Angela Eagles resignation announcement was shocking, she can barely articulate a basic statement. Needs to drop out of the public eye asap!
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Hopefully She'll be a part of Comrade Corbyn's deselection procedure.
Actually, it's designed to prevent both from happening.
Would deselection just leave them carrying on as Independents or would it trigger a by-election?
I can't believe a branch office of a private organisation has any say over the duly elected representative of any constituency.
Twitter and Facebook are doing a crowdfunding-like thing for the £25-to-vote thing. Look for #gimme25. I paid already before I saw this, btw.
By-election. They were voted in to represent the party. If they're deselected they have no mandate. The party would elect a new candidate to represent the consituency and a by-election would be called.
Edit: Sorry berbatrick, was intending to reply to the post above yours.
I agree (for the first time ever I think).
Smith has said that she'll have a prominent position under his leadership. She actually wasn't that bad in the commons.
Wow, I didn't know that. I thought in this system you're voting for the MP (who happens to be endorsed by some party).
Utter nonsense. Their mandate is from their constituents. The deselection would come into force at the next general election.
This is against party rules.
Actually, I'm wrong
They continue in office until the next GE.An amendment to the Recall Bill was defeated. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...bellion-over-weak-mp-recall-bill-9727329.html
Cheers guys, is it the same with defections then? I know by-elections were triggered when Carswell and Reckless defected, but was that just their doing to gain a mandate?
Fair play.
Yup, not necessary at all. You can resign the whip and stand as an independent or switch parties completely, but a by-election isn't triggered unless you resign/can no longer serve as MP.
Nonsense. MPs can switch party as they please without needing a by-election.
This used to be legal in India but it was basically open season because of it - rival parties would take down a slim majority by bribing a few rebel MPs, and in the next confidence vote, the rival party would win (without any re-election necessary).
So in India there are anti-defection laws (but nor can the party fire you, if they do you're still an MP)
Yeah I'm not sure what @DenisIrwin is talking about as this would clearly go against party rules. Although if anyone is struggling to pay their shopping bill this week and needs a bit of cash(Around the £25 mark)then I'm sure there's help out there.
I remember when I was travelling in India in the early '80s there was an election and a chap I got talking to about it said most Indians vote for whoever they think will win, regardless of their platform or beliefs. According to him, the fact that they can then say they voted for the incumbent gave them more sway with them somehow. I argued that that was crazy and that they should use their vote to indicate their own values but it didn't wash.
I've heard that too. General election polling in India is stretched over weeks and before the end of the last day, no polling is released because of the fear that it could herd remaining voters to the "winner" of the polling.
The voting for the victor thing is supposed to be like this: assuming that voters of the same caste/religion vote together (these decisions are often made by the community beforehand), leaders looking at the vote counts from individual booths can tell which community/village voted for whom, and reward (or punish) accordingly.
Slightly related, here is a really hilarious story about bribing for votes (in one of India's least poor states, with 2 strong state parties DMK and AIADMK; national parties have no influence and smaller parties haven't got the cash to compete):
One major political party, for instance, drew up three lists. The ‘A’ list contained names of candidates who could fend for themselves and hence did not need money infusion from the party headquarters (according to two sources fairly high up in the party hierarchy, 60 names figured in this category); those in the ‘B’ list needed some support; and those in the ‘C’ list were candidates whom the party felt it “must support”. Not only the ability of the candidate to spend money but also how he/she got the party ticket mattered, given that there are several power centres in the party.
Its rival gave out a flat amount to its candidates to cover about 70 per cent of the voters in all the constituencies at the rate of Rs.250 per vote, four different sources confirmed. Its distribution machinery was far more organised and the cash reached the voter without pilferage, an independent observer said.
Did voters hesitate to take money? Did they vote for the party that paid them? A taxi driver in Tambaram constituency in Kancheepuram district said: “My landlord took my mother to a place where the local councillor was distributing cash. There, my mother’s name was verified against the electoral roll, and when she pointed to my name on the list, she was given Rs.400 at the rate of Rs.200 for two votes.”
Did he feel bad about taking money to vote?
“What is wrong in taking a paltry Rs.400? After all, this is the money they looted from the people,” he said.
The driver said although he took money from one Dravidian party, he voted for its prime rival.
In Tiruchi West, a voter told this correspondent that a person claiming to be from the DMK gave her Rs.200 and another group claiming to be from the AIADMK gave her Rs.250. “We have two voters in our house, so we got Rs.900 from the two parties,” she told this correspondent in the presence of an independent witness.
“I took money from both the parties and voted for ‘Amma’ [Jayalalithaa, AIADMK supremo and now the Chief Minister],” she said.
“The money was distributed in the night around 10 or 11 p.m. Members of both the parties came around that time only. All of us [in the street] got money,” she said. Was she not scared when people came calling around midnight? “I wasn’t scared as I knew they were coming to distribute money,” she said.
Conversations with voters across Tamil Nadu revealed similar stories, from at least 50 constituencies, detailing specifics of how much money at least a handful of voters in each of these constituencies received.
Ramesh Babu, the CPI(M)’s Parangipettai union secretary, had an interesting story to share. “We caught hold of an AIADMK worker and handed him over to the police because he was distributing money in Puduchatram village [in Chidambaram constituency]. But the police let him off with an admonishment for distributing money during the day,” he said.
What was even more perplexing was that the Parangipettai police made it clear to both the AIADMK and the DMK that there should be no trouble in the area. So, following a gentleman’s agreement, one party decided to distribute money between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. at Puduchatram while the other distributed cash from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. This was aided often by mysterious power cuts.
Ramesh Babu said that in fact people of Puduchatram began to look forward to power cuts. “If there was no power cut, it meant that they won’t get money.”
Its rival gave out a flat amount to its candidates to cover about 70 per cent of the voters in all the constituencies at the rate of Rs.250 per vote, four different sources confirmed. Its distribution machinery was far more organised and the cash reached the voter without pilferage, an independent observer said.
Did voters hesitate to take money? Did they vote for the party that paid them? A taxi driver in Tambaram constituency in Kancheepuram district said: “My landlord took my mother to a place where the local councillor was distributing cash. There, my mother’s name was verified against the electoral roll, and when she pointed to my name on the list, she was given Rs.400 at the rate of Rs.200 for two votes.”
Did he feel bad about taking money to vote?
“What is wrong in taking a paltry Rs.400? After all, this is the money they looted from the people,” he said.
The driver said although he took money from one Dravidian party, he voted for its prime rival.
In Tiruchi West, a voter told this correspondent that a person claiming to be from the DMK gave her Rs.200 and another group claiming to be from the AIADMK gave her Rs.250. “We have two voters in our house, so we got Rs.900 from the two parties,” she told this correspondent in the presence of an independent witness.
“I took money from both the parties and voted for ‘Amma’ [Jayalalithaa, AIADMK supremo and now the Chief Minister],” she said.
“The money was distributed in the night around 10 or 11 p.m. Members of both the parties came around that time only. All of us [in the street] got money,” she said. Was she not scared when people came calling around midnight? “I wasn’t scared as I knew they were coming to distribute money,” she said.
Conversations with voters across Tamil Nadu revealed similar stories, from at least 50 constituencies, detailing specifics of how much money at least a handful of voters in each of these constituencies received.
Ramesh Babu, the CPI(M)’s Parangipettai union secretary, had an interesting story to share. “We caught hold of an AIADMK worker and handed him over to the police because he was distributing money in Puduchatram village [in Chidambaram constituency]. But the police let him off with an admonishment for distributing money during the day,” he said.
What was even more perplexing was that the Parangipettai police made it clear to both the AIADMK and the DMK that there should be no trouble in the area. So, following a gentleman’s agreement, one party decided to distribute money between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. at Puduchatram while the other distributed cash from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. This was aided often by mysterious power cuts.
Ramesh Babu said that in fact people of Puduchatram began to look forward to power cuts. “If there was no power cut, it meant that they won’t get money.”
