Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Cid]

I imagine we've had this but; speaker says there was no break-in.

 

[J Ed]

Watergate it ain't

 

[treelover]

If its matters(i think it does) the mood on JC4PM/Momentum sites, both posters and admins(some key players on JC side), seems to be hardening towards the 'hard core' plotters, I am now thinking there may be a split whatever happens.

 

[Pickman's model]

If its matters(i think it does) the mood on JC4PM/Momentum sites, both posters and admins(some key players on JC side), seems to be hardening towards the 'hard core' plotters, I am now thinking there may be a split whatever happens.

if it matters why does it matter?

you consistently manage to make bimble look like an informed and incisive commentator by comparison, which is - let me tell you - no mean feat

 

[irf520]

There's a classic essay I'm very fond of by systems theorist Donella Meadows:

Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System

I think it's instructive to ask yourself where in this framework the interventions of the people joining Labour to vote for Corbyn (or possibly more accurately, against nuLabour/neoliberalism) are aimed..

... and then to ask the same question about the PLP & the donors who support the PLP & the punters who align with the PLP and their donors.

Number 1 on that list is why, if you want to take over a society, you always go for the education system. After 10+ years of being told black is white, most people will continue to believe it even against the evidence of their own eyes.

 

[free spirit]

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

well there we have it, the court of legal bloggers is confused therefore........

The meaning of 'challenger' is pretty clear cut. It refers to the person or people who are challenging the incumbent.

It's even the example used in the oxford dictionary definition.

A person who makes a rival claim to or threatens someone’s hold on a position:a serious challenger for the titlea potential challenger for the party leadership

IIRC in the section for elections with a vacancy they refer to 'candidates' not 'challengers', which further clarifies the intent in using that specific word. If it was intended to refer to all candidates then they'd have kept the same wording for both sections.

I hope the person challenging this gets ordered to pay all costs associated with the case.

 

[19force8]

There's a classic essay I'm very fond of by systems theorist Donella Meadows:

Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System

I think it's instructive to ask yourself where in this framework the interventions of the people joining Labour to vote for Corbyn (or possibly more accurately, against nuLabour/neoliberalism) are aimed..

... and then to ask the same question about the PLP & the donors who support the PLP & the punters who align with the PLP and their donors.

Hmm, the impression I got from this was that our cities will be so much better when we get rid of all council houses/flats. Not saying there are no valid insights, but that one did slightly prejudice me.

 

[two sheds]

I hope the person challenging this gets ordered to pay all costs associated with the case.

Unless he gets off because he's not a challenger but a only candidate for paying costs and therefore not there at all really.

Sounds fairly cut and dried to me but barristers can play with meanings of words until you can't see what's there any more, so I'll wait for what the judge says.

I liked his comments about the danger of McNichol perhaps not making the best case for Corbyn as he might, though.

 

[free spirit]

mutterings reported from the 'moderate' plp camp about the shitness of Owen Smith's campaign.

 

[YouSir]

mutterings reported from the 'moderate' plp camp about the shitness of Owen Smith's campaign.

Given that those 'moderate' MPs had so much say in engineering this you'd imagine they'd offer at least some support. Not even publically, just give Smith a list of quotes to call a set of beliefs. What do they gain from churning out sacrificial lambs with no backing? Or is this them trying to be coherent? Or are they just working through the entire party until they reach their favourite? Hillary Benn, at a guess.

 

[Raheem]

Given that those 'moderate' MPs had so much say in engineering this you'd imagine they'd offer at least some support. Not even publically, just give Smith a list of quotes to call a set of beliefs. What do they gain from churning out sacrificial lambs with no backing? Or is this them trying to be coherent? Or are they just working through the entire party until they reach their favourite? Hillary Benn, at a guess.

I don't think the "moderates" ever wanted Smith. He isn't offering the kind of rollback they are seeking. He put himself forward and forced Eagle out off his own bat.

 

[squirrelp]

I don't consider there to be an arguable case for Corbyn being kept off the ballot and it is ridiculous it is being presented in court. I expect the judge to throw this case out the window Thursday.

I don't honestly believe that the plaintiff can think he might win. This is a vexatious suit. All this is highly disruptive to Corbyn.

The lawyers that have made arguments against Corbyn being on the ballot are surely just whoring themselves.

