Angela Eagle has launched her leadership challenge against Jeremy Corbyn.
The plan is to keep Corbyn off the ballot. The rebels claim he needs to be nominated, his camp claims the leader does not need to be nominated.
2.Election of leader and deputy leaderA.The leader and deputy leader shall be elected separately in accordance with rule C below,unless rule E below applies.B.Nominationi.In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.ii.Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 percent of the Commons members of the PLP.Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
Those who wish to suggest that the rebels are correct, or that the law could easily be read either way, tend to quote only one part:
In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 percent of the Commons members of the PLP.
Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
This section later seems key to the “not on ballot” argument.
Valid nominations shall be printed in the final agenda for party conference, together with the names of the nominating organisations and Commons members ofthe PLP supporting the nominations. In the case of a vacancy under E below this information shall be included with the documentation circulated with any ballot.
This suggests that everyone must be nominated in order to go on the ballot.
The first section clearly implies that only challengers need nominations. The second section, however, speaks of nominees being printed.
I am given to understand that those who drafted the regulations say that the intent was for the leader to automatically be on the ballot.
In any case, it seems clear that this will go to the courts. I am not sanguine, but we shall see.
I would suspect, if Corbyn is not on the ballot, that we may see some very bitter battles as members attempt to de-select and re-select MPs. There is also a real chance of the party splitting (as there is if Corbyn is on the ballot). The Conservative party will do very well out of this, but clearly it is most important to rebel MPs to keep the party as a neo-conservative party, not to oppose the Conservative party. (As it happens, I think they’re right. The Conservatives will do mostly what they would do, just somewhat more of it.)
The game continues.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
UKJim
“we may see some very bitter battles at the riding level”.
Here in the UK we’d say “at the constituency level”.
We may still get the re-alignment of UK politics, though, with a centre-right, pro-Europe, neo-liberal” party forming from the “remain”-er Tories and the neo-liberal (“Blairite”) wing of the Labour party, leaving a UKIP/right-wing Tory party on one side and a Corbynite left-wing party. (Though, unfortunately, that side hasn’t explicitly stated that they want to throw out the neo-liberal economics).
The neo-liberal remainers supposedly discovered when campaigning together for remain that they are all the same… (apparently they’d failed to notice before!)
Stirling Newberry
The Times of London thinks that the rebels missed their opportunity – and that the leader is always on the ballot. While they may be wrong, they do have an insight as to how conservative judges rule.
Kfish
Apparently British Labour, like the Australian Labour Party and the US Democrats, would rather lose from the right than win from the left.
Zac
Do you think Corbyn could get 20% of Commons MPs to back his nomination anyways? Seems like a low threshold for even an unpopular leader to clear. There must be other MPs who are more anti-Blairite or are smart enough to see where the winds are blowing, their loyalty would stand to pay off big in this case…
Zac
“Apparently British Labour, like the Australian Labour Party and the US Democrats, would rather lose from the right than win from the left.”
In fact, Tony Blair himself stated as much, explicitly. I was shocked to read it. It’s clearly the case, but still, you never put it out in the open like that. Not sure what to make of it – it seems desperate, like they know they are losing ground and relevance fast.
Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-he-wouldn-t-want-a-left-wing-labour-party-to-win-an-election-10406928.html
EverythingsJake
The arcana will play out. Meanwhile, it is a leadership challenge, and at that level, reason dictates that Corbyn should be on the ballot. The bastards are also trying to figure out how to keep keep recently added Corbyn supporters from having a vote.
Some Guy
The intent seems clear – leader should automatically be on the ballot – otherwise why refer to rules for ‘challengers’ when there is no vacancy, but that doesn’t always count for much, I suppose.
A lot of veils have been torn away lately, I guess time will tell if they can be put back.
Mike
I’d have thought the intent was obvious, rule 2Bii seems pretty clear, ‘nominations may be sought by potential challengers’. Corbyn isn’t a challenger. But yes, the real game is the Blairites fear losing their gravy train and would rather spend their energies trying to hold on to that than actually oppose the Government.
Blissex
«leader should automatically be on the ballot – otherwise why refer to rules for ‘challengers’ when there is no vacancy,»
The text provides for two different election types:
#1 An open field election if there is no leader, where the minimum support is 12.5% for *everybody*.
#2 A no-confidence challenge where every *challenger* must have a minimum support of 20%.
Obviously the purpose of #2 is to discourage *challenges*, by imposing a high support requirement on the challengers, not the leader.