Nice collection from Private Eye
Yeah, he has previous. He can't moan about being challenged considering how many times he defied the whip.
Definitely not. I'm more annoyed at the Labour parties contempt for the overwhelming opinion and views of their members as opposed to for Corbyn himself.
Same.
Erm no... Many sitting MP's have left party's before with no by-election... Equally people have been kicked out
Also they can argue they are sticking to the mandate they were elected on (eg Trident renewal) whilst the leader isnt
I suspect a mass walk out (sdlp on steroids) and those that walk out would be over half of the mp's and they would form the official opposition... Reducing jeza to one question at pmq's and effectively sidelining them from the day to day coverage at Westminster
Last edited:
Whilst that's true especially on the deselection bit, i must say the idea that MPs fulfil policy from when they were elected rather than ongoinh policy is something ive only heard since Corbyn was appointed. Doesnt really apply to your trident specific but a general point.
The majority are voting for their party and not the MP. Id like the ability to call a by-election but it would have to be via a constituency majority and certainly not the CLP.
I agree with that... but I mentioned trident just as in its an easy one to spin for any new new labour... public defence - a ploicy the majority of the public seems to support and of course official policy to support in the manifesto.
I think if all the anti corbyn MP's seats were put up for a by election and you had UKIP fighting for votes against an official labour MP and independent (or new new labour) incumbent MP standing and the libs unlikely to do as badly again (especially picking up some of the pro european 48%) and of course it being forst past the post I suspect you would see (old) Labour certainly loose ground in the majority of seats and quite possibly loose out all together so I am not sure 140 by elections at once is something Labour would relish anyway
Owen Smith says as party leader he'd make Corbyn 'President of the Labour Party'
Yep, that'll do it Owen. Give him a pointless ceremonial role to shut him and his supporters up.
They must think we're beyond stupid.
Yep, that'll do it Owen. Give him a pointless ceremonial role to shut him and his supporters up.
They must think we're beyond stupid.
His use of the media, in this campaign, has been absolutely laughable so far. The normal, radical, anti-austerity, austerity is right believer.
To be fair the "austerity is right" was just him misspeaking.
I'm rooting for Corbyn, the career politicians in the Labour party have really been exposed by recent events. Never mind standing up for your values and what you believe in, better to just say anything to try and become electable. That's the Blairite way.
If he wasn't the anointed leader of a group who have, in part, claimed to want to rid the party of a leader who "struggles to get his message across" I'd accept that. It was one of the softest interviews I've ever seen, Marr did everything bar rub his feet, yet he managed to stumble over what was clearly a pre-prepared slogan.
Of course you also have his comments on welfare spending on Newsnight when he'd finally, begrudgingly, decided he was going to oppose the Welfare Bill.
Corbyn is a career politician.
Watching Kinnock jnr running around the studios singing the virtues of Smith is laughable. Suppose his career depends on it.
You think so? What makes you say that?
Because he's been an MP for 33 years and a councillor for a further 8.
So true you just have to listen to Liz Kendall in her leadership challenge .
Wolfie was around from 12 April 1977 – 31 December 1980 and those three years are where you and fellow comrade Corbyn belong. In that sense clearly, but the term is usually reserved for people who get into politics because it's a good career, rather than an overwhelming desire to shape the future of your country. I disagree with much of Corbyn's suggested policies, but I don't think for one minute he is in this for the money and the prestige. For one thing, his expense claims have been markedly different to the shameless lot that milked the system for all its worth.
He didn't do it for cabinet jobs, no. He's certainly used it to heighten his profile when he goes on his protests, and to get paid by the Iranian state for appearances on their network.
His expenses in the years leading up to the scandal look about the same as any other London MP - 125k.
Career politician is typically a term used for those who makes continuous moves in their political career for the sole purpose of advancement and promotion. Boris Johnson, for example, would typically be thought of as the prime example, albeit he fecked up in the process.
It's a bit of a silly buzzword anyway that's lost most of its meaning.
It's a bit of a silly buzzword anyway that's lost most of its meaning.