The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
No it says that challengers need 20% to get on the ballot. An incumbent is by definition not a challenger - and the NEC which controls the rulebook is dominated by Corbyn so irrelevant has beens like Mandelson don't matter.
It says that a challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a ballot and get on it. The incumbent then is no longer the incumbent as another leadership ballot has been forced which he needs 20% of MPs to nominate him to participate in. The NEC is not yet dominated by Corbynistas
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
That's what you want the rules to read, not what they actually say.
No, that is what they say, a 20% requirement to force a ballot and be nominated as a challenger. There is nothing in the rules which says once a ballot has been forced and a challenger nominated the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs to get on that ballot
Wales extend their lead over S Africa to 4 points after a penalty
Paddy had Wales t 3/1 before the start of this match, which I quite happily took advantage of.
They could be in for one hell of a tanking.
Only disappointment is the Saffers aren';t doing the second half collapse they have had in every game so far so my 15-21pts Wales won't be a winner.
Nice early cheer!
Complaining that the winning margin bet isn't going to cop & the team doesn't even win... That's some going
The 3/1 odds on a Wales win were still ridiculously good value despite the result. The Saffers did remarkably well in the second half for the first time in the tournament and I'm still quite surprised by that. In the end the result could have swung the other way just as easily.
If you get 3/1 odds on 50:50 probabilities, you will end up ahead in the long run.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
No it says that challengers need 20% to get on the ballot. An incumbent is by definition not a challenger - and the NEC which controls the rulebook is dominated by Corbyn so irrelevant has beens like Mandelson don't matter.
It says that a challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a ballot and get on it. The incumbent then is no longer the incumbent as another leadership ballot has been forced which he needs 20% of MPs to nominate him to participate in. The NEC is not yet dominated by Corbynistas
You are wrong on this.
You are posting actively misleading information on several betting markets. Please desist.
Your opinions aren't facts.
Bit like when you kept on telling everyone the leaked Labour leadership poll was from team Corbyn.
It was from team Kendall.
PS how is the Scottish Labour surge under Corbyn doing ?
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
Yes, that's my understanding too. There's no mechanism to stop the incumbent standing when challenged, unless he declines to stand himself. So Corbyn is leader for as long as he wishes to be.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
No it says that challengers need 20% to get on the ballot. An incumbent is by definition not a challenger - and the NEC which controls the rulebook is dominated by Corbyn so irrelevant has beens like Mandelson don't matter.
It says that a challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a ballot and get on it. The incumbent then is no longer the incumbent as another leadership ballot has been forced which he needs 20% of MPs to nominate him to participate in. The NEC is not yet dominated by Corbynistas
No matter how many times I post the exact rules and wording here you will never be convinced, so end of story, lets focus on Rubio instead.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
It says challengers need nominations and then sets out the number of nominations needed to be a candidate. If that challenger then forces a leadership contest it does not say the leader does not also then need to get 20% of MPs to get on the ballot
Do you have the text for that rule - that's not the version I read which says:
"nominations may be sought by potential challengers"
nothing about the existing leader then needing to be renominated.
Nothing about them not been required to be once a challenger has been nominated either
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
No it says that challengers need 20% to get on the ballot. An incumbent is by definition not a challenger - and the NEC which controls the rulebook is dominated by Corbyn so irrelevant has beens like Mandelson don't matter.
It says that a challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a ballot and get on it. The incumbent then is no longer the incumbent as another leadership ballot has been forced which he needs 20% of MPs to nominate him to participate in. The NEC is not yet dominated by Corbynistas
No matter how many times I post the exact rules and wording here you will never be convinced, so end of story, lets focus on Rubio instead.
The rules say a challenger needs nominations to be a challenger and force a leadership ballot, the number of nominations needed is 20% of MPs. It says nothing at all about the subsequent leadership ballot which will then have been forced. You could interpret it as being that the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced, you could equally interpret it that if the incumbent does not then get 20% of MPs to nominate him he cannot be on the ballot and the challenger is then elected unopposed
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
Yes, that's my understanding too. There's no mechanism to stop the incumbent standing when challenged, unless he declines to stand himself. So Corbyn is leader for as long as he wishes to be.
How ? He can be challenged and can be defeated. He cannot be stopped for getting on the ballot paper.
Wales extend their lead over S Africa to 4 points after a penalty
Paddy had Wales t 3/1 before the start of this match, which I quite happily took advantage of.
They could be in for one hell of a tanking.
Only disappointment is the Saffers aren';t doing the second half collapse they have had in every game so far so my 15-21pts Wales won't be a winner.
Nice early cheer!
Complaining that the winning margin bet isn't going to cop & the team doesn't even win... That's some going
The 3/1 odds on a Wales win were still ridiculously good value despite the result. The Saffers did remarkably well in the second half for the first time in the tournament and I'm still quite surprised by that. In the end the result could have swung the other way just as easily.
If you get 3/1 odds on 50:50 probabilities, you will end up ahead in the long run.
You don't say
You thought it was an even money shot and the entire global betting market thought it less than 30% hmmm
On topic excellent work by David Herdson on the previous thread.
True.
But don't overvaluate the media in the US, especially on the primaries, there are a lot of John Huntsmans out there. I still remember the endorsement by the most popular South Carolina newspaper on the very same day he withdrew.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
It says challengers need nominations and then sets out the number of nominations needed to be a candidate. If that challenger then forces a leadership contest it does not say the leader does not also then need to get 20% of MPs to get on the ballot
Do you have the text for that rule - that's not the version I read which says:
"nominations may be sought by potential challengers"
nothing about the existing leader then needing to be renominated.
Nothing about them not been required to be once a challenger has been nominated either
Yes there is, it says challengers need nominations. By definition an incumbent is not a challenger, it is what the words mean!
Your notion that there is no incumbent once a leadership vote opens is simply factually incorrect. Until a winner is announced the incumbent is always still the incumbent.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
No it says that challengers need 20% to get on the ballot. An incumbent is by definition not a challenger - and the NEC which controls the rulebook is dominated by Corbyn so irrelevant has beens like Mandelson don't matter.
It says that a challenger needs 20%
You are wrong on this.
You are posting actively misleading information on several betting markets. Please desist.
Your opinions aren't facts.
Bit like when you kept on telling everyone the leaked Labour leadership poll was from team Corbyn.
It was from team Kendall.
PS how is the Scottish Labour surge under Corbyn doing ?
There is nothing misleading about it. Show me the statement in the Labour leadership rules which states the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced? You cannot because it does not exist.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
On the subject of the rugby, could someone explain to me how Ireland are on 4/7 to beat Argentina tomorrow?
I've seen absolutely nothing in the Argentines play so far to suggest they can compete with Ireland. Much as I'd like it to be otherwise, it seems a nailed on victory for the Irish.
PS how is the Scottish Labour surge under Corbyn doing ?
It's going grrrrreat!
Corbyn killing Scottish Nationalism Labour stone dead.
Third behind the Tories is a possibility next May according to that YouGov
All those years of the Tories in the wilderness, dreaming that things were about to run around, yet no matter who they chose to lead them, what they did, whatever the policies, all it took in the end was Labour electing a terrorist supporting Trot.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
Yes, that's my understanding too. There's no mechanism to stop the incumbent standing when challenged, unless he declines to stand himself. So Corbyn is leader for as long as he wishes to be.
How ? He can be challenged and can be defeated. He cannot be stopped for getting on the ballot paper.
You are right, and what I wrote didn't read as it should have done. Mea culpa.
Corbyn is leader until he either resigns, declines to stand or is defeated by the same electorate that just overwhelmingly voted for him.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
It says challengers need nominations and then sets out the number of nominations needed to be a candidate. If that challenger then forces a leadership contest it does not say the leader does not also then need to get 20% of MPs to get on the ballot
Do you have the text for that rule - that's not the version I read which says:
"nominations may be sought by potential challengers"
nothing about the existing leader then needing to be renominated.
Nothing about them not been required to be once a challenger has been nominated either
Yes there is, it says challengers need nominations. By definition an incumbent is not a challenger, it is what the words mean!
Your notion that there is no incumbent once a leadership vote opens is simply factually incorrect. Until a winner is announced the incumbent is always still the incumbent.
It says challengers need nominations to force a contest and a leadership ballot, clearly an incumbent is not a challenger and will not try and force a contest against themselves. Once a contest is forced however there is nothing in the rules which says that the incumbent does not also need to get 20% of MPs to get on a leadership ballot
There is nothing misleading about it. Show me the statement in the Labour leadership rules which states the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced? You cannot because it does not exist.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
The rules say that challengers need nominations as every single person has pointed out. You find any rule that says that incumbents need nominations to stay on the ballot.
PS how is the Scottish Labour surge under Corbyn doing ?
It's going grrrrreat!
Corbyn killing Scottish Nationalism Labour stone dead.
Third behind the Tories is a possibility next May according to that YouGov
It's seems FPTP, that favours a dominant left party and a dominant right party, applies to scotland too. Since the SNP is the dominant left party Labour would only get votes as a party of protest by leftwingers and their aren't many of them in scotland yet, it could take years for them to be dissatisfied with the SNP.
Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
You've not really worked out how this democracy lark works, have you?
Eh? I asked a simple question. Yet to receive anything substantive as an answer so far.
Maybe he asked the Scottish police force for some assistance. You may have a very long wait.
Hehe.
David - is there a general realisation amongst Scottish voters that the SNP are good at winning elections but less than wonderful at producing substantive outcomes despite the increasing largesse (in terms of both monies and powers) dished upon Holyrood by London?
Until the last 6 months I would have said absolutely not. The SNP seemed to walk on water and could do no wrong.
In more recent times people are very unhappy with the Scottish Police Force and its botched integration. This has increased the awareness of the SNP's excessive centralising tendencies (eg the Care Commission) and bureaucratic tendencies, as has the silly ideas of all children having state guardians
Education is something of a mess, especially the college system which has been starved of funds to pay for middle class kids like my daughters to go to Universities without fees.
There has also been more awareness that the unreformed Scottish NHS is not as efficient as it might be and there has recently been a lot of publicity about the cancer drugs not available in Scotland because people like me don't have to pay prescriptions.
Don't get me wrong, the SNP remain totally dominant, SLAB remain totally dysfunctional and demoralised, the Lib Dems remain a corpse and the Tories remain...aspirational. A second majority looks pretty nailed on to me. Who will come second is perhaps more interesting.
It's about time that the betting markets realize that Jeb Bush is not the favourite in the race, he's usually polling 5th place or lower, while Rubio is one place ahead of him.
But Rubio equally has very low chances to get the nomination, simply being more aggressive than McCain on foreign affairs doesn't get you enough votes especially when Rubio loves immigration, which is anathema to republican voters.
Look at Trump, look at Carson, everytime they berate immigrants or muslims they rise in the polls, because that's what the voters want.
Mr. L, is there a risk of an SNP split, from hardliners who want a second referendum pronto? [Not necessarily in the next year, but over the next 5-10, say].
There is nothing misleading about it. Show me the statement in the Labour leadership rules which states the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced? You cannot because it does not exist.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
The rules say that challengers need nominations as every single person has pointed out. You find any rule that says that incumbents need nominations to stay on the ballot.
Yes, they need nominations to be a challenger, I have never contested that. However show me any rule that says incumbents to do not require nominations to get on the ballot either?
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
It says challengers need nominations and then sets out the number of nominations needed to be a candidate. If that challenger then forces a leadership contest it does not say the leader does not also then need to get 20% of MPs to get on the ballot
Do you have the text for that rule - that's not the version I read which says:
"nominations may be sought by potential challengers"
nothing about the existing leader then needing to be renominated.
Nothing about them not been required to be once a challenger has been nominated either
Yes there is, it says challengers need nominations. By definition an incumbent is not a challenger, it is what the words mean!
Your notion that there is no incumbent once a leadership vote opens is simply factually incorrect. Until a winner is announced the incumbent is always still the incumbent.
It says challengers need nominations to force a contest and a leadership ballot, clearly an incumbent is not a challenger and will not try and force a contest against themselves. Once a contest is forced however there is nothing in the rules which says that the incumbent does not also need to get 20% of MPs to get on a leadership ballot
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
There is nothing misleading about it. Show me the statement in the Labour leadership rules which states the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced? You cannot because it does not exist.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
The rules say that challengers need nominations as every single person has pointed out. You find any rule that says that incumbents need nominations to stay on the ballot.
Yes, they need nominations to be a challenger, I have never contested that. However show me any rule that says incumbents to do not require nominations to get on the ballot either?
No need, there's no rule to say they do. Unless there's a rule to say they do need them, then by default they don't.
Until the last 6 months I would have said absolutely not. The SNP seemed to walk on water and could do no wrong.
In more recent times people are very unhappy with the Scottish Police Force and its botched integration. This has increased the awareness of the SNP's excessive centralising tendencies (eg the Care Commission) and bureaucratic tendencies, as has the silly ideas of all children having state guardians
Education is something of a mess, especially the college system which has been starved of funds to pay for middle class kids like my daughters to go to Universities without fees.
There has also been more awareness that the unreformed Scottish NHS is not as efficient as it might be and there has recently been a lot of publicity about the cancer drugs not available in Scotland because people like me don't have to pay prescriptions.
Don't get me wrong, the SNP remain totally dominant, SLAB remain totally dysfunctional and demoralised, the Lib Dems remain a corpse and the Tories remain...aspirational. A second majority looks pretty nailed on to me. Who will come second is perhaps more interesting.
The Police integration (which was in the Tories and Labour 2011 manifestos) is being over-hyped by the media based on a single case of individual failure (or two cases if you really want to stretch the point). In the meantime crime is plummeting and while it is the highest disatisfication with the SNP, it's still in the 30% range.
Colleges are not being starved of funds, they are being forced to stop making money from hobby and short hour courses and refocus on providing an alternative path to degree level qualifications. It is far too early to judge its success or failure. The Unitarian approach (call everything a Uni and send everyone to Uni) to Higher Education always seemed broken and I'm glad the SNP are trying to reverse this.
The Scottish Health Service delivers comparable results to the NHS in England despite much better control over budgets. This appears to be a result for the SNP, it's just a shame they feel the need to try and persuade people they're throwing money at it. They are not but delivering well - this should be their narrative.
I do have a question for you though.
Do you want Dundee Council to remain under SNP control or would you prefer it to return to SLAB?
There is nothing misleading about it. Show me the statement in the Labour leadership rules which states the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced? You cannot because it does not exist.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
The rules say that challengers need nominations as every single person has pointed out. You find any rule that says that incumbents need nominations to stay on the ballot.
Yes, they need nominations to be a challenger, I have never contested that. However show me any rule that says incumbents to do not require nominations to get on the ballot either?
No need, there's no rule to say they do. Unless there's a rule to say they do need them, then by default they don't.
No, not at all. If 20% of MPs are needed to get on a leadership ballot as was the case in 2015 then that requirement could equally apply once a challenger has been nominated by 20% of MPs and a new leadership ballot called. Otherwise it could equally be argued that challenger having been nominated is elected unopposed if the incumbent fails to get the nominations himself
There is nothing misleading about it. Show me the statement in the Labour leadership rules which states the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced? You cannot because it does not exist.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
The rules say that challengers need nominations as every single person has pointed out. You find any rule that says that incumbents need nominations to stay on the ballot.
Yes, they need nominations to be a challenger, I have never contested that. However show me any rule that says incumbents to do not require nominations to get on the ballot either?
No need, there's no rule to say they do. Unless there's a rule to say they do need them, then by default they don't.
No, not at all. If 20% of MPs are needed to get on a leadership ballot as was the case in 2015 then that requirement could equally apply once a challenger has been nominated by 20% of MPs and a new leadership ballot called. Otherwise it could equally be argued that challenger having been nominated is elected unopposed if the incumbent fails to get the nominations himself
No the rules say who the 20% applies to. If there is a vacancy it applies to everyone, if there is no vacancy it applies to challengers. As the rules say.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
It says challengers need nominations and then sets out the number of nominations needed to be a candidate. If that challenger then forces a leadership contest it does not say the leader does not also then need to get 20% of MPs to get on the ballot
Do you have the text for that rule - that's not the version I read which says:
"nominations may be sought by potential challengers"
nothing about the existing leader then needing to be renominated.
Nothing about them not been required to be once a challenger has been nominated either
Yes there is, it says challengers need nominations. By definition an incumbent is not a challenger, it is what the words mean!
Your notion that there is no incumbent once a leadership vote opens is simply factually incorrect. Until a winner is announced the incumbent is always still the incumbent.
It says challengers need nominations to force a contest and a leadership ballot, clearly an incumbent is not a challenger and will not try and force a contest against themselves. Once a contest is forced however there is nothing in the rules which says that the incumbent does not also need to get 20% of MPs to get on a leadership ballot
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
No. The incumbent clearly does not need 20% of MPs at the initial stage as there is no contest, only the challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a contest. However, once that challenger has obtained 20% of MPs there is nothing that states the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs.
PS how is the Scottish Labour surge under Corbyn doing ?
It's going grrrrreat!
Corbyn killing Scottish Nationalism Labour stone dead.
Third behind the Tories is a possibility next May according to that YouGov
It's seems FPTP, that favours a dominant left party and a dominant right party, applies to scotland too. Since the SNP is the dominant left party Labour would only get votes as a party of protest by leftwingers and their aren't many of them in scotland yet, it could take years for them to be dissatisfied with the SNP.
The SNP polled 45% on the list last week with yougov, 51% on the constituency, ie about 48%, the exact total of the Yes total on any rerun indyref in the same poll. No still led 52%-48%
The Police integration (which was in the Tories and Labour 2011 manifestos) is being over-hyped by the media based on a single case of individual failure (or two cases if you really want to stretch the point). In the meantime crime is plummeting and while it is the highest disatisfication with the SNP, it's still in the 30% range.
Just because it was in the other parties manifestos does not make it any less an SNP area of responsibility. Just as ERM was supported by Labour but Black Wednesday was blamed solely on the government.
Besides, integration could have been handled differently by the other parties. A cack-handed integration in practice does not imply that all integration had to be cack-handed.
There is nothing misleading about it. Show me the statement in the Labour leadership rules which states the incumbent does not need nominations once a ballot has been forced? You cannot because it does not exist.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
The rules say that challengers need nominations as every single person has pointed out. You find any rule that says that incumbents need nominations to stay on the ballot.
Yes, they need nominations to be a challenger, I have never contested that. However show me any rule that says incumbents to do not require nominations to get on the ballot either?
No need, there's no rule to say they do. Unless there's a rule to say they do need them, then by default they don't.
No, not at all. If 20% of MPs are needed to get on a leadership ballot as was the case in 2015 then that requirement could equally apply once a challenger has been nominated by 20% of MPs and a new leadership ballot called. Otherwise it could equally be argued that challenger having been nominated is elected unopposed if the incumbent fails to get the nominations himself
No the rules say who the 20% applies to. If there is a vacancy it applies to everyone, if there is no vacancy it applies to challengers. As the rules say.
The rules say the 20% applies to challengers to force a contest to an incumbent. Once a ballot has been forced they do not say the leader then does not also need to get 20% to get on that ballot
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
No. The incumbent clearly does not need 20% of MPs at the initial stage as there is no contest, only the challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a contest. However, once that challenger has obtained 20% of MPs there is nothing that states the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs.
There is nothing to state that he does. The 20% requirement is only specified for challengers if there is no vacancy. The way rule-writing is written is that you have to state requirements, you don't need to disprove all things that are not requirements. If the incumbent where there is no vacancy needs nominations then the rulebook needs to say so, it doesn't.
Until the last 6 months I would have said absolutely not. The SNP seemed to walk on water and could do no wrong.
In more recent times people are very unhappy with the Scottish Police Force and its botched integration. This has increased the awareness of the SNP's excessive centralising tendencies (eg the Care Commission) and bureaucratic tendencies, as has the silly ideas of all children having state guardians
Education is something of a mess, especially the college system which has been starved of funds to pay for middle class kids like my daughters to go to Universities without fees.
There has also been more awareness that the unreformed Scottish NHS is not as efficient as it might be and there has recently been a lot of publicity about the cancer drugs not available in Scotland because people like me don't have to pay prescriptions.
Don't get me wrong, the SNP remain totally dominant, SLAB remain totally dysfunctional and demoralised, the Lib Dems remain a corpse and the Tories remain...aspirational. A second majority looks pretty nailed on to me. Who will come second is perhaps more interesting.
The Police integration (which was in the Tories and Labour 2011 manifestos) is being over-hyped by the media based on a single case of individual failure (or two cases if you really want to stretch the point). In the meantime crime is plummeting and while it is the highest disatisfication with the SNP, it's still in the 30% range.
Colleges are not being starved of funds, they are being forced to stop making money from hobby and short hour courses and refocus on providing an alternative path to degree level qualifications. It is far too early to judge its success or failure. The Unitarian approach (call everything a Uni and send everyone to Uni) to Higher Education always seemed broken and I'm glad the SNP are trying to reverse this.
The Scottish Health Service delivers comparable results to the NHS in England despite much better control over budgets. This appears to be a result for the SNP, it's just a shame they feel the need to try and persuade people they're throwing money at it. They are not but delivering well - this should be their narrative.
I do have a question for you though.
Do you want Dundee Council to remain under SNP control or would you prefer it to return to SLAB?
I suspect I know the answer.
I could go through the points but what's the point? As for your last question I am lucky enough to live in Angus which at the moment has a fairly apolitical SNP council made up of the same sort of people who used to be apolitical tories. The people of Dundee, who have some of the worst educational providers in Scotland, have nothing from me but sympathy.
Between Scylla and Charybdis, as they don't teach in any of the Dundee schools.
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
No. The incumbent clearly does not need 20% of MPs at the initial stage as there is no contest, only the challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a contest. However, once that challenger has obtained 20% of MPs there is nothing that states the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs.
There is nothing to state that he does. The 20% requirement is only specified for challengers if there is no vacancy. The way rule-writing is written is that you have to state requirements, you don't need to disprove all things that are not requirements. If the incumbent where there is no vacancy needs nominations then the rulebook needs to say so, it doesn't.
There is nothing to state he does not. The 20% requirement is for challengers if there is no vacancy to force a leadership ballot, that is a clear requirement I agree. Once a leadership ballot is forced then the normal rule for leadership ballots applies ie candidates need to get 20% of MPs to get on it
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
No. The incumbent clearly does not need 20% of MPs at the initial stage as there is no contest, only the challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a contest. However, once that challenger has obtained 20% of MPs there is nothing that states the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs.
There is nothing to state that he does. The 20% requirement is only specified for challengers if there is no vacancy. The way rule-writing is written is that you have to state requirements, you don't need to disprove all things that are not requirements. If the incumbent where there is no vacancy needs nominations then the rulebook needs to say so, it doesn't.
There is nothing to state he does not. The 20% requirement is for challengers if there is no vacancy to force a leadership ballot, that is a clear requirement I agree. Once a leadership ballot is forced then the normal rule for leadership ballots applies ie candidates need to get 20% of MPs to get on it
There is no need to state he does not! There is a need to state that he does. A requirement is by definition only a requirement if it is said to be required.
Show the rule that says an incumbent requires nominations. If there is no rule, then there is no requirement.
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
No. The incumbent clearly does not need 20% of MPs at the initial stage as there is no contest, only the challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a contest. However, once that challenger has obtained 20% of MPs there is nothing that states the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs.
There is nothing to state that he does. The 20% requirement is only specified for challengers if there is no vacancy. The way rule-writing is written is that you have to state requirements, you don't need to disprove all things that are not requirements. If the incumbent where there is no vacancy needs nominations then the rulebook needs to say so, it doesn't.
There is nothing to state he does not. The 20% requirement is for challengers if there is no vacancy to force a leadership ballot, that is a clear requirement I agree. Once a leadership ballot is forced then the normal rule for leadership ballots applies ie candidates need to get 20% of MPs to get on it
There is no need to state he does not! There is a need to state that he does. A requirement is by definition only a requirement if it is said to be required.
Show the rule that says an incumbent requires nominations. If there is no rule, then there is no requirement.
If there is no rule then any other standard rules apply. In this case a leadership contest has been forced by the leadership challenger so that contest will be conducted on the same rules as any leadership contest. As was the case in 1988 when Benn challenged Kinnock on an election decided by all 3 parts of the Labour electoral college
Only it wasn't funded by Hamas.. It was funded by a man who has close links to Hamas.. Doesn't mean the funds came from Hamas, but it doesn't alter the fact that Corbyn should have refused the money, and it adds to the perception is that he is the friend of terrorists.
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
No. The incumbent clearly does not need 20% of MPs at the initial stage as there is no contest, only the challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a contest. However, once that challenger has obtained 20% of MPs there is nothing that states the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs.
There is nothing to state that he does. The 20% requirement is only specified for challengers if there is no vacancy. The way rule-writing is written is that you have to state requirements, you don't need to disprove all things that are not requirements. If the incumbent where there is no vacancy needs nominations then the rulebook needs to say so, it doesn't.
There is nothing to state he does not. The 20% requirement is for challengers if there is no vacancy to force a leadership ballot, that is a clear requirement I agree. Once a leadership ballot is forced then the normal rule for leadership ballots applies ie candidates need to get 20% of MPs to get on it
There is no need to state he does not! There is a need to state that he does. A requirement is by definition only a requirement if it is said to be required.
Show the rule that says an incumbent requires nominations. If there is no rule, then there is no requirement.
If there is no rule then any other standard rules apply. In this case a leadership contest has been forced by the leadership challenger so that contest will be conducted on the same rules as any leadership contest. As was the case in 1988 when Benn challenged Kinnock on an election decided by all 3 parts of the Labour electoral college
The contest will be decided by votes as per standard voting rules yes. But the nomination stage is covered by the specific "if there is a vacancy then ...", "if there is no vacancy then ..." rules.
Under the "if there is no vacancy" rules of the nomination stage challengers are required to get nominations. There is no rule incumbents must be nominated.
Wouldn't want Gillighan on my tail - he nailed Lutfer.
The Labour leader made an inaccurate declaration to Parliamentary authorities about the payment which obscured the donor’s true identity.
Ibrahim Hamami, a vitriolic opponent of the Oslo peace accords and a supporter of the current wave of stabbings of Jews in Israel, gave £2,000 to Mr Corbyn in August, one of only three main individual donors to his campaign. Two of the three have now been exposed as supporters of terror.
