blake Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 it will be in the papers tomorrow I imagine but probably buried on page 6. What is the wording exactly. I've seen challengers mentioned but nobody's said anything about incumbents. an incumbent (Corbyn) managed to previously get the totally derisory fraction of Labour MP's needed to nominate them and thereby get themselves on the ballot paper but now can't manage it having lost the confidence of almost the entire parliamentary party. Why shouldn't an incumbent also be required to have the same very small minimum amount of Labour MP's needed to nominate them as the other guy does? What if the timespan between the two elections where the incumbent had previously managed to get the nominations, but now can't, was not only ten months like this time, but ten years? if Labour MP's are so irrelevant, then why does the Leader of the Labour Party bother to be an MP in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 I was a staunch Labour supporter for 30 years until 2010 but quite honestly I feel nothing about what is going off. Feel cold about it. The party is too far gone now. It's uttely comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 it will be in the papers tomorrow I imagine but probably buried on page 6. What is the wording exactly. I've seen challengers mentioned but nobody's said anything about incumbents. an incumbent (Corbyn) managed to previously get the totally derisory fraction of Labour MP's needed to nominate them and thereby get themselves on the ballot paper but now can't manage it having lost the confidence of almost the entire parliamentary party. Why shouldn't an incumbent also be required to have the same very small minimum amount of Labour MP's needed to nominate them as the other guy does? What if the timespan between the two elections where the incumbent had previously managed to get the nominations, but now can't, was not only ten months like this time, but ten years? if Labour MP's are so irrelevant, then why does the Leader of the Labour Party bother to be an MP in the first place? Eater is correct. The wording is entirely unambiguous. Corbyn's name must be on the ballot. What did they do for all those hours? I imagine a lot of: Jeremy, please resign. No. Pleeeease. No. Will you really sue us? Absolutely. etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Eater is correct. The wording is entirely unambiguous. Corbyn's name must be on the ballot. it's unambiguously abmiguous. unambiguous would be a definite statement as to whether the incumbent would or wouldn't need the support of a number of MPs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 it's unambiguously abmiguous. unambiguous would be a definite statement as to whether the incumbent would or wouldn't need the support of a number of MPs 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. There is no vacancy. It's unambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 it will be in the papers tomorrow I imagine but probably buried on page 6. What is the wording exactly. I've seen challengers mentioned but nobody's said anything about incumbents. an incumbent (Corbyn) managed to previously get the totally derisory fraction of Labour MP's needed to nominate them and thereby get themselves on the ballot paper but now can't manage it having lost the confidence of almost the entire parliamentary party. Why shouldn't an incumbent also be required to have the same very small minimum amount of Labour MP's needed to nominate them as the other guy does? What if the timespan between the two elections where the incumbent had previously managed to get the nominations, but now can't, was not only ten months like this time, but ten years? if Labour MP's are so irrelevant, then why does the Leader of the Labour Party bother to be an MP in the first place? I think your logic is right, ie it is ridiculous to have a situation where the leader doesn't have to support of the MPs. But I think the rules seem to be clear. I'll try and re-find the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 I think your logic is right, ie it is ridiculous to have a situation where the leader doesn't have to support of the MPs. But I think the rules seem to be clear. I'll try and re-find the link. Just posted above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 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. There is no vacancy. It's unambiguous. but it doesn't state whether the leader does or doesnt need to be nominated which is the whole point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) but it doesn't state whether the leader does or doesnt need to be nominated which is the whole point Then why do you think Corbyn won? Edited July 12, 2016 by Radan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 but it doesn't state whether the leader does or doesnt need to be nominated which is the whole point By not referring to the leader at all, there is clearly no requirement for him to be nominated. The challengers are required to be nominated. Had everyone been required to be nominated, it would have said everyone, or more likely "the candidates". By referring to the challengers (and nobody else) it clearly only meant the challengers. Nomination doesn't apply to anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts