ChatterBank0 min ago
Eagle To Challenge For Labour Leader Contest.
But will Corbyn be allowed to fight her?
It is all down to the interpretation of this rule:
// ii. Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers... In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.” //
How do you read that?
It is all down to the interpretation of this rule:
// ii. Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers... In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.” //
How do you read that?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
That seems clear enough to me, but I have no idea is Ms Eagle has fulfilled the requirements, ie gaining the support of 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. If she hasn’t, she can’t oppose Mr Corbyn so both the electorate and his colleagues are stuck with him. That’s how I read it.
well this is my interpretation gromit:
either...
1) The post is vacant and thus all those vying are "challengers".
2) The post is occupied and there is an incumbent and at least 1 "challenger".
I would say that as JC has not vacated the leadership, we are in scenario 2) and as such JC is not a challenger and thus does not need nominations as the "challenger" does.
After the last election, ED resigned so scenario 1) applied then.
It would better though if the party rules spelt it out unambiguously. Though I definitely think that JC does not need any nominations.
either...
1) The post is vacant and thus all those vying are "challengers".
2) The post is occupied and there is an incumbent and at least 1 "challenger".
I would say that as JC has not vacated the leadership, we are in scenario 2) and as such JC is not a challenger and thus does not need nominations as the "challenger" does.
After the last election, ED resigned so scenario 1) applied then.
It would better though if the party rules spelt it out unambiguously. Though I definitely think that JC does not need any nominations.
As I read it , ONLY if there is 'no vacancy' are nominations needed!
In this case there is no vacancy , Corbyn is staying put. So nominations for him are not needed only his challengers have to be nominated. Looks absolutely 100% to me. Corbyn does NOT need to be nominated as he is the incumbent NOT a challenger. Can't see any way to put another view to it!
In this case there is no vacancy , Corbyn is staying put. So nominations for him are not needed only his challengers have to be nominated. Looks absolutely 100% to me. Corbyn does NOT need to be nominated as he is the incumbent NOT a challenger. Can't see any way to put another view to it!
this is an interesting read:-
http://
essentially it sets out the case that corbyn does not (as the rules stand) need to be nominated. however this is an unprecedented situation, and the NEC could seek to vary the rules to accommodate this. were they to do that, the courts could well take the view that the NEC were entitled to do that, and would be unlikely to intervene.
but would the NEC do it?????
http://
essentially it sets out the case that corbyn does not (as the rules stand) need to be nominated. however this is an unprecedented situation, and the NEC could seek to vary the rules to accommodate this. were they to do that, the courts could well take the view that the NEC were entitled to do that, and would be unlikely to intervene.
but would the NEC do it?????
Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary defines a lawyer as "one skilled in the circumvention of the law." Consequently, you may be assured that many of them will be queuing up to do just that.
Since there is no vacancy and a sitting leader is clearly not a challenger, there is no need for him/her to be 'nominated'. That is clearly what the words quoted in the OP actually mean.
However, see my opening words above!
Since there is no vacancy and a sitting leader is clearly not a challenger, there is no need for him/her to be 'nominated'. That is clearly what the words quoted in the OP actually mean.
However, see my opening words above!
well mushy if they changed the rules now to boot out a cleanly elected leader they'd look a bigger load of plonkers that they do already and I reckon a judge could be forgiven for ruling against that if it came to court. Yep labour are in deep cack now. Especially now the tories have sorted themselves out.
Yes, TTT, I like that one, too!
Like most people, I don't believe Labour has a hope of a general election win with Mr Corbyn in charge, but I would totally support him in taking legal action, if he is somehow conned out of his post by NEC shenanigans. Words mean what they mean and there is not even the merest hint in the rules that an incumbent needs nominations.
Unlike your "Tracy", he was voted in by the Labour party membership, whereas she was selected by only some of the parliamentary Tory party. Are we headed for an outcry of "Bottler May"?
Like most people, I don't believe Labour has a hope of a general election win with Mr Corbyn in charge, but I would totally support him in taking legal action, if he is somehow conned out of his post by NEC shenanigans. Words mean what they mean and there is not even the merest hint in the rules that an incumbent needs nominations.
Unlike your "Tracy", he was voted in by the Labour party membership, whereas she was selected by only some of the parliamentary Tory party. Are we headed for an outcry of "Bottler May"?
http://
a random act?
or the start of a campaign of intimidation?
a random act?
or the start of a campaign of intimidation?
