ANGELFIRE1 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 What kind of Kipper are you? Disenfranchised Labour Kipper or Old School Hardline Tory Kipper? Just out of interest... Started off voting Labour for many years. Then voted Tory for even more years, thanks to Mrs T. Then found UKip who I thought were more in line with my own ideas, mainly due to Nigel and his views on the EU, and his performances as an MEP. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Started off voting Labour for many years. Then voted Tory for even more years, thanks to Mrs T. Then found UKip who I thought were more in line with my own ideas, mainly due to Nigel and his views on the EU, and his performances as an MEP. Angel1. Fair enough. Eater Sundae, is what Labour are doing with the membership even legal? Can see Momentum challenging that ruling. Looks like Non-Corbynite Labour will challenge the NEC decision in Court now. Swings and roundabouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 , and his performances as an MEP. Angel1. like claiming as much money as he can and insulting foreigners? i dont think he did much else than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Fair enough. Eater Sundae, is what Labour are doing with the membership even legal? Can see Momentum challenging that ruling. Looks like Non-Corbynite Labour will challenge the NEC decision in Court now. Swings and roundabouts. Who knows. I certainly don't. I think that the non-corbynites would be wasting their time if they challenged the ruling. I think the wording of the rulebook is unequivocal. But so much rests on this ruling that I can see them trying every avenue to get it overthrown. I don't know the basis on which the NEC have ruled about new members not being able to vote. It looks like they might have made this ruling on the hoof - in which case maybe it could be challenged. However, if there is a waiting period for new members to be allowed a vote, and it was already in the party rules, then might that invalidate the original vote that gave Corbyn the job in the first place? If that were the case, I think the anti-Corbyn people would have been to court already. The fact that they didn't argue that the original vote for Corbyn was invalid further supports the idea that it is a new decision, decided today. On that basis, it wouldn't be a surprise if the pro corbyn side were to follow through and go to court. I don't know if that logic makes sense to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Whilst endless circles would be amusing, I think it more likely that the bulk of the Labour Parliamentary Party will leave the party. None or more of them may also resign as MPs to seek a new mandate from their Constituents as SDP2, Lib Dems, Conservatives or just independents. There isn't going to be a serviceable opposition for months. Well you are probably right. It's a shame though. The slow self destruction of the Labour Party is quite amusing. I doubt any will seek a fresh mandate. If they did it simply invites the Corbynistas to put up an alternative. If the 172 MPs who voted no confidence in Labour all crossed the floor it would leave Corbyn Labour and its backers looking very foolish presiding over a party of 40/50 MPs for the next 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 This is beautiful. Corbyn wins a ballot of labour members on Monday and his MPs file another motion of no confidence in their "new" leader on Tuesday. It's like the script for a kids TV channel being played out on the world stage. there is going to be a lot of repeats. Because they'll be another leadership challenge from Labour MP's when that happens. And if that one fails, then another and another. almost nobody seriously thought that Corbyn would make it all the way through to the 2020 election when he first became Labour party leader late last year, and I still think he won't - even though he has managed to hang on this time. Labour were almost certainly going to lose the 2020 election anyway as soon as it became apparent how bad the 2015 results were, no matter which successor they had chosen, and even before they shot themselves in the foot even more by having Corbyn as leader. They never had any chance in 2020. But if they don't get rid of Corbyn before 2020, they'll certainly lose the 2025 election too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Well you are probably right. It's a shame though. The slow self destruction of the Labour Party is quite amusing. I doubt any will seek a fresh mandate. If they did it simply invites the Corbynistas to put up an alternative. If the 172 MPs who voted no confidence in Labour all crossed the floor it would leave Corbyn Labour and its backers looking very foolish presiding over a party of 40/50 MPs for the next 4 years. Not just silly. If more than half the leaving MPs form a new grouping in parliament (doesn't have to be a full-fledged party), then their leader becomes the leader of the opposition. Corbyn is then stuck leading a small protest party, which is where he