Labour Party - Any other leader would be 20 points ahead

[holyzombiejesus]

Just had notice of our next branch meeting and there's a motion regarding changes to leadership elections. Anyone else know anything about this? I can't see what the change is.

Motion: Leadership trigger

Proposed Rule change:

(amendments in bold)



Chapter 4 Elections of national officers of the Party and national committees,

Clause II.

Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party,

2)            Election of leader and deputy leader,

B. Nomination

i) In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 10 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP and either:

a. 5 per cent of CLPs; or b. At least 3 affiliates (at least 2 of which shall be trade union affiliates) compromising 5 per cent of affiliated membership Nominations not attaining the thresholds under either a or b above shall be null and void.

ii) Where there is no vacancy:

a) nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule.

b) Each year prior to the annual session of Party conference, upon request of no less than 5 per cent of CLPs OR at least 3 affiliates (at least 2 of which shall be trade union affiliates), party Conference must hear and take a vote FOR or AGAINST a new election for leader and/or deputy leader. Conference will resolve the matter by a simple majority and in accordance with Chapter 3 Party Conference 3. Clause III. Procedural rules for Party Conference Conference rule 3 – Voting A. If the conference resolves FOR a new election then nominations proceed as in B.i. above with the sole exception that, on request, the sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule. If the Conference resolves AGAINST a new election the motion falls and cannot be heard again until next conference. Such a motion to Party conference comes as an addition to, and as such does not preclude, CLP and affiliate participation as per Chapter 3 Party Conference Clause III. Procedural rules for Party Conference 2. Conference rule 2 – Agenda C and shall be timetabled to meet the same Conference deadline as constitutional amendments.

[Buelligan]

Is there even an EPLP any longer?  I think not.  Other than that, obvs, know nothing.  But it looks both cack-handed and Machiavellian, Starmer's Labour, eh?

[Johnny Yesno]

Just had notice of our next branch meeting and there's a motion regarding changes to leadership elections. Anyone else know anything about this? I can't see what the change is.

It's very wordy anyway but without the '(amendments in bold)' being bolded in your post, it's difficult to know where to start.

[olliebean]

Comparing against the 2020 Rule Book, this paragraph is new, afaics. The rest appears to be unchanged.

b) Each year prior to the annual session of Party conference, upon request of no less than 5 per cent of CLPs OR at least 3 affiliates (at least 2 of which shall be trade union affiliates), party Conference must hear and take a vote FOR or AGAINST a new election for leader and/or deputy leader. Conference will resolve the matter by a simple majority and in accordance with Chapter 3 Party Conference 3. Clause III. Procedural rules for Party Conference Conference rule 3 – Voting A. If the conference resolves FOR a new election then nominations proceed as in B.i. above with the sole exception that, on request, the sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule. If the Conference resolves AGAINST a new election the motion falls and cannot be heard again until next conference. Such a motion to Party conference comes as an addition to, and as such does not preclude, CLP and affiliate participation as per Chapter 3 Party Conference Clause III. Procedural rules for Party Conference 2. Conference rule 2 – Agenda C and shall be timetabled to meet the same Conference deadline as constitutional amendments.

[pigamus]

https://www.universalpersonality.com/labour-party-news-polling-guru-john-curtice-predicts-starmer-will-do-worse-than-corbyn-politics-news/

You might enjoy this article, and not just for obvious reasons - let's just say that it appears to have been involved in a head-on collision with Google Translate.

[Johnny Yesno]

Comparing against the 2020 Rule Book, this paragraph is new, afaics. The rest appears to be unchanged.

Ah, thanks.

This is a good amendment, isn't it? I'm thinking of the bit that states clearly that 'the sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule', for example. The fact it wasn't there before nearly did for Corbyn during the chicken coup.

[Johnny Yesno]

https://www.universalpersonality.com/labour-party-news-polling-guru-john-curtice-predicts-starmer-will-do-worse-than-corbyn-politics-news/

You might enjoy this article, and not just for obvious reasons - let's just say that it appears to have been involved in a head-on collision with Google Translate.

Heh, that is enjoyable.

I'm glad to see the Labour Occasion are finally starting to care about the Pink Wall areas. Jaz out of Babylon Zoo should be able to give Kieth advice on running a campaign for a spherical native election. And the Chinese lab nonsense is finally put to bed with the real reason for the pandemic being addressed:

The elections are the primary for the reason that pandemic started

[pigamus]

I'm almost tempted to give the Mom of All Speak Exhibits a go

[Darles Chickens]

https://www.universalpersonality.com/labour-party-news-polling-guru-john-curtice-predicts-starmer-will-do-worse-than-corbyn-politics-news/

You might enjoy this article, and not just for obvious reasons - let's just say that it appears to have been involved in a head-on collision with Google Translate.

Here's the original article (warning: Daily Expr*ss).

I've come across a load of these sites recently, which publish articles from other places, with some of the words mangled through a kind of automatic thesaurus (with hilarious consequences).

[Paul Calf]

It's to foil copyright web crawlers.

[pigamus]

So what's your prediction for Hartlepool then? Very tight? Or will the Tories win handily like this new poll says?

[BlodwynPig]

Corbyn expelled from party again for losing Hartlepool due to "worst election result in nearly 100 years"

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

There's a certain feeling of equanimity at the minute knowing that whatever the result, it is our fault and not Keith's fault or the fault of his minions.

