we're talking about a future election and what would happen- what information would be gained- should people vote a certain way
But it wasn't "just because they don't like them", was it? It was because of insurrection. And the constitution very much does speak on that.
....i never said that. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.
Well, not quite: you're the one who started talking about the value of messages and information in an election defeat.
Specifically about Keith losing.
Which would also be specifically about Keith losing. The utter collapse of Blairite "Labour" would be novel.
As would the utter collapse of the Conservatives. And they're a great deal closer to that eventuality than Labour right now.
Then states would be defining what an insurrection is and they can't do that.
Well no, they wouldn't need to define it. They could just use the definition.
Are they, though?
My oversimplification! Your reading of this has been utterly surface-level, displaying that peculiar and arrogant Americentrism that leads commentators to expound confidently on every other country's politics without ever bothering to look much into them. You don't actually have any real understanding of where British political discourse is, and are just insisting that it must be in such a place as to reinforce what you already want to do.
www.hepworthlegal.com
www.regulations.gov
I'm really disliking how some people are pretending that insurrection or rebellion is somehow a new word recently made up that has not had any case work associated with itThe Legal Definitions of “Insurrection” and “Rebellion” and Their Historical Context in the United States - Hepworth Legal | Attorneys at Law
The Legal Definitions of “Insurrection” and “Rebellion” and Their Historical Context in the United States Understanding Insurrection and Rebellion In the fabric of American history, terms like “insurrection” and “rebellion” carry profound legal and historical weight. They are not merely synonyms...
To be fair, the primary example they have to point to is the Civil War which is not the same general category of what happened as Jan 6. As far as being disqualified by section 3, every case of it happening so far has either been a public official of the Confederacy or someone criminally convicted of a relevant crime (including one case of someone convicted regarding Jan 6).
Rrright, but I've given much more detail than you. The closest you got was to vaguely point to turnout and smaller party voteshare, which you promptly stopped talking about after you were given the numbers.
Irrelevant detail is your forte. "But these past elections don't support the novelty of something different happening in a future election"
One wonders why you brought up those factors, then, if you were just going to insist they're irrelevant. Anyway, digress.
What is irrelevant is that you are talking about past elections. And I am talking about a possible scenario in the future. Those factors are all relevant data when interpreting an election-- whether you're just some guy or a Labour functionary. I didn't say "look at these past results, there lies the strength of my argument", I said (paraphrasing) "you're interpreting the possible results of a future election in which Keith loses with just one single measurement and idea when there are many more to be considered".
The possibility of Keith losing because the left rebels from the extortion and backs another party instead of continuing an abusive relationship with Tories painted red. It would probably take some organizing. Novel things often do. And you're literally calling it a novel scenario, why would it be confined to extensions of existing trends, especially ones measured in past elections? There are factors militating in that direction, of course, but also naturally against. In the 'for' column there is the fact that, despite your characterization of Keith's manifesto, there are plenty of reasons for the left to despise him and for others to recognize that they have cause, or indeed that they should join in despising him and Conservative "Labour".
