Angela Eagle and the Labour coup just got some very, very bad news

Avatar

The Labour party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) is meeting on Tuesday to decide whether Jeremy Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot paper in the upcoming leadership election. Legal advice obtained by the trade union Unite states Corbyn should be a contender by default, but Labour’s General Secretary is reported to have opposing advice.

Nonetheless, there is a vital detail that shows the 2016 rules clearly state Corbyn should be on the ballot.

Here is the passage in dispute:

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 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

It is the leadership hopefuls or “potential challengers” who must seek nominations, not the present Labour leader. Referring to the nominations as “challengers” implies that the current leader must be on the ballot, or he cannot be challenged.

Within this clause, nominations are defined as “challengers” – not ‘contenders’ or ‘candidates’. While the present leader is the one being challenged, having already been nominated and won a previous election. Therefore, Corbyn is not included when the passage states “any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP”.

Whereas if there is no sitting leader, the rules are as follows:

i. In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 15 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

When there is a vacancy, nominations are not defined as “challengers”. Every contender in the election must get the required amount of support from Labour politicians.

But, in Corbyn’s case, there is no vacancy, so only the challenging nominations must get enough backing from politicians. The very act of mounting a challenge does not create a vacancy. As barrister and former government lawyer Carl Gardner writes:

If the mere fact of a challenge in itself created a vacancy, then you’d have the bizarre situation where Angela Eagle began needing 20% but then suddenly needed only 15% instead, under clause II(2)(B)(i), either the moment she announced her challenge or when she’d already got 20%. There would never be a “no vacancy” situation and clauseII(2)(B)(ii) would have no meaning. This is obviously wrong.

There would be no need for a ‘no vacancy’ rule if the mere act of challenging the leader created a vacancy.

The rules rightfully respect the democratic mandate of the sitting Labour leader – this mandate must be overcome in an election if the leadership is to change. Whether or not they regret it now, the MPs who originally nominated Corbyn for leader handed the decision to the membership. Accordingly, the rules clearly state that the choice of whether he stays remains with the membership.

WATCH: This embarrassing video is cracking everyone up, except the Labour coup and Angela Eagle

Get involved!

For Canary readers who are current or potential Labour supporters, you can sign this petition to back Jeremy Corbyn (if you haven’t already).

Momentum has also called on Labour supporters and members to:

Contact their MPs to express their support.
Thank their unions for continuing to back Corbyn.
Express themselves on Facebook and Twitter using the hashtags ‪#OurPartyOurLeader‬ and ‪#KeepCorbyn‬.
Join its group and the Labour party to make their voices heard

Featured image via Labour website.

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed