Not a huge fan of Kettle. I don't really get the love in for Burnham. As Mayor he may have been OK but his actions as an MP were very different. People can change but equally people can blow with the wind for careerist purposes. theguardian.com/commentisfree/… This piece is not technically correct on the Labour Rules. r.4.II.2.B.iii requires for leadership that '...All nominees must be Commons members of the PLP...'. however r.4.II.1.A states these rules '...provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC,..'.>

A question for those interested in Human Rights law. It is accepted that private associations can restrict membership but in utilising disciplinary proceedings to remove members on the basis of their association with other organisations does that amount to a breach of ECHR Art 11 (ASLEF) v. United Kingdom(2007) seems to suggest that members cannot be removed even where a claim is made that their alternate membership is of an association advocating incompatible views. This was to an extent codified in the Equality Act 2010 in response to the ECtHR ruling

@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland It is absurd. 2.I.8 states 'No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party.' The conduct in this instance is the circulation of the resignation letter @glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland The creation of the content of the letter is the conduct of the Chair who resigned. The letter was circulated only to members. Gross means 'very obvious and unacceptable', detriment means 'the state of being harmed or damaged'. Exactly how did the circulation of the letter by>

18th Feb in approx. 15 mins. That is the date Jeremy is due to have the Whip restored. My understanding of the PLP Standing Orders is that under the Code of Conduct a member has the Whip suspended for a fixed period at the discretion of the Chief Whip. Once that period > expires only the Parliamentary Committee of the PLP has the discretionary authority to extend the suspension period. If they do not extend it then it would automatically end by operation of the PLP rules. So unless the Parliamentary Committee meets on Thursday and votes by >

As far as the allegations made against a leading Cllr go I have no knowledge of the events or the evidence so I cannot make any judgement about the veracity of any claims. My assumption in relation to those accused is that they are innocent until proven guilty. > The Labour disciplinary system should make the same assumption and treat people as such. Effective automatic suspension is unnecessary and should only be used when exigent circumstances effectively exist. In a matter as serious as sexual assault allegations it is quite frankly>

@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist The NEC and therefore the GS has no authority in the rules to dictate what is 'competent business' for a CLP to discuss. The only authority is in Chap 1, VIII, 3.E-"The NEC shall from time to time, issue guidance and instructions on the conduct of meetings..." CONDUCT not CONTENT @terryfuck45 @DurstApologist Conduct is a noun meaning 'the manner in which an activity is managed or directed.' That is not the same as the content or subject the meeting deals with. The NEC can issue guidance on how a meeting can be run/organised but not dictate what motions are competent business.

It is very annoying the way assumptions are made about supporting Corbyn. I supported him in 2015/2016. That does not mean I unequivocally agree with every decision or action he took or even with his views on every issue. I am an adult I can support someone but have differences. I backed Remain and disagreed on Brexit, I am a Unionist and disagree on a UI. I think getting sucked into the 2019 GE was monumentally daft. I was unimpressed by many of his support staff. He was poor on Party reform and disciplinary issues. >

Can anyone clarify the defendants in the Labour Party action? The listing said Evans as a representative of the Labour Party. This seems wrong. A member of an unincorporated association cannot be owed a duty of care in Tort by the other members. > As all members are equally liable for a Tortious act, even if vicarious, a claiming member are themselves jointly liable for the Tort. You cannot owe a duty of care in Tort to yourself. Harrison v West of Scotland Kart Club 2004 SC 615. A claim in libel as a representative action

I do wonder about the assumption the Blairite/Right faction in Labour are super competent. 2019 was a disaster. It was bad and predictably so. In % vote terms 2010 was worse, so was 1983. 1997 was good but not actually as good as all of 1945-1970. An upswing had begun under John Smith in 1992 and the Blairite playbook had a short term effect 94-97 to reach a Labour vote modern high point in 1997. Post 1997 it was a strong downwards slope to a 2010 result that was close to the worst since 1931.