Only it wasn't funded by Hamas.. It was funded by a man who has close links to Hamas.. Doesn't mean the funds came from Hamas, but it doesn't alter the fact that Corbyn should have refused the money, and it adds to the perception is that he is the friend of terrorists.
I think the fact that Corbyn has referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends adds to the perception that he is the friend of terrorists.
You are categorically wrong, there is nothing in the rules to say the incumbent does need 20%. The need for 20% is clearly stated for challengers, not for incumbents. Unless there is anything to suggest incumbents do need nominations, then the nomination requirement applies as it is written: for challengers.
No. The incumbent clearly does not need 20% of MPs at the initial stage as there is no contest, only the challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a contest. However, once that challenger has obtained 20% of MPs there is nothing that states the incumbent does not also need 20% of MPs.
There is nothing to state that he does. The 20% requirement is only specified for challengers if there is no vacancy. The way rule-writing is written is that you have to state requirements, you don't need to disprove all things that are not requirements. If the incumbent where there is no vacancy needs nominations then the rulebook needs to say so, it doesn't.
There is nothing to state he does not. The 20% requirement is for challengers if there is no vacancy to force a leadership ballot, that is a clear requirement I agree. Once a leadership ballot is forced then the normal rule for leadership ballots applies ie candidates need to get 20% of MPs to get on it
There is no need to state he does not! There is a need to state that he does. A requirement is by definition only a requirement if it is said to be required.
Show the rule that says an incumbent requires nominations. If there is no rule, then there is no requirement.
If there is no rule then any other standard rules apply. In this case a leadership contest has been forced by the leadership challenger so that contest will be conducted on the same rules as any leadership contest. As was the case in 1988 when Benn challenged Kinnock on an election decided by all 3 parts of the Labour electoral college
The contest will be decided by votes as per standard voting rules yes. But the nomination stage is covered by the specific "if there is a vacancy then ...", "if there is no vacancy then ..." rules.
Under the "if there is no vacancy" rules of the nomination stage challengers are required to get nominations. There is no rule incumbents must be nominated.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
I could go through the points but what's the point? As for your last question I am lucky enough to live in Angus which at the moment has a fairly apolitical SNP council made up of the same sort of people who used to be apolitical tories. The people of Dundee, who have some of the worst educational providers in Scotland, have nothing from me but sympathy.
Between Scylla and Charybdis, as they don't teach in any of the Dundee schools.
Classics hasn't been taught in public schools for decades. Have the private schools of Dundee given it up as well?
Only it wasn't funded by Hamas.. It was funded by a man who has close links to Hamas.. Doesn't mean the funds came from Hamas, but it doesn't alter the fact that Corbyn should have refused the money, and it adds to the perception is that he is the friend of terrorists.
The headline may be misleading but the story is quite bad enough. No leader of the OfficialOpposition should take funds from a man who advocates and supports violence.
I would only add that if what is said in that report is true, there are various reports which ought to be made by the banks through which the monies passed to the relevant criminal and regulatory authorities under the Proceeds of Crime Act and the STR regime.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Regarding the US Presidential election, I find it incredibly hard to call. On the Democratic side, it seems like Hillary is damaged goods, who'd lose to pretty much any Republican, and would fail against a popular Democrat governor (should one choose to run).
Calling the Republican race is equally hard. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's hard to see how he loses, yet I simply can't see the American people electing him President. I find the appeal of Carson hard to figure, he seems so genuinely clueless about so many things. (Although I guess Obama won on the basis of being a blank slate, on to which people could project their desires.) Jeb Bush is rubbish. Kasich should be good but isn't. Christie is unacceptable to 90% of the Republican party. Carly crashed and burned when she ran in California, losing even safe parts of the state to the Democrats, and has a terrible record as a CEO. Which I guess makes Rubio the presumptive nominee... except that his immigration views are unacceptable to the GOP base, and he is utterly uninspiring.
I think the conclusion is clear... Michael Bloomberg is next President of the United States. (MBISNPOTUS).
Perhaps NXMP can adjudicate when he turns up if it means that much ?
It would be interesting to hear NP's perspective as a Labour insider but if and when a challenger gets the MPs to force a ballot it will be fascinating to see what ensues
Perhaps NXMP can adjudicate when he turns up if it means that much ?
It would be interesting to hear NP's perspective as a Labour insider but if and when a challenger gets the MPs to force a ballot it will be fascinating to see what ensues
Indeed ad perhaps we can ask when he turns up. In the meantime perhaps you guys need to stop circling one another because neither of you can land the final punch and it's getting boring now.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Says what rule the leadership rules no longer apply either? The rules for the nomination stage to force a ballot if there is no vacancy are covered and only the challenger needs nominations then. Once a challenge succeeds then normal leadership rules apply ie MPs require 20% to get nominated on a ballot with the result determined by party members if more than one candidate is nominated for the ballot
Regarding the US Presidential election, I find it incredibly hard to call. On the Democratic side, it seems like Hillary is damaged goods, who'd lose to pretty much any Republican, and would fail against a popular Democrat governor (should one choose to run).
Calling the Republican race is equally hard. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's hard to see how he loses, yet I simply can't see the American people electing him President. I find the appeal of Carson hard to figure, he seems so genuinely clueless about so many things. (Although I guess Obama won on the basis of being a blank slate, on to which people could project their desires.) Jeb Bush is rubbish. Kasich should be good but isn't. Christie is unacceptable to 90% of the Republican party. Carly crashed and burned when she ran in California, losing even safe parts of the state to the Democrats, and has a terrible record as a CEO. Which I guess makes Rubio the presumptive nominee... except that his immigration views are unacceptable to the GOP base, and he is utterly uninspiring.
I think the conclusion is clear... Michael Bloomberg is next President of the United States. (MBISNPOTUS).
Except he won't run against Hillary. So it is President Rubio or Kasich or Christie.
I could go through the points but what's the point? As for your last question I am lucky enough to live in Angus which at the moment has a fairly apolitical SNP council made up of the same sort of people who used to be apolitical tories. The people of Dundee, who have some of the worst educational providers in Scotland, have nothing from me but sympathy.
Between Scylla and Charybdis, as they don't teach in any of the Dundee schools.
Classics hasn't been taught in public schools for decades. Have the private schools of Dundee given it up as well?
That's not true, actually. Classics is taught to higher standard and potentially at advanced higher in Grove Academy in Dundee for a start. Regrettably none of the schools teach Latin or ancient Greek such as I studied in Harris Academy in Dundee 30 odd years ago.
All 3 subjects are still taught at Dundee High School. In fact my son will start Latin this year in first year as one of his language choices.
Wouldn't want Gillighan on my tail - he nailed Lutfer.
The Labour leader made an inaccurate declaration to Parliamentary authorities about the payment which obscured the donor’s true identity.
Ibrahim Hamami, a vitriolic opponent of the Oslo peace accords and a supporter of the current wave of stabbings of Jews in Israel, gave £2,000 to Mr Corbyn in August, one of only three main individual donors to his campaign. Two of the three have now been exposed as supporters of terror.
Another day, another decidedly dodgy friend of Corbyn's turns up.
Why do I get the feeling that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg with stories about the Labour leadership, who they see as friends and what they have done and said in the past? There will be a lot held back for the election campaign if JC makes it that far.
Regarding the US Presidential election, I find it incredibly hard to call. On the Democratic side, it seems like Hillary is damaged goods, who'd lose to pretty much any Republican, and would fail against a popular Democrat governor (should one choose to run).
Calling the Republican race is equally hard. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's hard to see how he loses, yet I simply can't see the American people electing him President. I find the appeal of Carson hard to figure, he seems so genuinely clueless about so many things. (Although I guess Obama won on the basis of being a blank slate, on to which people could project their desires.) Jeb Bush is rubbish. Kasich should be good but isn't. Christie is unacceptable to 90% of the Republican party. Carly crashed and burned when she ran in California, losing even safe parts of the state to the Democrats, and has a terrible record as a CEO. Which I guess makes Rubio the presumptive nominee... except that his immigration views are unacceptable to the GOP base, and he is utterly uninspiring.
I think the conclusion is clear... Michael Bloomberg is next President of the United States. (MBISNPOTUS).
Hillary tends to lead Trump and Cruz in most polls but loses to other Republican, Biden beats all Republicans but still trails Hillary as nominee, Sanders remains her closest challenger. If Trump wins Iowa and NH he is nominee, agreed. If it is Sanders v Trump your conclusion could be correct
Even before Bush has a Rick Perry brain fart about forgetting the day which he "will never forget " the black guy down the corner is on "what the hell I'm I doing here" phase.
Regarding the US Presidential election, I find it incredibly hard to call. On the Democratic side, it seems like Hillary is damaged goods, who'd lose to pretty much any Republican, and would fail against a popular Democrat governor (should one choose to run).
Calling the Republican race is equally hard. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's hard to see how he loses, yet I simply can't see the American people electing him President. I find the appeal of Carson hard to figure, he seems so genuinely clueless about so many things. (Although I guess Obama won on the basis of being a blank slate, on to which people could project their desires.) Jeb Bush is rubbish. Kasich should be good but isn't. Christie is unacceptable to 90% of the Republican party. Carly crashed and burned when she ran in California, losing even safe parts of the state to the Democrats, and has a terrible record as a CEO. Which I guess makes Rubio the presumptive nominee... except that his immigration views are unacceptable to the GOP base, and he is utterly uninspiring.
I think the conclusion is clear... Michael Bloomberg is next President of the United States. (MBISNPOTUS).
Except he won't run against Hillary. So it is President Rubio or Kasich or Christie.
Except none of those 3 are in even the top 2 contendors for the GOP nomination at present. One of them will have to win in Iowa or NH to be nominee. Bloomberg won't run against Hillary or Biden, he would against Sanders
Regarding the US Presidential election, I find it incredibly hard to call. On the Democratic side, it seems like Hillary is damaged goods, who'd lose to pretty much any Republican, and would fail against a popular Democrat governor (should one choose to run).
Calling the Republican race is equally hard. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's hard to see how he loses, yet I simply can't see the American people electing him President. I find the appeal of Carson hard to figure, he seems so genuinely clueless about so many things. (Although I guess Obama won on the basis of being a blank slate, on to which people could project their desires.) Jeb Bush is rubbish. Kasich should be good but isn't. Christie is unacceptable to 90% of the Republican party. Carly crashed and burned when she ran in California, losing even safe parts of the state to the Democrats, and has a terrible record as a CEO. Which I guess makes Rubio the presumptive nominee... except that his immigration views are unacceptable to the GOP base, and he is utterly uninspiring.
I think the conclusion is clear... Michael Bloomberg is next President of the United States. (MBISNPOTUS).
I would think that if you are right you will have exceeded your father's prediction in respect of Obama.
For me, it looks like Hillary, subject to intervention by the FBI. Or Rubio, who will probably find getting the nomination harder than the Presidential race itself.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Says what rule the leadership rules no longer apply either? The rules for the nomination stage to force a ballot if there is no vacancy are covered and only the challenger needs nominations then. Once a challenge succeeds then normal leadership rules apply ie MPs require 20% to get nominated on a ballot with the result determined by party members if more than one candidate is nominated for the ballot
Impossible as there are no "normal leadership rules" to apply.
For the nomination stage there are "there is no vacancy" rules and there are "there is a vacancy" rules. As there is no vacancy the only rules that apply are the "there is no vacancy" rules. There are no "normal" rules to apply.
If you think there are "normal" rules then quote them.
Jeb Bush says 'we were attacked and my brother kept us safe'? I'm not necessarily blaming the guy but 3,000 civilians dying isn't exactly being kept safe.
On Rubio, wouldn't a Hispanic nominee that has championed amnesty might mean a Trump indy run is more likely?
Investors from the Far East have started buying up British private schools as more Chinese families want their children to be educated in the UK
Chinese investors have started acquiring independent schools in Britain British education is still held in high regard by many people in the Far East Chase Grammar school in Staffordshire was purchased last year by a Chinese owned company
Jeb Bush says 'we were attacked and my brother kept us safe'? I'm not necessarily blaming the guy but 3,000 civilians dying isn't exactly being kept safe.
On Rubio, wouldn't a Hispanic nominee that has championed amnesty might mean a Trump indy run is more likely?
I think he means that after the attack and Bush's response there were no further attacks.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Says what rule the leadership rules no longer apply either? The rules for the nomination stage to force a ballot if there is no vacancy are covered and only the challenger needs nominations then. Once a challenge succeeds then normal leadership rules apply ie MPs require 20% to get nominated on a ballot with the result determined by party members if more than one candidate is nominated for the ballot
Impossible as there are no "normal leadership rules" to apply.
For the nomination stage there are "there is no vacancy" rules and there are "there is a vacancy" rules. As there is no vacancy the only rules that apply are the "there is no vacancy" rules. There are no "normal" rules to apply.
If you think there are "normal" rules then quote them.
There are once a challenger has been nominated and forced a leadership contest, the normal rules are for any other leadership contest i.e. MPs to nominate candidates for members to vote on. The 'there is no vacancy' rules apply only to force a contest not to the contest itself.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Says what rule the leadership rules no longer apply either? The rules for the nomination stage to force a ballot if there is no vacancy are covered and only the challenger needs nominations then. Once a challenge succeeds then normal leadership rules apply ie MPs require 20% to get nominated on a ballot with the result determined by party members if more than one candidate is nominated for the ballot
Impossible as there are no "normal leadership rules" to apply.
