Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[wheelie_bin]

The NEC can''t rule that the courts don't apply to them.

You know they would if they could though.

 

[mauvais]

Bercow's told Seema Malhotra that the entry into her office wasn't a breach of the rules. So that's that one done. Again probably no massive headlines around it.

 

[two sheds]

I can spot one. Can anyone else - where's my 20 grand btw?

was it where the rules specifically refer to a "challenger" as needing the MPs' nominations?

 

[butchersapron]

They literally have different rules for if there is a challenger or if the seat is vacant. I reckon that is a prior formal admission of distinction. 5 grand that one.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Nope. If Corbyn goes it'll all be dropped immediately and it'll be back to aping the Tories and worrying about floating voters,

This. The only thing the member I was talking to the other day cared about was reaching out to swing voters, how labour's perceived and so on. I think this is precisely why this has been so forceful because the aping Tories route is largely the easier route to power for these people and the easiest way of staying in their cushy jobs.

 

[mauvais]

It's a bit weird this court thing. I mean the reason the NEC has been able to do the membership, £25 stuff is that it has the power to interpret and rule on the application of the rulebook (and change it). Administration of the LP isn't governed by legislation, it's an unincorporated association whose constitution governs its operation. I'm not quite sure on what basis the court would step into that... I think the earlier (pro) Corbyn argument was based on breach of contract, but even then it seemed somewhat weak. Not going to start reading the rulebook again though, just have to see what happens.

Presumably counts as a disputed contract?

Unincorporated associations are effectively in themselves contracts.

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[19force8]

They literally have different rules for if there is a challenger or if the seat is vacant. I reckon that is a prior formmal admission of distinction. 5 grand that one.

Also, the previous rule made it clear that both the challenger and the incumbent needed nominations. By changing to the current rule which only mentions the need for nominations to challenge strongly implies the intent was that an incumbent wouldn't need nominating.

But you know how barristers are, right?

Eta: Taken from this anti-Corbyn QC's Tweet:

 

[19force8]

This little gem shows that high court judges are more clued up about the realities of dirty politics than you might expect:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn1z6fPWgAAB_yw.png:large

 

[Cid]

It is governed by legislation. Everything is. Hence this.

You could say that the general legislation of the UK applies to unincorporated organisations, but that's not what I mean. If you want to challenge a public body (arbitrary decision by a tribunal or something) you can do so via judicial review, the way in which they operate is governed by legislation. There isn't an analogous process for unincorporated associations, they're largely free to draw up their constitution as they see fit... if that constitution allows for a decision making method then the courts are likely to hold to that. There isn't legislation that tells an unincorporated association how it should operate; if it were in the rulebook decisions on the labour leader could be made on the basis of whether Iain McNicol's cat shits in box a or b. There may well be something in the rulebook (not going to start reading it again) that prevents introduction of absurd measures, but tbh it probably is open to the NEC to amend any part of it. E.g changing the wording of a fundamental clause doesn't seem to have been a problem.

e2a: Far as I can tell challenges are being brought on the basis of contractual relationship between members of a UA. Complicated though.

 

[two sheds]

This little gem shows that high court judges are more clued up about the realities of dirty politics than you might expect:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn1z6fPWgAAB_yw.png:large

that was what I think eoin was referring to on twitter last week


"howsoever inadvertent"

 

[wheelie_bin]

This little gem shows that high court judges are more clued up about the realities of dirty politics than you might expect:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn1z6fPWgAAB_yw.png:large

Nice bit of acid tongue in the "howsoever inadvertent".

This was a good tweet, showing a change only for potential challengers to seek nominations:
.

 

[captainmission]

Clearly they need to go full on freeman on this one - JEREMY CORBYN is a legal fiction. Owen Smith for common law leader of the Labour Party

 

[killer b]

Not sure if this is most appropriate for the commentariat thread or here:

How Jeremy Corbyn won Facebook

I liked this little slip up:

There is no regulation of these spaces. The law cannot touch them and, for many, they are more trusted as a source of news than the “MSM”. They are encouraging an anti-elite, anti-expert, anti-media populist tone in politics. To begin to tackle this, we should acknowledge just how powerful Facebook has become.

The elision of elites and the media with experts. They are the same thing to Lewis.

 

[free spirit]

Nice bit of acid tongue in the "howsoever inadvertent".

This was a good tweet, showing a change only for potential challengers to seek nominations:
.

That's pretty cut and dried. The text without the explanation was pretty clear anyway though, it concerns me that some of the people who can't interpret this sort of thing are elected or want to be elected to the place that drafts and approves our laws.

 

[killer b]

It isn't cut and dried at all, hence why it's in court. It just looks that way to the inexpert eye.

 

[wheelie_bin]

That's pretty cut and dried. The text without the explanation was pretty clear anyway though, it concerns me that some of the people who can't interpret this sort of thing are elected or want to be elected to the place that drafts and approves our laws.

That must be why so many PLP had to abstain from voting against the disability cuts, poor poppets didn't understand what it said.

 

[free spirit]

It isn't cut and dried at all, hence why it's in court. It just looks that way to the inexpert eye.

it's in court because it looks that way to an inexpert eye who has lots of money.

Hopefully the judge will confirm it's cut and dried status shortly.

 

[free spirit]

That must be why so many PLP had to abstain from voting against the disability cuts, poor poppets didn't understand what it said.

probably not, but the wording on some of the stuff they do pass can make very little sense. [/derail]

 

[killer b]

It just isn't cut and dried. I've read a lot of legal bloggers on this, and while there's a range of views out there (which don't necessarily line up with the ideological slant of the writer - Maugham is against Corbyn for example) they seem to mainly agree that a) it's a poorly drafted set of rules which could be interpreted a number of ways, hence b) it would end up in court, regardless of what the NEC decided, and c) the court would agree with whatever the NEC decided.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the court decides... /weltweit

 

[YouSir]

Anyone know when the judgement is due?

 

[Kaka Tim]

How Jeremy Corbyn won Facebook

That’s how you end up with unofficial Corbyn-supporting pages on which words such as “Zio” (short for “Zionist” and proscribed by Shami Chakrabarti’s review into anti-Semitism in the party) are bandied about

What is this bollocks? Has anyone ever seen such a thing?

 

[killer b]

What is this bollocks? Has anyone ever seen such a thing?

Yeah, actually - but almost exclusively from Tony Greenstein, who mounts a very spirited defence of his use of the term. I don't doubt it gets an occasional airing from other people, but it's a tiny minority and I very much doubt it'll be done without challenge.

 

[Cid]

Yeah, actually - but almost exclusively from Tony Greenstein, who mounts a very spirited defence of his use of the term. I don't doubt it gets an occasional airing from other people, but it's a tiny minority and I very much doubt it'll be done without challenge.

That notorious anti-semite frogwoman from a quick search of urban...

 

[Combustible]

Anyone know when the judgement is due?

Thursday apparently

 

[classicdish]

Anyone know when the judgement is due?

Thursday (as tweeted by Guardian reporter Jessica Elgot)

[edit: beaten to it!!!]

 

[mauvais]

It just isn't cut and dried. I've read a lot of legal bloggers on this, and while there's a range of views out there (which don't necessarily line up with the ideological slant of the writer - Maugham is against Corbyn for example) they seem to mainly agree that a) it's a poorly drafted set of rules which could be interpreted a number of ways, hence b) it would end up in court, regardless of what the NEC decided, and c) the court would agree with whatever the NEC decided.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the court decides... /weltweit

So I'm not a lawyer. But I think (a) only holds true in the sense that by absolute mutual agreement of all parties and with knowing winks all round you could creatively interpret them to mean something other than the obvious. Come any disagreement however and it's frivolous to try it. In the absence of unambiguous clarity, the law operates on intent and reasonable interpretation, and that is very close to 'cut and dried' here. I expect the ruling will less than subtly express this, but again we'll see.

(b) is only the case if someone is actually willing to embark on that folly. I half suspect that the legal challenge is merely a might-as-well hail mary endeavour and the meat of this was in the brinksmanship beforehand. Which has failed.

As for (c) I very much doubt that an opposite NEC ruling would in itself be upheld, which is not to say it would produce an ultimately favourable outcome for Corbyn.

 

[killer b]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think your point a) is true. The reason there is ambiguity is because when drafting the rules, it was never imagined that a sitting leader might struggle to get the required noms - had it been, then another clause (the sitting leader requires/does not require nomination) would have been added, and there would not be a court case happening now.

While I think Corbyn should be on the ballot for a number of reasons, to my untrained mind the opposing view also seems like a reasonable interpretation of the rules as they stand

 

[killer b]

Anyway, I can think of fewer things more fruitless than arguing the toss about the legal status of Labour party procedures and rules when none of us really know wtf we're talking about. Just... it isn't cut and dried. The fact it's arguable at all kind of makes that clear.

 

[mauvais]

Trouble is, there's an unhelpful intent conveyed not just by the words as they are now, but by the delta change(s) to them over time. The specific layman explanation in the document up thread isn't that significant in itself but the motivation is important.

The lack of provision for the unpopular leader scenario is also inherently unhelpful to a challenger trying to assert a specific requirement. In that case at least your (c) is more likely to be true.

 

[J Ed]

this is good: Pretending to be someone else

This phenomenon is very much active on the right I have noticed, middle-class ukippers have suddenly discovered that they are in fact working-class.