 

[YouSir]

I don't think the "moderates" ever wanted Smith. He isn't offering the kind of rollback they are seeking. He put himself forward and forced Eagle out off his own bat.

Aye, maybe 'accepted' is closer to it than 'wanted'. He got his nominations though, they haven't condemned him completely or tried to put up their own runner - so they must at least be/have been open to him. Plus I imagine he'll be happy to revert to whatever New Labour derivative vision they have if he wins, not exactly a man of strong moral conviction.

 

[YouSir]

I don't consider there to be an arguable case for Corbyn being kept off the ballot and it is ridiculous it is being presented in court. I expect the judge to throw this case out the window Thursday.

I don't honestly believe that the plaintiff can think he might win. This is a vexatious suit. All this is highly disruptive to Corbyn.

The lawyers that have made arguments against Corbyn being on the ballot are surely just whoring themselves.

Never underestimate the law's capacity to be a twat, no one with half a soul or half a mind could think it was fair but that doesn't mean much here.

 

[killer b]

well there we have it, the court of legal bloggers is confused therefore........

The meaning of 'challenger' is pretty clear cut. It refers to the person or people who are challenging the incumbent.

It's even the example used in the oxford dictionary definition.


IIRC in the section for elections with a vacancy they refer to 'candidates' not 'challengers', which further clarifies the intent in using that specific word. If it was intended to refer to all candidates then they'd have kept the same wording for both sections.

I hope the person challenging this gets ordered to pay all costs associated with the case.

My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?

 

[two sheds]

My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?

That's the same definition my mum's always used though.

 

[squirrelp]

My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?

That's what I would expect a lawyer to do in court, they have special ones for legal terms of course

 

[belboid]

My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?

'Common sense' meanings are absolutely valid in law though. 'The man on the Clapham omnibus' IS of legal origin. It's especially important for unincorporated organisations, which operate according to their own rules (as long as they don't contradict wider laws).

So it is likely that any disinterested legal opinion would side with the NEC decision. The only problem being, 'our' legal system is anything but disinterested.

 

[squirrelp]

Here's an example of a judge quoting the dictionary (in fact two dictionaries) to consider the meaning of the word 'useful'
references 27 / 28
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/brdanin/acdec/en/021211sep-op.pdf

I would expect any respectable lawyer's library to have the complete OED in hardback

 

[wheelie_bin]

That's what I would expect a lawyer to do in court, they have special ones for legal terms of course

Actually they don't seem to for everything. I was on a jury where we asked for clarification about the definition of "with intent", the judge advised us it was the usual definition.

 

[killer b]

I don't give a shit if they quote the OED in court, it just amazed me that someone's doing it on the internet to try and win an argument, in 2016.

 

[free spirit]

My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?

erm yes.

as other posters have pointed out, that's how it works when you need to clarify what a word is commonly understood to mean in court or out of court.

what I'm getting from this discussion is that you don't have much understanding of how the law works, so there's probably not much point in continuing to discuss it with you.

 

[killer b]

we aren't in court you googling twat.

 

[squirrelp]

We can pretend though. That's the point

 

[free spirit]

we aren't in court you googling twat.

no, but the aspect we're discussing is being taken to court.

it's a funny state of affairs when bothering to do some research to support your case / check you've understood it right is viewed as something to be used as an insult. It'd make the internet a lot less full of stupid comments if more people bothered to do the same thing.

 

[squirrelp]

I mean, it would be a bit of a drag to discard the football forum on the basis that we aren't actually playing in Wembley stadium, or the politics forums because we aren't speaking to the United Nations.

 

[two sheds]

I always enjoyed the drunken pre-internet pub discussions which could go on for several hours about some factoid that was either true or it wasn't but which would take about 2 minutes to actually check. Some of them were about definitions of words as I recall.

 

[killer b]

I'm aware of the terms that the case hinges on, and their dictionary meanings: it's been discussed constantly on the Internet for weeks now.

All I'm disputing is the idea that it's 'clear cut' what the rules mean. Because it isn't 'clear cut', much as you'd like it to be.

 

[Tankus]

we aren't in court you googling twat.

It is a pseudo star chamber as perceived by the main political throbbers that post on here...though

 

[two sheds]

All I'm disputing is the idea that it's 'clear cut' what the rules mean. Because it isn't 'clear cut', much as you'd like it to be.

Not me - as I said I'm waiting for what the judge says.