POLITICS CORNER

[PanBiker]

Aye, it's a poor do when you have to resort to a court case to interpret your own constitution. Shows to what depths some will seek to stay in power.

The court ruled on common sense, if right is right the NEC appeal should fail and they had better get on with issuing the extra 120,000 ballot papers to the members of their own party that the current NEC disenfranchised.

[Stanley]

The3 only thing that has grabbed me this morning is Trump appearing to incite the NRA to 'do something about Hilary Clinton'.... And they all thought he was getting more statesmanlike.... The man is a bad joke.

[Pluggy]

Whats more worrying is that a substantial part of the population of the US is prepared to support him. Let him get in and use it as an excuse to divorce ourselves from a nation with clueless foreign policy is what I say. We've followed them into too many wars of their own making.

[Tizer]

Senior Republicans are now getting very worried - many of them hate Trump as much as they hate the Democrats and they see him as destroying their Party. The CIA, FBI and the military are also on tenterhooks; it's the `finger on the nuclear button' that's bugging them, combined with Trump's love of Putin. An interesting division shown by the polls is that the majority of American men want Trump while the majority of American women want Clinton. Another is that nearly 100% of American blacks say they'll vote for Clinton, not Trump.

[Stanley]

You're right Tiz and we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. November will tell us how much common sense there is in the US.

[PanBiker]

The current NEC of the Labour Party are going to the High Court today to appeal the earlier decision to allow all members of the party a vote in the leadership election. Shame on them, a second go at disenfranchising their own members. Their days are numbered anyway, all the socialist slate in the recent NEC elections was duly elected so should bring justice, fairness and proper procedure back to the party when they take up post. This make up for the new NEC was voted on by party members so is an early indicator of the general memberships leanings

[Tizer]

I listened to Vince Cable interviewed on the Radio 4 `Reflections' programme and was interested to hear how he had wanted to work with John Smith. That could have been a good combination. Perhaps some of the Labour and LibDems people should be getting together now to form a new party. Reflections

[PanBiker]

I think they already tried that some time ago, it didn't work. The membership know that the party is crying out for a return to basic socialist principles. The "try to look and act like a Tory" experiment is over and has failed. It's time the PLP recognised this and got on with supporting their leader and the will of the membership. Some will have a lot of soul searching to do when Corbyn is re-elected.

[Tizer]

I read an article last week that claimed our present political parties are no longer fit for purpose and we need to start anew, but that if we're not careful events are probably going to do it for us. If we don't grasp the nettle and update the spectrum of parties to suit the needs of the 21st century British population then we might end up with a new structure that's even worse than what we have now. In the Reflections programme Vince Cable said how it distressed him to see the tribal loyalties of politicians getting in the way of running the country - it's far better to work together than forever fighting each other. He hates the `playground' behaviour in Parliament. He found that the coalition worked well `as long as you got them to leave their guns at the door'.

[Tripps]

Shocking report from Professor Alexis Jay into Rotherham Council.
The Leader has just resigned within minutes of the report being published. That's unusual.
I wonder if she's available to replace Mrs 'Justice' Butler Sloss.
She has just demonstrated her suitability to do so. It's been a long wait for replacement to be announced.

Is that really two years ago? Now she has been appointed to chair the enquiry.

[Stanley]

David, I made the same comment at the time but I think she frightened certain people too much. Well done May for appointing her now and I wish her the best of luck. She has a touch of the Margaret Hodge about her.....
I think Ian is right and that whatever the outcome of the High Court case today, the Tory Labour Party is finished. (Wonderful how Chilcot was submerged in Brexit..... ) I've been banging on about Old Tory DNA for years, the most obvious example of Vince Cable's 'tribal loyalties' but I would add that another major component of failure is the new breed of self serving politicians who measure everything against their continuance in office. The Parliamentary Labour Party is suffering from the same vice at the moment. The current problems are a straight fight between MPs trying to maintain power and control against a membership baying for change and a return to social democratic policies.
It's interesting to note that in the US presidential election Hillary Clinton isn't saying much at the moment. She doesn't need to. Trump has hit the classic dilemma of the maverick politician, he has to decide whether to continue to pursue the lowest common denominator or modify his appeal to court the Republican Party. From the poll ratings he is failing in both cases. There is open revolt in the Party against him and it will get worse before November.... Good!