For the nomination stage there are "there is no vacancy" rules and there are "there is a vacancy" rules. As there is no vacancy the only rules that apply are the "there is no vacancy" rules. There are no "normal" rules to apply.
If you think there are "normal" rules then quote them.
How could there be "normal" rules? Labour back benchers do not challenge their leaders no matter how pathetic, mental or just plain useless they are. I mean 200 of them voted for McDonnell and Corbyn's completely incoherent position just this week. This debate is completely pointless.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Says what rule the leadership rules no longer apply either? The rules for the nomination stage to force a ballot if there is no vacancy are covered and only the challenger needs nominations then. Once a challenge succeeds then normal leadership rules apply ie MPs require 20% to get nominated on a ballot with the result determined by party members if more than one candidate is nominated for the ballot
Impossible as there are no "normal leadership rules" to apply.
For the nomination stage there are "there is no vacancy" rules and there are "there is a vacancy" rules. As there is no vacancy the only rules that apply are the "there is no vacancy" rules. There are no "normal" rules to apply.
If you think there are "normal" rules then quote them.
There are once a challenger has been nominated and forced a leadership contest, the normal rules are for any other leadership contest i.e. MPs to nominate candidates for members to vote on. The 'there is no vacancy' rules apply only to force a contest not to the contest itself.
That is simply not what it says. Besides the other nomination rules only apply if there is a vacancy, which there isn't. What you are suggesting is impossible.
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Says what rule the leadership rules no longer apply either? The rules for the nomination stage to force a ballot if there is no vacancy are covered and only the challenger needs nominations then. Once a challenge succeeds then normal leadership rules apply ie MPs require 20% to get nominated on a ballot with the result determined by party members if more than one candidate is nominated for the ballot
Impossible as there are no "normal leadership rules" to apply.
For the nomination stage there are "there is no vacancy" rules and there are "there is a vacancy" rules. As there is no vacancy the only rules that apply are the "there is no vacancy" rules. There are no "normal" rules to apply.
If you think there are "normal" rules then quote them.
How could there be "normal" rules? Labour back benchers do not challenge their leaders no matter how pathetic, mental or just plain useless they are. I mean 200 of them voted for McDonnell and Corbyn's completely incoherent position just this week. This debate is completely pointless.
Exactly. No Labour leader has been formally challenged in my lifetime, not even Foot was ever challenged was he?
Does any history buff know when a Labour leader was last challenged?
Regarding the US Presidential election, I find it incredibly hard to call. On the Democratic side, it seems like Hillary is damaged goods, who'd lose to pretty much any Republican, and would fail against a popular Democrat governor (should one choose to run).
Calling the Republican race is equally hard. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's hard to see how he loses, yet I simply can't see the American people electing him President. I find the appeal of Carson hard to figure, he seems so genuinely clueless about so many things. (Although I guess Obama won on the basis of being a blank slate, on to which people could project their desires.) Jeb Bush is rubbish. Kasich should be good but isn't. Christie is unacceptable to 90% of the Republican party. Carly crashed and burned when she ran in California, losing even safe parts of the state to the Democrats, and has a terrible record as a CEO. Which I guess makes Rubio the presumptive nominee... except that his immigration views are unacceptable to the GOP base, and he is utterly uninspiring.
I think the conclusion is clear... Michael Bloomberg is next President of the United States. (MBISNPOTUS).
I could go through the points but what's the point? As for your last question I am lucky enough to live in Angus which at the moment has a fairly apolitical SNP council made up of the same sort of people who used to be apolitical tories. The people of Dundee, who have some of the worst educational providers in Scotland, have nothing from me but sympathy.
Between Scylla and Charybdis, as they don't teach in any of the Dundee schools.
Classics hasn't been taught in public schools for decades. Have the private schools of Dundee given it up as well?
That's not true, actually. Classics is taught to higher standard and potentially at advanced higher in Grove Academy in Dundee for a start. Regrettably none of the schools teach Latin or ancient Greek such as I studied in Harris Academy in Dundee 30 odd years ago.
All 3 subjects are still taught at Dundee High School. In fact my son will start Latin this year in first year as one of his language choices.
I'm genuinely surprised there are still any public schools teaching classics. At my (private) school Classics and Latin were on their last legs. Classics weren't taught for S grade or Higher and the Classics master (one of the two Latin teachers) ended up in pokey as he was a paedo.
Re. the Canadian election, it seems almost impossible for the Tories to hold onto their majority because there are 44 seats where their lead over the Liberals is less than 3,000 votes, and the Liberals have almost doubled their share of the vote in most opinion polls compared to the last election. They only need to lose 34 seats for their majority to disappear.
Re. the Canadian election, it seems almost impossible for the Tories to hold onto their majority because there are 44 seats where their lead over the Liberals is less than 3,000 votes, and the Liberals have almost doubled their share of the vote in most opinion polls compared to the last election. They only need to lose 34 seats for their majority to disappear.
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
No it says that challengers need 20% to get on the ballot. An incumbent is by definition not a challenger - and the NEC which controls the rulebook is dominated by Corbyn so irrelevant has beens like Mandelson don't matter.
It says that a challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a ballot and get on it. The incumbent then is no longer the incumbent as another leadership ballot has been forced which he needs 20% of MPs to nominate him to participate in. The NEC is not yet dominated by Corbynistas
So, just to understand, when Obama ran for re-election in 2012 he wasn't the incumbent, but just another candidate?
The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
AFAIK it doesn't say that.
When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.
No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
No it says that challengers need 20% to get on the ballot. An incumbent is by definition not a challenger - and the NEC which controls the rulebook is dominated by Corbyn so irrelevant has beens like Mandelson don't matter.
It says that a challenger needs 20% of MPs to force a ballot and get on it. The incumbent then is no longer the incumbent as another leadership ballot has been forced which he needs 20% of MPs to nominate him to participate in. The NEC is not yet dominated by Corbynistas
So, just to understand, when Obama ran for re-election in 2012 he wasn't the incumbent, but just another candidate?
He still had to go through exactly the same primary process yes, just virtually unopposed
The nomination stage to force a contest when there is no vacancy yes, once a contest has been forced it runs on the same lines as any other contest.
Says what rule?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Says what rule the leadership rules no longer apply either? The rules for the nomination stage to force a ballot if there is no vacancy are covered and only the challenger needs nominations then. Once a challenge succeeds then normal leadership rules apply ie MPs require 20% to get nominated on a ballot with the result determined by party members if more than one candidate is nominated for the ballot
Impossible as there are no "normal leadership rules" to apply.
For the nomination stage there are "there is no vacancy" rules and there are "there is a vacancy" rules. As there is no vacancy the only rules that apply are the "there is no vacancy" rules. There are no "normal" rules to apply.
If you think there are "normal" rules then quote them.