[idunnosomename]

it's funny how nobody mentions:

Most of the "red wall" was lost over one issue: Brexit. People wanted it done, not more endless squabbling over it.

Sir Keir was shadow Brexit secretary and proposed renegotiations with EU and second Referendum on the new deal.

[Buelligan]

Yes.  But no.  Never actually happened.  Corbyn though, what a fucking monster.  So glad we're electable now and happy for all the British fisherpeople too, they've got their sovereignty in solid pound notes and the people of MUFC can rest easy knowing their chip shop's been bought by the grown up and child Glazers (who are also listening, like Keith).  Everything's gonna be allright.

[jobotic]

Two days ago ultra-centrist and general arsehole local Labour councillor posted about how good the polling was looking and it was bad for news for Tories and Corbynites.

They are fucking deranged.

[Fambo Number Mive]

Keith is already getting his excuses in, saying  there is a "mountain to climb" after the party's 2019 general election result.

[Buelligan]

I hope he falls off on his stupid head.

[idunnosomename]

please stop brexit daddy

[Zetetic]

it's funny how nobody mentions:

Most of the "red wall" was lost over one issue:

Home ownership, yes.

[olliebean]

It's to foil copyright web crawlers.

And human readers, apparently.

Presumably they do so as not to have to pay to get loads of content to stick ads on.

[thugler]

it's funny how nobody mentions:

Most of the "red wall" was lost over one issue: Brexit. People wanted it done, not more endless squabbling over it.

Sir Keir was shadow Brexit secretary and proposed renegotiations with EU and second Referendum on the new deal.

Must we do this all over again. Even if Labour had adopted a pro-brexit policy, it would never have been hard enough for them and many would still have voted Tory, I think it's far fetched to suggest they were all massively behind Labour but for this anyway, the media hit job on Corbyn had done it's job too. Likewise remainers would have not voted Labour on this one issue as well. There was no way of getting around it really. Whatever referendum we had should have been on a specific deal in the first place, that's why leave won really, there was no end to the benefits they could tie to leaving.

Feel good about the chances of Starmer going based on appalling results now.

[idunnosomename]

I'm not really saying it was anything but an impossible bind over Brexit, but that it's just forgotten about for sensible haircunt man whereas the spectre of Corbyn still looms large

seen the typo, gonna leave it

[Fabian Thomsett]

This is what the Third Way is in 2021

One Labour fixer said that about half of the Hartlepool ground team was due to leave following Thursday's votes as a cost-saving measure. "It's not great for morale," she said. "We would've made money at party conference to pay for these elections but of course they were cancelled. We haven't got the small donors that Corbyn brought and haven't got the big donors that [Tony] Blair had. We're trapped between the two worlds."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection

[Ferris]

This is what the Third Way is in 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/04/internal-polling-suggests-labour-heading-for-defeat-in-hartlepool-byelection

Bleak.

The candidate they parachuted telling the guardian saying "people want change" is mad - did he not realize he's standing in a district that has voted labour since 1964? Change might not be good for his political career[nb]which, for the record: parachuted into a marginal seat ahead of a by-election, lost. Parachuted into a labour stronghold ahead of a by-election, will likely lose.[/nb] in that respect.

Announcing the sacking of all the paid party canvassers 10 minutes after polls close is the grim icing on the darkly hilarious centrist cake.

[EOLAN]

Remember the huge media furore as they wet themselves anticipating the embarrassment for Corbyn in losing the Peterbrough by-election, a marginal seat that was Tory for 12 years prior to 2017. Any similar hype about Hartlepool I wonder by BBC and the like?

[peanutbutter]

UKIP and Tories between them got 13% more of the vote than Labour in 2015; Brexit and Tories got 16% more in 2019. Those voters were already well on the way out of Labour before 2015. An absolutely massive defeat (in excess of 13%) would have to set off some alarm bells but I dunno if much of anything can be derived from the result especially beyond "we're fucked"

Looking through the results it looks like the Lib Dems drained off a lot of Labour support post-Mandelson, which gradually went to the Tories. Simultaneously, the more resilient Labour supporters from way way back were either dying off or their kids were pivoting to UKIP.

[idunnosomename]

Corbyn won Hartlepool, and somehow it's his fault the Brexit Party vote isn't going to our beautiful, gorgeous, ravishing, shining like the sun Sirkier

[ZoyzaSorris]

UKIP and Tories between them got 13% more of the vote than Labour in 2015; Brexit and Tories got 16% more in 2019. Those voters were already well on the way out of Labour before 2015. An absolutely massive defeat (in excess of 13%) would have to set off some alarm bells but I dunno if much of anything can be derived from the result especially beyond "we're fucked"

Looking through the results it looks like the Lib Dems drained off a lot of Labour support post-Mandelson, which gradually went to the Tories. Simultaneously, the more resilient Labour supporters from way way back were either dying off or their kids were pivoting to UKIP.

Can you remind us what happened in 2017? Because you seem to have missed that one out for some reason?

(Just for clarity Labour won over 50% of the vote)

[jobotic]

Corbyn won Hartlepool, and somehow it's his fault the Brexit Party vote isn't going to our beautiful, gorgeous, ravishing, shining like the sun Sirkier

Yep. Keith forces a Blairite (even to the extent of working for oppresive regimes) on the local party and the resounding defeat is Corbyn's fault.

Been arguing Btl on the Guardian website with these "mess we inherited" cunts. Need a wash.