[Tripps]

"She has a touch of the Margaret Hodge about her....."

Really? - I do hope not. Try this for openers, then look into what happened in Islington in the field of child protection. It's a shame Private Eye isn't 'googleable'

Margaret Hodge

[Bruff]

The current electoral system works against any re-alignment of parties. A proportional system would go a long way to scrapping the tensions in each of the main two, not least as there’d be no need for the shotgun marriage that charactersises the Tories and Labour and has done for a while now. Labour is a broad church of left, centre-left and centre. The Tories a similarly broad church of right, centre-right and centre. Ken Clarke and Michael Hesletine have more in common with Ben Bradshaw and Dan Jarvis than they do with Chris Graying and Jeremy Corbyn respectively. So the main parties, Labour in particular, spend an extraordinary amount of time scrapping with each other.

A proportional system would deliver electoral success to the left and to the right and all points in between. And that all votes would count could conceivably see people less relying on a protest or tactical vote and more following their true beliefs. If we had a proportional system it is arguable we would never have had that blessed referendum. Cameron would not have assuage the headbangers in his party as they’d be bangining their heads in another. Labout would not be in its current contortions as Corbyn could be building his social movement to raise awareness about issues elsewhere (or he’d be ‘Labour’ and the rest would be elsewhere if you like; same with the Tories).

This might even mean we get a communist in the Commons! And a fascist. I used to doubt the latter, but maybe not so much now. Yorkshire’s where I’d tip one springing from.

Richard Broughton

[chinatyke]

This might even mean we get a communist in the Commons!
Richard Broughton

Lots of them here, Richard. No bickering at government meetings, they just agree and get on with the party line. Personally I think it is great and streets ahead of the buffoons in the House of Commons.

[PanBiker]

So, the court of appeal has overturned the decision by the High Court to allow all members the vote in the leadership election. The second time I have been disenfranchised by this current NEC. The only good news is that they are to be replaced.

Appeal Ruling

[PanBiker]

Interesting to note this in the Guardian:

"However, McNicol’s evidence at the court of appeal made it clear Labour was concerned about a subversion of the voting process, with members joining with the sole purpose of voting in the election rather than participating in the party more widely."

What about the "supporters" who were signed up for £25, they are not members of the party and the sole purpose of their payment is to vote in the leadership election. If there ever was an opportunity for subversion of the vote it is this.

For the record let's be clear about how the NEC has operated in this matter. The resolution to exclude fully paid up members was introduced and voted on by the NEC at a Special Meeting and was a non agenda item added after the main business of the meeting had been dealt with (whether or not Corbyn would be on the ballot).

Now anyone that knows anything at all about committee procedure will know that you cannot introduce extra items to the business of a Special Meeting. So the decision that the ruling is based on is unconstitutional and therefore illegal to start with. Any arguments to the contrary should be irrelevant. The current NEC is making the rules up as they see fit (and won in the court) on an argument based on double standards.

The sooner this NEC is consigned to history the better, it's shameful that they have brought the party to this level.

[Stanley]

What good posts.... Yes David, I know about Margaret Hodges past but was thinking mainly about her performance as a chair person of committee.
I agree with Ian, I was momentarily disappointed yesterday but I have a feeling that getting on with the vote will sort the matter out. Cheaper as well....

[Tripps]

I just heard the BBC radio headline yesterday on this decision. Words to the effect that ' the Judge said that the rules for the leadership election were a matter for the Labour Party NEC, and not him.' That seems reasonable to me. The remedy for those that don't like the result is surely to change the NEC by democratic means. This seems to have already begun to happen.

