SpinningHugo wrote:
Who is the 'they'? Watson? Eagle? Smith?
What is the evidence for this longterm conspiracy by the 172 members of the PLP?
As for Benn, that really depends on your view of intervening in Syria, which is another big and difficult question. I didn't approve of the Iraq War (because it was unlawful) but did approve of intervening in Syria (where it was lawful).
if interested in legality
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015 ... -in-syria/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Times, November 28th 2015-
"Senior Labour figures and MPs have sought legal advice on how to unseat Jeremy Corbyn in the hope of building support for a plot against him… rebels, including some of the party’s most prominent MPs, have been told by lawyers that in the event of a leadership challenge Mr Corbyn could be removed and denied a place on the ballot paper by MPs"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 626500.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As for your tedious "legal" blogging, it at one and the same time states the bleeding obvious, presents statements that a point is "arguable" without providing a single argument to demonstrate in what way, hand-waves aside a very serious constitutional question in the hope no-one will notice and ends by leaping to an unsupported conclusion that fits your wishes. By baldly asserting that it doesn't share the legal difficulties of what you yourself a few paragraphs before described as a sticky legal problem.
But it does share exactly that problem. In spades.
And no, I'm not inclined to discuss it any further. Or anything else other than to from tome to time point out your rather sad whataboutery, egotism, self-promotion and concern-trolling for what it is.
Attempting clever spinning really isn't your strong point Hugo. Perhaps you should try knitting instead.
I'm getting tired of calming down....