belongs. Of course Labour will select new candidates for the 172 constituencies, but until the 2020 GE, they're just candidates. And who's to say the voters will obligingly switch their support from their existing MPs to Corbyn's new ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 What kind of Kipper are you? Disenfranchised Labour Kipper or Old School Hardline Tory Kipper? Just out of interest... Got me in one. The Tories have gone too far to the centre ground for my liking . I was always a Tory voter , but i switched to UKIP before the last general election. ---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 22:14 ---------- perhaps....but perhaps not, people said he wouldnt last more than a couple of weeks, and hes still here, people say hes un electable.....lets see shall we... What exactly is the point of this leadership challenge ? All the £3 militant Labour members will vote Comrade Corbyn back in as leader, all the Labour MP`s will continue to try and get rid of him and undermine him ,and Labour will continue to self destruct until the party is totally destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 I think the wording of the rulebook is unequivocal. I'm not so sure. As far as I'm aware, the rulebook says 'challengers', and there is no distinction made between 'challengers', and 'candidates'. And also as far as I'm aware, the word 'incumbent' is not mentioned. but in the last Labour leadership election in 2010, fought under the same rules, there were no 'challengers'. The former Labour party leader had already resigned, and the post was vacant. Nobody was a 'challenger', and everybody - including Corbyn - was not a 'challenger', but a 'candidate', that had to get a certain number of nominations to qualify to get on the ballot. in the last 2010 Labour party leadership election, there were no challengers. There was no incumbent. How could there be a challenger? There was nobody to challenge, just like in the other leadership election in British politics these past two weeks, the Tory one, there were no challengers. There was nobody to challenge. The post was vacant. The previous incumbent, Cameron, although he was still the acting Prime Minister, was no longer even the acting Tory party leader. I don't think whoever drafted the Labour election rulebook had any idea, or could possibly have envisaged, that it would be possible for a Labour party leader not to be able to get such a very small fraction of Labour MP's to even want them to continue as Labour party leader and have 80% of the parliamentary party refuse, if offered, to sign his or her nomination papers. With it being so unbelievable a notion, there was no need to stress that an incumbent Labour leader, in order to stand again as leader, had to get nominated by at least a very small fraction of MP's just like any other 'candidate'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 I'm not so sure. As far as I'm aware, the rulebook says 'challengers', and there is no distinction made between 'challengers', and 'candidates'. And also as far as I'm aware, the word 'incumbent' is not mentioned. but in the last Labour leadership election in 2010, fought under the same rules, there were no 'challengers'. The former Labour party leader had already resigned, and the post was vacant. Nobody was a 'challenger', and everybody - including Corbyn - was not a 'challenger', but a 'candidate', that had to get a certain number of nominations to qualify to get on the ballot. in the last 2010 Labour party leadership election, there were no challengers. There was no incumbent. How could there be a challenger? There was nobody to challenge, just like in the other leadership election in British politics these past two weeks, the Tory one, there were no challengers. There was nobody to challenge. The post was vacant. The previous incumbent, Cameron, although he was still the acting Prime Minister, was no longer even the acting Tory party leader. I don't think whoever drafted the Labour election rulebook had any idea, or could possibly have envisaged, that it would be possible for a Labour party leader not to be able to get such a very small fraction of Labour MP's to even want them to continue as Labour party leader and have 80% of the parliamentary party refuse, if offered, to sign his or her nomination papers. With it being so unbelievable a notion, there was no need to stress that an incumbent Labour leader, in order to stand again as leader, had to get nominated by at least a very small fraction of MP's just like any other 'candidate'. The section of the rulebook specifically relates to the situation when there isn't a vacancy (ie there is an incumbent who wishes to stay). It then says that challengers (ie everyone who wants to challenge the incumbent) are required to gain a minimum level of MP and MEP support. This applies only to the challengers. Nothing to do with candidates. "Candidates" only apply in the case where there is a vacancy, so clearly doesn't apply in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts