Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Wilf]

This might be a silly question but the judge said that the claimants must have their £25 refunded, is it actually clear that Labour are legally obliged to give votes to all the recent members, or just refund the £25 to those recent members who signed up as registered supporters.

The latter I think.

 

[J Ed]

Hahaha oh god the new members ruling is the icing on the cake. I thought the anti-Corbyn people were the 'competent' ones?

 

[brogdale]

The latter I think.

You've got to wonder whether the party bureaucracy is seriously capable of sorting all this shit out now.

 

[Wilf]

You've got to wonder whether the party bureaucracy is seriously capable of sorting all this shit out now.

'Can I have my £25 back please'
- Well, we could give you a credit note for the next challenge to Corbyn.
'No thanks I'll have my £25 back'
- Okay, what about if we throw in one month's Netflix?
'No, £25 please'
- Would a massage from Neil Kinnock seal the deal?

 

[Combustible]

The latter I think.

Ah if that's the case, it's obviously good for those members who paid the money, but doesn't actually improve Corbyn's chances.

 

[Wilf]

Ah if that's the case, it's obviously good for those members who paid the money, but doesn't actually improve Corbyn's chances.

But allowing all post January members to vote (presumably) will.

 

[DotCommunist]

fourth circle of hell, a happy ending from kinnock as he does the 'we're alright!' shouts

 

[DotCommunist]

Hahaha oh god the new members ruling is the icing on the cake. I thought the anti-Corbyn people were the 'competent' ones?

the wafer thin competency of middle managment who haven't had a real fight since school

 

[butchersapron]

Hang on - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?

 

[brogdale]

Hang on - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?

Yes, the party machine will now have to sort out those recent joiners who've then also forked out the £25, thinking they'd been disenfranchised.
Looks potentially very messy.

 

[Wilf]

Hang on - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?

Some people who joined after January paid the further £25 in order to get a vote. Presume the money bit of the decision refers to them.

 

[Combustible]

But allowing all post January members to vote (presumably) will.

What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.

 

[Mation]

Hang on - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?

I think this is about members who joined after 12 January. They can now vote in the election. If, on the NEC ruling that they weren't eligible to vote, they signed up as a £25 supporter in order to vote, they should now be refunded that money as it was unnecessary given that they are in fact eligible.

(Did I answer the question you were asking?)

 

[brogdale]

What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.

The judge found against the party (NEC) decision to time-limit the franchise based on contract law.

 

[butchersapron]

What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.

If you joined up and paid £25 you get a vote already.

 

[Mation]

What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.

The ruling is that all members who were members before the leadership contest was announced are eligible to vote.

 

[Athos]

This might be a silly question but the judge said that the claimants must have their £25 refunded, is it actually clear that Labour are legally obliged to give votes to all the recent members, or just refund the £25 to those recent members who signed up as registered supporters.

They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.

 

[Mation]

They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.

I don't think the ruling says anything about people who previously registered as supporters. Only people who became members after 12 January.

People who didn't join as members won't get their £25 back.

 

[butchersapron]

I think this is about members who joined after 12 January. They can now vote in the election. If, on the NEC ruling that they weren't eligible to vote, they signed up as a £25 supporter in order to vote, they should now be refunded that money as it was unnecessary given that they are in fact eligible.

(Did I answer the question you were asking?)

Yes, clear ta. There seems to be confusion on here between people who joined before 12th jan and what they paid and those who joined after and who didn't have a vote (before this ruling).

They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.

There aren't any 3 quidders though are there - surely that was just for the last leadership election.

 

[Wilf]

They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.

Really? Do you have a link? I haven't seen that aspect mentioned in the reporting.

 

[butchersapron]

You can't pay 3 quid last year then vote in labour leadership elections forever.

 

[butchersapron]

3 quid was not membership. Never was.

 

[Wilf]

Yes, clear ta. There seems to be confusion on here between people who joined before 12th jan and what they paid and those who joined after and who didn't have a vote (before this ruling).


There aren't any 3 quidders though are there - surely that was just for the last leadership election.

Yes, afaik. The party explicitly said supporters had to re-register and that the £3 was a one off - and I haven't seen that bit challenged in the court reports.

 

[Athos]

I don't think the ruling says anything about people who previously registered as supporters. Only people who became members after 12 January.

People who didn't join as members won't get their £25 back.

Surely, people who joined before 12 Jan were always eligible.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

looks like NEC will appeal.

What kind of mindset assumes to get away with something so clearly unlawful?

The kind that gets away with warcrimes, 100 000s of dead iraqis and the birth of ISIS.

 

[Athos]

I may have got this arse about face, second-hand. Will read the judgement.

 

[DotCommunist]

clear attempt to price out the new members and corbyn supporters trot entryists. Failed. I wonder how many of the people who paid 25 quid to get around the stitch up job will claim it back? I imagine plenty will just be satisfied that the PLP right has been slapped down. Me, I'd be asking for the 25 plus interest. And compo for hurting my feelings.

 

[DotCommunist]

3 quid was not membership. Never was.

I took it to mean you were affiliated as a labour supporter with one off voting rights rather than full member, thats how it was sold at the time iirc. What a mess

 

[Combustible]

I think this is about members who joined after 12 January. They can now vote in the election. If, on the NEC ruling that they weren't eligible to vote, they signed up as a £25 supporter in order to vote, they should now be refunded that money as it was unnecessary given that they are in fact eligible.

(Did I answer the question you were asking?)

If that's the case then great. It is just that the reports that I've seen so far say that the judge found that the NEC decision was unlawful and that the claimants (who all paid £25 to be registered supporters) must be refunded. But it wasn't clear to me that just because the NEC decision was unlawful, they would necessarily be obliged to allow those post January members who didn't pay £25 to vote and I didn't see any mention of the judge saying that they would (since it's not applicable to the claimants who all did pay £25). For example, the Labour party could make restitution in other ways, such as by refunding the membership fees.

 

[butchersapron]

If that's the case then great. It is just that the reports that I've seen so far say that the judge found that the NEC decision was unlawful and that the claimants (who all paid £25 to be registered supporters) must be refunded. But it wasn't clear to me that just because the NEC decision was unlawful, they would necessarily be obliged to allow those post January members who didn't pay £25 to vote and I didn't see any mention of the judge saying that they would (since it's not applicable to the claimants who all did pay £25). For example, the Labour party could make restitution in other ways, such as by refunding the membership fees.

Separate )or forget) the money from membership - they are now not allowed to cut off members post jan 12th from voting.