This is silly. There’s no need for a by-election, let alone £10,000 to pay for a by-election. The leadership should chill out, allow Joanna Cherry to switch to Holyrood if she’s selected, and let her dual mandate run until 2024. What are they afraid of?https://t.co/uddtEEOpIT
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
Yes, although I presume she did so under pressure. Whoever’s idea it was, it’s crazy – the last thing the SNP need to be doing is defending a Westminster seat in non-traditional territory in an entirely avoidable by-election.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
The SNP’s internal rules aren’t my specialist subject, so does anyone know: are MPs still eligible to stand for leader, as they were in 2004? If so, the biggest irony would be if these silly wrecking tactics keep Joanna Cherry out of Holyrood, but she becomes leader anyway.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
I’ve read the rules and there is nothing that disbarred an MP from being leader as far as I can see
— Denise Findlay (@GraceBrodie) July 30, 2020
Maybe she will, maybe she won’t. But if you’re right that she has no chance, then clearly her critics should just chill out a bit and stop trying to throw artificial obstacles in her path.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
But there’s no need for a by-election to be triggered. The fiction that there does need to be one appears, again, to simply be an artificial obstacle designed to thwart Joanna Cherry – and if the SNP end up losing a needless by-election, that’s a stupid self-inflicted woumd.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
And what, pray, has any of this got to do with “challenging the FM”? Nothing. Literally nothing. It’s inconceivable that Joanna Cherry would launch a hostile challlenge in that way. What this is really about is thwarting Ms Cherry if a vacancy happens to arise.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
I presume she said that under pressure from the people who were trying to thwart her, because it was a reversal of her earlier position. This is a very dangerous game and all sides could lose as a result. It would be far better just to let members decide in the normal way.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
Never try and play poker, Lloyd!
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
No, it does not “trigger a by-election” – that’s a fiction. Another option is to simply keep a dual mandate until the next Westminster election, and by far the most sensible and least destructive course would be for all sides to agree that’s what should happen.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
I’m unconvinced that you’re unaware that a dual mandate does not “trigger a by-election”. Is it just a coincidence that all the people who are taking this line just happen to have a problem with Joanna Cherry? Doubtless you’ll tell me it is. I’m unconvinced about that too.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 30, 2020
