, go to the top of the completely irrelevant economic model class.
very true evb and hopefully they dont act in an evidence vacuum either
Well, please provide the evidence; we're waiting patiently....
Jezza on the ballot!
.. and Labour has just *ed up the * up in the brewery.
Jezza on the ballot!
Indeed - good to see Robert Peston calling it wrong again. He is as bad at Politics as he was at economics.
Will anyone even bother to stand against him?
Hopefully a split and the loony left can go off on their merry way into oblivion 😉
So, will the 190 mps join the liberals or form I can't believe it's not labour?
If he does win at least we will have the summer recess so the party can keep a low profile. When it's recalled who exactly is going to be in the shadow cabinet, he isn't going to have enough bodies.
jambalaya - MemberA legal challege would have been a disaster either way it worked out
How do you know there won't be a legal challenge - have the plotters said that they will accept the NEC's decision ?
How do you know there won't be a legal challenge - have the plotters said that they will accept the NEC's decision ?
The one consistent thread throughout the legal arguments whether pro or anti is that a legal challenge is unlikely to succeed, so I would be very surprised.
No doubt the PLP will try to humiliate and bully him throughout the campaign. (and the media will happily join in)
FF(S) why do you want evidence on an irrelevant "model" (sic) - but try googling and you will find 50 pages of gov analysis from a few months ago. Odd that they publish such rubbish eh?
Anyway that's another topic - back to the travails of poor old Jezza
No doubt the PLP will try to humiliate and bully him throughout the campaign.
Unlikely imo. Firstly he has shown that he doesn't respond to bullying, otherwise he would have resigned a long time ago.
Secondly it looks likely that Corbyn will win the ballot, so I'm not convinced that the plotters are prepared to burn all their bridges. I know it's not a widely held belief but I think the majority of the plotters will probably fall into line in time.
And thirdly the actual ballot will take place during Party Conference. Conference will almost certainly be more pro-Corbyn than pro-plotter, so I imagine the plotters won't want the humiliation of a deeply hostile Conference. I actually expect them to say rather nice things about Corbyn.
BTW I use the term "plotters" as I'm reluctant to say the PLP as it doesn't recognise the fact that 20% of the PLP support Corbyn and voted expressing confidence in him.
"The secret NEC vote went 18-14 in the Labour leader's favour following hours of talks."
I'm staggered. The rule wasn't open to much interpretation, it was clear it required contenders to have nominations but not the sitting leader. I'm sure those 14 were doing what they thought best but it's pretty shabby & underhand.
...and poor old JC is stuck in the nightmare for even longer.
...and poor old JC is stuck in the nightmare for even longer.
Sod him. He volunteered, no one forced him to stand in the leadership election.
You can't step up and then bugger off when things get a bit uncomfortable.
That's the Labour party into the wilderness for another 10 - 15 years.
why - it will be a good audition for a government in waiting and old Jezza's might be crap at leading the plp but he's not bad at mobilising new recruits - another million on the way.
Quite an edifying spectacle - they must be proud
Meanwhile....
"He volunteered"
He unenthusiastically volunteered, after DA and JMcD declined, to be the token leftie loser in a futile gesture during the leadership battle. Leadership is not what he signed up for.
The membership have chased him up a big tree and he can't get down.
lets work on the law of averages.. how old is the fella.. will he still be continent in 2020?
"You can't step up and then bugger off when things get a bit uncomfortable."
...he certainly can't.
That's the Labour party into the wilderness for another 10 - 15 years.
Is that 10 - 15 years on top of the one year they have already been in the wilderness?
Or does it include it?
Membership is frozen at six month ago, so new members will not get vote - supporters have two days to register and it is £25.
outofbreath - Member
"You can't step up and then bugger off when things get a bit uncomfortable."...he certainly can't.
OOB, dare I say it, but you may have missed the joke. It was a good one too!
"lets work on the law of averages.. how old is the fella.. will he still be continent in 2020?"
...if you go on averages he'll be dead of old age 4 years into his premiership...
...another thought. Most leaders can use a lost election as a reason to resign. Can JC? I don't think he can. Seems to me unless enough Momentum candidates win in 2020 to nominate an alternative Momentum leadership candidate JC could be stuck in the job well into his 70s.
66 with a new wife... Neither of them signed up to this.
"OOB, dare I say it, but you may have missed the joke. It was a good one too!"
Nope, the emphasis of my reply was on 'he'.
In addition so 16 years.
In addition so 16 years.
Ah, so "the wilderness" means being in a situation where you win elections.
Like the mayoral elections, local elections, and by-elections, of the last 12 months.
I look forward to the next 15 wilderness years in that case.
On the basis that your probably about 12 Ernie i'm sure I remember quite well that the Labour party managed to win some local and by-elections in the 1980s and early 90s (also a time when the party was taken over by navel gazers like MT and such as yourself) - as I said, wilderness.
What chance of the tories calling an election before the labour leadership is settled? Considering what's gone on in the last couple of weeks it's probably inevitable.
This may not be directly relevant to the leadership election but as a left leaning person who has voted Labour regularly in both national and local elections since I was 18 and I am now in my mid 50's it may be relevant longer term.
For as long as Corbyn stays as the leader of the Labour party I will not vote for the party again.
He is simply not considered leadership material by the vast majority of the people I know who have supported labour in the past and that includes my father who has been a member of the party for 20 years.
I am aware of the by-election results etc.etc. but what has happened since the PLP have voted no confidence in him has shown he is not capable of keeping up an effective opposition.
Have I got this right
If I sign up tomorrow as a £25 supporter, I get to vote in the leadership election... But If I joined three months ago as a full member, for £48, I don't
😳
Used be to £3 a pop didn't it ?
Bloody socialists.
"If I sign up tomorrow as a £25 supporter, I get to vote in the leadership election... But If I joined three months ago as a full member, for £48, I don't"
Corbynomics.
Doubt Corbyn was behind the decision.
£25 a pop! Be interesting to see how many sign up.
When is the vote?
[quote=jimw ]This may not be directly relevant to the leadership election but as a left leaning person who has voted Labour regularly in both national and local elections since I was 18 and I am now in my mid 50's it may be relevant longer term.
For as long as Corbyn stays as the leader of the Labour party I will not vote for the party again.
But as a left-leaning Labour voter you'd vote for those MPs who voted for Trident, voted for the Iraq war and did not oppose the Tory welfare cuts?
What's left wing about not voting for trident? The ussr had loads as does China. Comrade.
The Labour Conference is going to be toxic, delegates booing any MP who didn't vote for Corbyn, Neil Kinnock digging out his Militant speech. The Union kingmakers deciding if they want to add further comedy etc etc
SDP mark 2 almost a certainty if Corbyn wins again and some of the Unions decide to get off the bus and switch their money
But as a left-leaning Labour voter you'd vote for those MPs who voted for Trident, voted for the Iraq war and did not oppose the Tory welfare cuts?
Surely you would expect your MP to vote in accordance with democratically agreed party policy?
such as party policy on trident, and party policy that all fiscal policies needed to be fully funded.
Any chance you could come up with an original thought? 😆 Now i'm all for legitimate reasons to oppose him, there are many. But something that's repeated constantly on the tele every 2 minutes doesn't cut the mustard, try again please! 🙂jimw - MemberHe is simply not considered leadership material
What's left wing about not voting for trident? The ussr had loads as does China. Comrade.
they are the people's missiles, it makes all the difference
I speak as I see it regarding the quality of leadership,displayed, or not, over the past few days.
And Scotroutes, I was against the Iraq war and do not wish to see Trident renewed, but that doesn't change his character, the lack of charisma perhaps. That is the problem, not the policies in my view.
I am sorry if that causes you to ridicule me-that's your problem not mine.
Nipper99 - MemberOn the basis that your probably about 12 Ernie
Well I had no idea it was that obvious.
Choice is Eagle or Corbyn. Corbyn is easily the more impressive of the 2.
Your position is illogical.
Corbyn Impressive? Really?!?
I am speaking as what might be considered a floating voter, certainly a tactical voter. Surely the Labour party needs people like me to vote for them if they are to succeed.
[quote=jimw ]I speak as I see it regarding the quality of leadership,displayed, or not, over the past few days.
And Scotroutes, I was against the Iraq war and do not wish to see Trident renewed, but that doesn't change his charachter. That is the problem, not the policies in my view.
I am sorry if that causes you to ridicule me-that's your problem not mine.
It's not ridicule, it's a question. Would you prefer Eagle as PM - someone who voted contrary to your wishes on those two policies?
Pragmatically, Scotroutes-yes, as she, of the two is more likely to succeed against the Tories in my view, which is the most important thing.
Surely the Labour party needs people like me to vote for them if they are to succeed.
Don't be silly. It's far more important to be a "conviction politician" and praise the economic miracle of Venezuela. Winning general elections, being in a position of power and able to actually do anything is utterly irrelevant.