Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[two sheds]

Jam goes on before cream you philistine

 

[Wilf]

They get to keep your £25 too. Great way to alienate for all time somebody that has just decided to support you

Is that the case? Has anyone had their £25 back yet? Not doubting you, just haven't heard of actual refunds taking place. Would have thought they'd be on dodgy legal grounds (though how has that stopped them throughout the process...). Even if there are other 'benefits' to being a registered supporter - presumably they send you updates, invites to events and the like - the only real purpose of registering is to the vote in the election. It's not even a donation, even if the word donation appeared on the webpage where you sign up (?), it's clearly a contractual thing. A payment for a vote.

 

[two sheds]

It's not even a donation, even if the word donation appeared on the webpage where you sign up (?), it's clearly a contractual thing. A payment for a vote.

I think you'll find it means exactly what the High Court has decided it means.

Until the NEC is taken over by trotskyist Corbynites when there will be another appeal to the High Court when they decide that the NEC does not indeed mean what it said in the T&Cs.

 

[Wilf]

I think you'll find it means exactly what the High Court has decided it means.

Until the NEC is taken over by trotskyist Corbynites when there will be another appeal to the High Court when they decide that the NEC does not indeed mean what it said in the T&Cs.

Do you mean the t&cs posted 3 pages back i.e. these?
Terms and Conditions
That page is headed 'Donations', but if you scroll down it refers to Registered Supporters paying a fee. But anyway, I don't know, I was asking a factual question: is it currently assumed that those refused a vote get their £25 back? Like I said, it looks dodgy, but I'm not even sure where we are up to in terms of what McNicol's factotums are actually doing.

 

[two sheds]

Do you mean the t&cs posted 3 pages back i.e. these?
Terms and Conditions
That page is headed 'Donations', but if you scroll down it refers to Registered Supporters paying a fee. But anyway, I don't know, I was asking a factual question: is it currently assumed that those refused a vote get their £25 back? Like I said, it looks dodgy, but I'm not even sure where we are up to in terms of what McNicol's are actually doing.

No, don't know sorry. I'm in limbo at the moment they've told me they can't find me on the electoral register but I think it's because they've not looked hard enough because I am.

 

[Wilf]

We've probably had this before, but the Huffingtonpost are predicting up to 50,000 of 180,000 reg supporters will be barred. However doesn't give the breakdown as to reasons (not on register, payment transactions, politically undesirable).
Up To 50,000 'Registered Supporter' Applicants In Labour Leadership Election Set To Be Rejected

 

[Diamond]

Yes, it could be tackled on the basis of consideration, receiving nothing in return. But, and I'm not deeply familiar with UCTA either, hence 'or similar', it seems to me that if the LP fail to discharge their contractual responsibilities (admitting the member) on the basis of a disclaimer, then there is scope for considering whether that disclaimer is reasonable. On reflection it might turn out to be provided for via the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which replaced Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts. I don't know. Regardless, I would be surprised if I was allowed to set up a non-refundable 'pay to try and join' members' club.

The contractual analysis would probably frame the contract simply as £25 moves from the applicant to the party (consideration) in exchange for an assessment (consideration) that may eventually result in membership.

In that light, it is payment for an assessment that may result in a benefit, which is not a very controversial way of doing things at all.

e2a - and if you are going down the route of arguing that the mere payment of a £25 fee imposes contractual obligations upon Labour to admit the applicant, then you are deep in unilateral contractual offer territory and way, way off beam.

 

[Wilf]

Ah, I see there's been intermittent discussion about the £25 since kabbes post 3 pages ago which I originally replied to. I glanced and thought everything since was just cunting off and something or other digital.

 

[Supine]

The contractual analysis would probably frame the contract simply as £25 moves from the applicant to the party (consideration) in exchange for an assessment (consideration) that may eventually result in membership.

In that light, it is payment for an assessment that may result in a benefit, which is not a very controversial way of doing things at all.

e2a - and if you are going down the route of arguing that the mere payment of a £25 fee imposes contractual obligations upon Labour to admit the applicant, then you are deep in unilateral contractual offer territory and way, way off beam.

T&c's are one thing, plain english on the website promising a vote that counts is the main thing.