This may seem a bit contrary but I don't agree that the various senior Labour staff implicated by the leaked report should be suspended. That doesn't mean they should not be investigated, possibly charged with rule breaches and sanctioned by the NCC (including expulsion). Suspension during investigation of allegations is only legally justified as an administrative procedure to prevent ongoing harm. It is not a punishment and cannot be used as such. Unless the accused members are in positions where they can do ongoing harm, unless suspended, >

Just to be a bit pedantic. I am all in favour of a full comprehensive and unrestricted investigation into the leaked Labour report. However if this is going to be independent then it will have a significant cost. Who has given approval for such expenditure? > The Party leader is not a monarch. They cannot order an investigation. They can request it and the decision is legally for the NEC. Under the rules it can be delegated but does any delegated authority cover the sort of significant expenditure this may involve? >

The whole notion of 'nudge' being enough to change behaviour is daft. I was a soldier in Belfast. At times when on bomb cordons people tried to go past me. They moaned it would take 10 mins longer to go the longer way round. The risk to them was a bomb. Even with a very obvious direct threat they could comprehend they still preferred saving time to not walking past a bomb. My response was to ask for ID and next of kin and point out I needed it because if they were blown up there might not be enough pieces of them left to ID.

Interesting. This is the kind of big thinking I want to see. Keir Starmer: only a federal UK 'can repair shattered trust in politics' theguardian.com/politics/2020/… On its own it won't bring me to support Starmer but so far I have found the discussion between contenders shallow and vacuous. A caveat if by Federal it means a few new powers for the Scot/Welsh/NI Parl that won't cut it. Federal means a re-balancing of relationships and power.>

I am very aware this is a Labour shibboleth but in my view canvassing and campaigning have very little to no effect on voting in most constituencies. The empirical data suggests that canvassing, leafleting, phone canvassing all have an effect that is statistically insignificant. There are older studies that show up to a 6% turnout increase with canvassing but these have not been reproduced in any newer studies I am aware of. A caveat, a lot of these studies are from the USA the UK may behave differently.

None of the runners for the Labour leadership have enthused me so far. Cooper and Philips repulse me and if they win I will be resigning my membership. Otherwise it is a matter of trying to be open minded and listening to the content of the ideas put forward. I dislike Nandy's suggestion about moving HQ. It is tokenism. Yes there is a problem with the metropolitan bubble but London is now the keystone of Labour support. 46 seats nearly a 1/4 of the PLP represent London. Thumbing your nose at that seems a bit self harming to me.

After last night just going out to get utterly shit faced. Can't think of much else to do. Then I will decide if I will give up and walk away. My instinct is to fight on. We have an evil government that will cause suffering and death. Can I in good conscience turn my back? It would repudiate all my life has stood for. I think I need to push harder not back off.

I want to be cautious about pointing fingers at individuals but it has to be said that in my view the left in Labour have a problem with a serious lack of professionalism and competence. In part I believe that stems from an obsession with peoples provenance over their competence I understand why a tendency to paranoia and suspicion leads to a desire to have sure thing loyalists in your team but it is coming at the expense of talent and competence. This is a cultural trait that needs to be let go of. Find the very best people and brains and utilize them.

There is no point whining because LD or Lab got more than the Tory majority. Tactical voting never moves the whole vote. If you do well it is normally at best 1/3. This time it looks higher in some places but still not all of it. If you want to be sure of an anti Tory vote then make deals and don't run e.g. SF in S.Belfast to give the SDLP a clean run. Labour needs to think much harder about building anti Tory coalitions instead of always throwing the dice for all or nothing.

I thought I might throw out a hostage to fortune and give a guesstimate of NI seats on Thursday:
N.Belfast=SF
S.Belfast=SDLP
E.Belfast=APNI
W.Belfast=SF
N.Down=APNI
S.Antrim=UUP
E.Antrim=DUP
N.Antrim=DUP(holiday club)
Strangford=DUP
S.Down=SF
Lagan Valley=DUP(miniature version) Upper Bann=DUP
Newry & Armagh=SF
East Londonderry=DUP
Fermanagh & South Tyrone=SF
Foyle=SF
Mid Ulster=SF
West Tyrone=SF

Totals= 8xSF, 6xDUP, 2xAPNI, 1xSDLP, 1xUUP

Caught part of Radio 4 world at one. Evan Davie's totaled an imaginary spend for Labour of £186bn then divided it by the top 5% of taxpayers to get an average figure of £133,000 extra tax each.> In what universe is tax distribution a flat average? Completely misleading representation of the impact of higher taxes on the top 5%. Davies has a PPE from Oxford, an MPA from Harvard and worked for the IFS. He understands the difference. This is just abject BBC anti Labour bias

I am aware that the dickats say don't mention 'the Brexit' but why are the MSM studiously ignoring the fact that the likelihood of a no deal on the 31st Jan is quite high? The withdrawal agreement (sic) was never approved by Parliament per the S.13 meaningful vote. If after the 13th Dec BJ has a 50+ majority then why would he bother to get a meaningful vote? No vote = no withdrawal agreement = crash out of the EU on 31st Jan 2020.