Could Labour 'split'. Tom Watson calls off talks.

Yes Corbyn did support an attempted coup against Kinnock Nandalot, it was following the 1983 election, Kinnock was chosen leader and knew he had to fight the militant wing which wanted to take over the party - remember his party conference speech which involved Hatton and Co? He increased labours seats at the following two elections, the Sun and Mail attacked him the whole time he was leader,

If Corbyn isn't on the ballot paper he is going to take his own party to court, he has his legal team at the ready and no worries about costs

Disgruntled you say 'how do we get rid of the Murdoch Press and those appalling tv shows'... we don't! We live in a democracy and a free and open society [thank God.]
Bluecat you say 'Socialist beliefs are never very welcome in the corridors of power' [in the UK]... yes, true, but they are not very welcomed in society as a whole either.

There are levels in socialism as there are in capitalism .

the kind of socialism that was already in the Labour Party [before Corbyn] was fine by most people, but the UK doesn't [on the whole] like extremes of any kind.
Also, people who are traditional Labour voters are more aspirational than they were years ago.

if Corbyn takes his case to court, surely it will be judged that the Labour Party itself should have the final say on the rules?What do others think?

I disagree that labour voters are more aspirational - I so dislike that word - now than years ago.

As to the courts rulings , God knows

For aspirational read "wanting to get on in life" Honestly! You would think the word had only recently been invented. People since time began wanted more than they had, we wouldn't have the wheel otherwise!

I have no problem with Labour people being aspirational. There are as many brains out there with Labour voters as there are elsewhere and they have a right to become doctors, engineers, lawyers etc and have the power to change things. What I do dislike are those who, having moved from what would in the old days been termed 'their station in life', actually forget from whence they came and pull up the drawbridge behind them. I am a firm believer that your roots are very important to your overall wellbeing and denying them can leave people feeling very disassociated from society.

As to the legality of the Corbyn challenge - no leader has a right to remain there for life. I leave aside the hereditary monarchy for the sake of this argument.
The rules state that a challenger must have the requisite number of backers to launch the challenge. It then goes on to say that all nominations must also get that to be considered. I assume Corbyn will be nominated to continue as leader. I will follow any court case with great interest.
I can see why a substantial number of his MPs are unhappy after Angela Eagle's comment that he sits behind closed doors and they cannot get access to him. I taught in schools with Headteachers like that - first sign of real trouble they retreated to their office and firmly closed the door. To lead you need to engage with people and have robust discussions with them regardless of different points of view.

Exactly Devorgilla, for me being a socialist means I want better for all not for self .

Angela Eagle was criticised on this forum for saying her mother was a seamstress, her father a print worker, she went to a good comp then to university and she wanted this opportunity for all, - this is socialism in my opinion.

Angela had a brick through her window yesterday after she announced she was challenging Corbyn for leadership

Not only Angela has spoken of Corbyn sitting behind closed doors, several MP's have said the same . His aids also said they were protecting him so seems the MP's were not lying

Can anyone explain why it's right for Corbyn to meet with Hamas and say we must sit down , listen and talk yet refuse to talk to his own party MP's . I supported him talking to Hamas and the IRA, but avoiding his own MP's ?

'Angela had a brick through her window yesterday after she announced she was challenging Corbyn for leadership'
that's terrible. I can't help but feel there are dark forces at work here. This isn't the Labour Party that I used to know and love.

I hadn't heard about the brick but it does not surprise me. I know people who have experience of certain 'boorish' elements in the Party at first hand. And that's stating it mildly.
What do you think is likely to happen if there is a split and the Centre Left party attracts enough funding to make it run as a real alternative? Will the Unions stay with Corbyn and a much reduced Labour cohort in HofC with no real bite or go to where the power is?

I agree with rosesarered.
I think it happened when or since a lot more young people go to university.
It has caused more aspirations and more social divisions in some ways.

Perhaps JC feels more comfortable with Hamas and the IRA if there is a lot they agree on. His PLP MPs are likely to engage in robust debate if they disagree with him and perhaps that is what he is not comfortable dealing with. That is why I think we need a change. The leader is not there to impose his/her view without debate or challenge. I really would like to see him in a proper policy debate with other people who really know their stuff. That for me would go a long way to establishing whether he is a credible leader or not.

People have always wanted to improve their lives obieone

I criticised Angela Eagle for concentrating on her origins and background rather than giving any indication of policies. I don't give a f* where people came from or what their parents did. I do care when people use their background to say they are a better socialist because of it. Socialism has never been solely a working class movement. Regarding Angela Eagle claiming Corbyn sits behind closed doors, he has consistently been filmed saying he will talk to anyone and I personally would prefer to believe someone who hasn't been plotting in some very dodgy meetings behind closed doors. She is now doing the "Labour needs a woman leader" thing. If you haven't any idea about what policies you would introduce because you haven't asked the people who are pushing you yet I suppose you have to say something. Of course there shouldn't be things like bricks through windows.

My understanding is that the rules state:

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference."

There is no vacancy and Corbyn is not a "potential challenger" - Angela Eagle and anyone else who stands against him are the challengers.

Do we know who threw a brick through Angela Eagle's window? Are we to automatically assume it is a Corbyn supporter? Even if such a person does see him/herself as a supporter, should Corbyn and all his supporters be tarnished by this criminal act? If so, everyone concerned with animal rights should be held responsible for people who attack and threaten scientists, everyone who has concerns about immigration should be held responsible for attacks on immigrants, everyone who campaigns against abortion should be held responsible for people who murder doctors, etc.

Devorgilla, I voted and canvassed for Corbyn , I agreed with much , I was cross when he became leader and some turned away from him. I have changed my views on him, his campaigning during the referendum , not willing to share a platform with Cameron yet willing to share a platform with Hamas , one tv debate but on his own and with a young audience. Travelled the country? What use speaking in towns, this does not reach the country . The power of momentum is frightening . When he failed to speak out at the televised meeting to announce the findings of anti semitism and a heckler verbally attacked a young female MP , his excuse was - I wasn't the chairman , his public addressing of meetings arranged by momentum. MacDonald speaking for him to reporters. Any wonder his shadow cabinet resigned, if I just a party member had lost faith in him how much more for his own cabinet , yet they are dismissed as blairites , this is a lie . He is not putting the party first ,he wants to return the party to the far left, labour will never win an election if he does, even momentum cannot get all voters to join them . I want a labour government so the vulnerable can be supported , this cannot be done from the position benches

Now Corbyn 's office has been attacked . Why doesn't he stand down, can he not put the party first , he is destroying the party , the majority of labour MP's do not want to move to the far left . Start his own momentum far left party,

trisher, she did not say she was a better socialist , she explained why she was a socialist , big difference

Remember John Mortimer ? A socialist who was wealthy, accused of being a champagne socialist , his reply was - yes I like champagne and I want it for all not the few

But no policies Anniebach. And why bother with her background? Unless of course it is to try and say she is more working class than Corbyn and by implication therefore a better socialist. Politicians don't always say what they mean, you know you have to read between the lines.

Policies are not given on a pavement when one is leaving the house trisher and questioned by reporters. She was asked a question and gave an answer , her background was just referring to the fact that background doesn't have to prevent you from achievements . She has explained why she is standing and policies should be agreed by a cabinet who then work together , what is the use in policies of one with very little team support? Do you believe Corbyn can win a general election by visiting towns only ?