There are once a challenger has been nominated and forced a leadership contest, the normal rules are for any other leadership contest i.e. MPs to nominate candidates for members to vote on. The 'there is no vacancy' rules apply only to force a contest not to the contest itself.
That is simply not what it says. Besides the other nomination rules only apply if there is a vacancy, which there isn't. What you are suggesting is impossible.
The other rules apply once a challenger is nominated to start a contest
Comments
If you get 3/1 odds on 50:50 probabilities, you will end up ahead in the long run.
You are posting actively misleading information on several betting markets. Please desist.
Your opinions aren't facts.
Bit like when you kept on telling everyone the leaked Labour leadership poll was from team Corbyn.
It was from team Kendall.
PS how is the Scottish Labour surge under Corbyn doing ?
Of course, it's easy to back something at, say, 4 and then events play out and one realises it should've been 10...
Third behind the Tories is a possibility next May according to that YouGov
You thought it was an even money shot and the entire global betting market thought it less than 30% hmmm
But don't overvaluate the media in the US, especially on the primaries, there are a lot
of John Huntsmans out there.
I still remember the endorsement by the most popular South Carolina newspaper on the very same day he withdrew.
Your notion that there is no incumbent once a leadership vote opens is simply factually incorrect. Until a winner is announced the incumbent is always still the incumbent.
I never said anything about any leaked Labour leadership poll and on Corbyn I always said he would do best in London, as he has, and maybe Scotland. However it seems the main beneficiaries have been the Tories (albeit Yougov had Labour on 28% in Scotland in one poll which was a rise), the SNP are clearly not at the 60% they were polling in some polls in the summer
I've seen absolutely nothing in the Argentines play so far to suggest they can compete with Ireland. Much as I'd like it to be otherwise, it seems a nailed on victory for the Irish.
Corbyn is leader until he either resigns, declines to stand or is defeated by the same electorate that just overwhelmingly voted for him.
Since the SNP is the dominant left party Labour would only get votes as a party of protest by leftwingers and their aren't many of them in scotland yet, it could take years for them to be dissatisfied with the SNP.
In more recent times people are very unhappy with the Scottish Police Force and its botched integration. This has increased the awareness of the SNP's excessive centralising tendencies (eg the Care Commission) and bureaucratic tendencies, as has the silly ideas of all children having state guardians
Education is something of a mess, especially the college system which has been starved of funds to pay for middle class kids like my daughters to go to Universities without fees.
There has also been more awareness that the unreformed Scottish NHS is not as efficient as it might be and there has recently been a lot of publicity about the cancer drugs not available in Scotland because people like me don't have to pay prescriptions.
Don't get me wrong, the SNP remain totally dominant, SLAB remain totally dysfunctional and demoralised, the Lib Dems remain a corpse and the Tories remain...aspirational. A second majority looks pretty nailed on to me. Who will come second is perhaps more interesting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34561531
Colleges are not being starved of funds, they are being forced to stop making money from hobby and short hour courses and refocus on providing an alternative path to degree level qualifications. It is far too early to judge its success or failure. The Unitarian approach (call everything a Uni and send everyone to Uni) to Higher Education always seemed broken and I'm glad the SNP are trying to reverse this.
The Scottish Health Service delivers comparable results to the NHS in England despite much better control over budgets. This appears to be a result for the SNP, it's just a shame they feel the need to try and persuade people they're throwing money at it. They are not but delivering well - this should be their narrative.
I do have a question for you though.
Do you want Dundee Council to remain under SNP control or would you prefer it to return to SLAB?
I suspect I know the answer.
Has this been posted? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11938212/Jeremy-Corbyn-campaign-part-funded-by-Hamas.html
Besides, integration could have been handled differently by the other parties. A cack-handed integration in practice does not imply that all integration had to be cack-handed.
As for your last question I am lucky enough to live in Angus which at the moment has a fairly apolitical SNP council made up of the same sort of people who used to be apolitical tories. The people of Dundee, who have some of the worst educational providers in Scotland, have nothing from me but sympathy.
Between Scylla and Charybdis, as they don't teach in any of the Dundee schools.
Show the rule that says an incumbent requires nominations. If there is no rule, then there is no requirement.
Under the "if there is no vacancy" rules of the nomination stage challengers are required to get nominations. There is no rule incumbents must be nominated.
I would only add that if what is said in that report is true, there are various reports which ought to be made by the banks through which the monies passed to the relevant criminal and regulatory authorities under the Proceeds of Crime Act and the STR regime.
Where on earth has the decency in Labour gone?
Perhaps NXMP can adjudicate when he turns up if it means that much ?
The rules for the nomination stage are covered based on if there is no vacancy or if there is a vacancy. There is nothing in one section to say the other sections rules apply once someone is nominated.
Once the nomination stage is finished both rule sets combine into one for determining the result. But the nomination stage is over then.
Calling the Republican race is equally hard. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's hard to see how he loses, yet I simply can't see the American people electing him President. I find the appeal of Carson hard to figure, he seems so genuinely clueless about so many things. (Although I guess Obama won on the basis of being a blank slate, on to which people could project their desires.) Jeb Bush is rubbish. Kasich should be good but isn't. Christie is unacceptable to 90% of the Republican party. Carly crashed and burned when she ran in California, losing even safe parts of the state to the Democrats, and has a terrible record as a CEO. Which I guess makes Rubio the presumptive nominee... except that his immigration views are unacceptable to the GOP base, and he is utterly uninspiring.
I think the conclusion is clear... Michael Bloomberg is next President of the United States. (MBISNPOTUS).
All 3 subjects are still taught at Dundee High School. In fact my son will start Latin this year in first year as one of his language choices.
Why do I get the feeling that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg with stories about the Labour leadership, who they see as friends and what they have done and said in the past? There will be a lot held back for the election campaign if JC makes it that far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfkYfPNckIM
Even before Bush has a Rick Perry brain fart about forgetting the day which he "will never forget " the black guy down the corner is on "what the hell I'm I doing here" phase.
Jeb Bush makes George W. look like Einstein.
For me, it looks like Hillary, subject to intervention by the FBI. Or Rubio, who will probably find getting the nomination harder than the Presidential race itself.
For the nomination stage there are "there is no vacancy" rules and there are "there is a vacancy" rules. As there is no vacancy the only rules that apply are the "there is no vacancy" rules. There are no "normal" rules to apply.
If you think there are "normal" rules then quote them.
Trump has now ruled out an Indy run.
CON 42% (nc)
LAB 29 (-1)
LD 7 (nc)
UKIP 13 (nc)
Suitable to lead the country?
No f&&&&&& way
Does any history buff know when a Labour leader was last challenged?
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Hilary 8/11 to lay for the presidency might be worth a shout. She could walk the nomination then be completely undone before November.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/26920188/market?marketId=1.107373419