 

[Wilf]

Anyway, I'll try again: if I grass our lass up to McNicol's peelers - perhaps say she has a propensity to brick stairwell windows in shared buildings - will we get our £25 back?

 

[kabbes]

Anyway, I'll try again: if I grass our lass up to McNicol's peelers - perhaps say she has a propensity to brick stairwell windows in shared buildings - will we get our £25 back?

Not according to those terms and conditions, you won't.

 

[killer b]

Wow, 4 pages overnight: looks like something exciting has happene... oh.

 

[inva]

Anyone painting Corbyn as a Stalinist clearly can't distinguish between dictatorship and Parliamentarism, the fuckwits.

many Stalinists have engaged in Parliamentarism, that's not the reason it's wrong.

 

[Sprocket.]

many Stalinists have engaged in Parliamentarism, that's not the reason it's wrong.

It's the killing of millions of people before the division bell that makes it awkward!

 

[inva]

It's the killing of millions of people before the division bell that makes it awkward!

watch it

 

[teqniq]

Why Corbyn so terrifies the Guardian - TruePublica

 

[two sheds]

Good old Kuhn - but does this mean we're going to have to wait until all the Blairites die out?

 

[teqniq]

 

[inva]

Why Corbyn so terrifies the Guardian - TruePublica

A bit of a strange article...

Most Labour MPs call Jeremy Corbyn “unelectable”, even though they have worked tirelessly to undermine him from the moment he became leader

There's no real contradiction there.

Meanwhile, the Guardian, the house paper of the British left – long the preferred choice of teachers, social workers and Labour activists

the house paper of British liberalism. It seems odd too that he doesn't seem to consider how that might reflect the Guardian's politics and the way it has intervened in the leadership contests.

The Labour party ignores its members’ views, just as the Guardian ignores its readers’ views. What is going on?

Man, the Labour Party ignoring its members - can you believe it? As for the Guardian, the Corbyn lot seem to keep on clicking, so what do they care whether it's in agreement or disagreement? The Mail and other papers pull the same trick. And given its politics, why would the Guardian support Corbyn in this contest anyway?

Corbyn’s style of socialism draws on enduring traditions and values – of compassion, community and solidarity – that the young have never really known except in history books

hard to know what to say about that. the young have never known compassion? weird.

But whatever his critics claim, Corbyn isn’t just a relic of past politics. Despite his age, he is also a very modern figure. He exudes a Zen-like calm, a self-awareness and a self-effacement that inspires those who have been raised in a world of 24-hour narcissism.

sorry but

It involves the old coming to accept – however reluctantly – that the young may have found an answer to a question they had forgotten needed answering.

generation war drivel. 'the young'. there's loads of older Corbyn supporters, many of them old Labour types so I hear. what's he on about?

Jonathan Cook is an award winning British journalist

oh well, that explains it

 

[DotCommunist]

Can I switch rails too?

Never mind the wording, the failure to return the £25 is surely unlawful if push comes to shove - via Unfair Contract Terms Act or similar. At best they might be able to show costs of processing applications and deduct that.

I'd consider it a total swindle. Thievery. A hand in my pocket. Like a mugging.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

 

[J Ed]

The new polling is upsetting a lot of horrible people.

 

[teqniq]

The new polling is upsetting a lot of horrible people.

Oh what a shame.

 

[DotCommunist]

the tantrums can only get more intense. End of the month week should be radio rental

 

[J Ed]

the tantrums can only get more intense. End of the month week should be radio rental

Can't wait!

 

[teqniq]

Interesting

 

[Wilf]

Not according to those terms and conditions, you won't.

Ah, right, I've finally read the t&cs right through to the bottom of the page. Which takes us back to your original point - it's outrageous, stupid and counter productive.

 

[redsquirrel]

Interesting

View attachment 91783

Meaningless, I'd be shocked if the errors on those cross-breaks aren't larger than the 2% difference

 

[butchersapron]

So after all the stuff of the last year we have a Labour Party where 40% of members/supporters actually back Owen Smith and think he should be leader.

 

[nino_savatte]

Interesting

View attachment 91783

George Eaton is a cherry-picking, dishonest cunt.