[Tizer]

This article looks at ways of dumping Trump and what the alternatives might be...
`Can Republicans really dump Trump?' LINK

[PanBiker]

I just heard the BBC radio headline yesterday on this decision. Words to the effect that ' the Judge said that the rules for the leadership election were a matter for the Labour Party NEC, and not him.' That seems reasonable to me. The remedy for those that don't like the result is surely to change the NEC by democratic means. This seems to have already begun to happen.

Indeed Tripps, however the decision to disenfranchise the members was made illegally at the Special Meeting to decide if Corbyn would be on the ballot. The NEC lost that vote so introduced their plan B as a non agenda item. Constitutionally the decision should not stand. The NEC argued on the point that they should be able to set the rules which is always the case but not when it is done illegally.

[Tripps]

"The NEC argued on the point that they should be able to set the rules which is always the case but not when it is done illegally."

I am assuming the three appeal court judges were aware of that.

I'll stop here. I'm not a lawyer, and It's making my head hurt. I often muse that in law (as well as planning), they start with the desired outcome, and work their way backwards to find a justification. I note that before this appeal, Jeremy was at odds of 1-12 to be re elected, and now he is 1-16, so it seems that the pro Corbynites are virtually home and weighed in. The potential extra voters were thought to improve his chances (I think ?), so it looks as if he'll manage without them. It will all soon be forgotten.

I must say I was concerned a while ago, that Jeremy might not stand the pressure of his situation - however on the contrary he looks very well at the moment, and he's smartened himself up a bit. Seems to be thriving on it.

Thank goodness I'm not passionate about politics.

[Stanley]

David, whether you are a lawyer or not, I'm sure you would be annoyed if retrospective legislation changed the rules of a contract you thought you had entered into. Even Parliament can't do that!
I saw a headline on our own Tory MP's weekly piece in the BET. 'The whole country is glued to the TV watching the Olympics'..... Really? That's the trouble with some MPs, they actually believe statements like that. Or are they just making an easy assumption tp bolster their position. Life isn't as simple as that.

[Tizer]

For all the claims of the economy doing well The Times this morning reports that short sellers in the City are increasing their bets on there being a collapse in the value of big name British companies. At the same time it reports that the housing crisis is getting worse because Britain's planning system is in gridlock with a quarter of a million applications being processed late since 2010.

Well blow me down, I've just seen another, local to me, version of this incompetence. In Weston-super-Mare the council has recently built beach huts on the promenade regardless of locals complaining that it would make the prom too narrow. But they've made it even worse - instead of putting the huts at the back of the prom they're sited centrally. This means walkers and cyclists on the prom hardly have space to pass by each other. It's about two persons wide now. As Victor Meldrew would say, "I just don't believe it!"

[Stanley]

Never ever underestimate the capacity of officialdom to produce a cock-up!
I look at the advertisements on TV for lenders at 1300%APR and reflect that in a healthy economy these sharks wouldn't have a market. Writing the articles (five now) on Council Housing has made me even more certain we aren't fit to run a national economy.....
Donald Trump has modified his racist rhetoric, he's no longer attacking Muslims in public but saying that all immigrants will be subject to 'extreme idealogical vetting'. There is general derision about this change of tactics.... seen as an effort by his team to tame his rhetoric down.

[Tizer]

This is coming towards us like an asteroid from outer space but few people seem to be taking notice. Note that the `lower bond yields' are a result of the Bank of England's quantitative easing. Unintended consequences?

`FTSE 100 firms' pension deficit soars, says LCP' LINK
"The combined pension funds deficit for companies in the FTSE 100 has seen huge increases in the past year, according to pensions expert LCP. LCP, in its annual report on the pensions market, said that by the end of July, the deficit was an estimated £46bn, as against £25bn a year earlier. And this month, the deficit has widened further to £63bn, LCP told the BBC. The position has deteriorated because of lower bond yields, with a sharp fall after the UK's vote to leave the EU. But sterling's fall after the Brexit result has partly offset this effect, LCP said."