Lisa Nandy to stand against Corbyn for Lab leadership

George Eaton is reporting Lisa Nandy is to stand against Corbyn for the Labour leadership.

What makes this quite interesting is that she is definitely on the left side of the soft left faction, and many Corbynites had identified her as a rising star and possible successor to Corbyn.

Many of those who have resigned were on the soft left or were in fact Corbyn loyalists. The Corbynites keep shrieking that this is all a Blairite plot, but the fact s there were no Blairites in Corbyn's shadow cabinet, they all refused to serve.

These are people Corbyn himself appointed in his own reshuffle (the one that lasted a week) only a few months back. The Corbynista have lost touch with reality.

Thankfully the Labour General Secretary Ian McNicol has received legal advice that Corbyn will not automatically be on the ballot, he will need the support of 36 MPs and given he had only 15 actual supporters last time (the rest lent him their vote to ensure there was a left candidate on the ballot) and he'll really struggle to get the rest. He's now finding to his detriment that you can't attack and undermine your parliamentary colleagues and there not be consequences

Reply 1

illegaltobepoor

Enjoy blocking the referendum vote. It will send the country into civil war. Are you prepared for a civil war?

Reply 2

Thutmose-III

Original post by illegaltobepoor

Enjoy blocking the referendum vote. It will send the country into civil war. Are you prepared for a civil war?

Did you get confused and post in the wrong thread? By the way

(1) I voted Leave

(2) The referendum result will not be blocked by parliament. There is no appetite for it among the Remain Conservative MPs, even if a small rump of extremist Remainers in the Conservative Party attempt to do so they will be deselected by their constituency parties, and the new government will be able to rely on pro-Leave Labour MPs like Kate Hoey (there are about ten of them). The DUP will also be bought by sending some pork to northern Ireland

(3) Civil war? Calm down you idiot. There will be no civil war. Even though we voted the same way in the referendum you sound like a ****ing terrorist to me and I hope the police are looking into you to ensure you don't go mental and try to murder an MP

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 3

illegaltobepoor

Original post by Thutmose-III

Sorry im tired :P

I just want a king of the north :biggrin:

Reply 4

Good bloke

Original post by Thutmose-III

Thankfully the Labour General Secretary Ian McNicol has received legal advice that Corbyn will not automatically be on the ballot, he will need the support of 36 MPs and given he had only 15 actual supporters last time (the rest lent him their vote to ensure there was a left candidate on the ballot) and he'll really struggle to get the rest. He's now finding to his detriment that you can't attack and undermine your parliamentary colleagues and there not be consequences

This New Statesman article looks at the rules and claims that only challengers need to attain nominations from MPs in the case of a challenge to an incumbent leader.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/11/could-labours-rule-book-be-used-keep-jeremy-corbyn-leadership-ballot

Reply 5

Thutmose-III

Original post by Good bloke

I read that when it came out, I disagree with the construction Maughan places on 2(b)(ii). To me the words "any nomination" (and Labour leadership challenge precedent) seems to support the interpretation that he would be required to obtain the nominations. The barrister the Labour Party briefed to look into it came to the same conclusion

Original post by Good bloke

By the way, here's an interesting blog from Spinning Hugo which comes to the opposite conclusion

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/the-corbyn-coup/

Reply 8

Good bloke

Original post by Thutmose-III

Reply 9

Thutmose-III

Original post by Good bloke

But that ignores the preceding sentence which says:

Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference.

This, to me, clearly indicates that only challengers require to be nominated.

What the previous sentence outlines is the circumstances in which challengers might seek nominations; it doesn't include any language of an exclusionary nature or of limitation. It then goes on to say that "any nominations" must be supported by etc etc. If it intended that the nomination provision would only apply to challengers the language used would be "any such nominations" not "any nominations".

The Rule Book makes clear in other sections that the leadership election is to be between nominees and that all candidates who appear on the ballot are to be nominees.

In addition, the 1993/4 Rule Book on which the current Rule Book is largely based outlines what has been Labour practice for a long time; that incumbent leaders must seek nominations. There is no evidence that when the Rule Book was amended in this section there was any intention to remove that requirement for incumbent leaders to obtain the requisite nominations; the intention was simply to amend the nomination threshold.

The express provision of the rules is that any nominations must be supported by x% and that leadership elections are to be conducted between nominees. As such, I see no basis on which either of us could plausibly overrule the conclusions to which the barrister briefed by Labour to assess this issue came.