Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

An embarrassment of riches …. or maybe just an embarrassment. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 3 in General
imageAn embarrassment of riches …. or maybe just an embarrassment. – politicalbetting.com

Farewell then Liz Truss: 45 days, 1 mini-Budget, 1 resignation, 2 monarchs, 2 Chancellors, 3 sackings and 3 PMQs. Those setting pub quiz questions will forever be in your debt.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 627
    Titter
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,734
    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,278
    I wish they had the moral courage to just give up and call an election. They can see this list as well as the rest of us. It's time to go back to their constituencies and prepare for opposition.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,788
    The only good thing to come from Truss's Premiership was I think Nigel saying that Liz was short for Lizaster. That made me laugh.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    Well that's about the worst of all worlds!!
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    Part of the problem with Boris is that he is seen as this election winning machine. Problem is that the major elections he has won have been against Livingstone and Corbyn. Boris won because people like my mother voted Tory in Wokingham so as not to risk Corbyn. She won't be doing the same next time. Starmer is not the same risk. If Boris wins the Tory party will rip itself apart and they will then be wiped out at the General Election. If they are very lucky they would get away with something like 1997.

    I thought the Tory members were bad but the MPs are completely barking.

    Get Charles Walker in maybe!
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,154
    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    oh for the old days HY when Tory leaders just emerged
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    I think we should explore Option 12 more fully.

    After all, Larry has more experience of government than any member of the PCP right now. Plus he's never lied. Plus he doesn't drink.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,449
    Who'd have predicted Liz quitting would lead to even more division?
    100 is the figure now.
    If Boris gets it he's PM a week tomorrow.
    If he doesn't, and he'll come close, the membership will resent they weren't given the option. And a significant proportion of MP's will continue to think they could save their seats by installing him.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    ydoethur said:

    I think we should explore Option 12 more fully.

    After all, Larry has more experience of government than any member of the PCP right now. Plus he's never lied. Plus he doesn't drink.

    On the last point, how do we know? Look where he's been living for the last few years.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,784
    The '22 is having a great centenary, no?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited October 20
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think we should explore Option 12 more fully.

    After all, Larry has more experience of government than any member of the PCP right now. Plus he's never lied. Plus he doesn't drink.

    On the last point, how do we know? Look where he's been living for the last few years.
    You're right, a rash assumption.

    I'll rephrase.

    He shows no obvious signs of being under the influence of legal or illegal narcotics.

    Unlike Tory MPs.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    Well that's about the worst of all worlds!!
    No, it is the only way to either form a stable government or the unity of the party if the first is not possible without an election.

    It looks like the 1922 are now having a final round amongst the top 2 amongst MPs to show their preferred choice at least
  • Johnson has all the momentum and surely will find 100 MPs willing to back him. So he makes the ballot, presumably alongside Sunak and possibly Mordaunt. But surely the remaining sanity wing of the party tries a unity ticket with S&M bound together. So S&M vs Johnson.

    MPs will choose S&M. Members will choose Johnson. So once again the geriatric giffers impose a disaster on the PCP. Who as reported will fracture apart.

    Fun fun fun in the sun sun sun.
  • Luvit, Cyclefree. :)
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452
    edited October 20
    "being “anti-woke” (assuming anyone can define it) is not a coherent programme for government." - CycleFree re: Bad Enoch.

    But CF, isn't Mordaunt wokeness re: transgender, one reason, perhaps the key reason, for your antipathy to Mordaunt?

    Concur with your support for Larry the Cat.

    Long-standing service in Downing Street should make him eligible, while a quick by-election would put him into the Commons, just as it did Sir Alec Douglas-Home back in his day.

    My guess SAD-H would also consider Larry (even lacking pedigree) to be the most suitable option.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    Based on the header it has to be Larry the Cat.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,734
    geoffw said:

    The '22 is having a great centenary, no?

    Correct. No.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    Well that's about the worst of all worlds!!
    No, it is the only way to either form a stable government or the unity of the party if the first is not possible without an election.

    It looks like the 1922 are now having a final round amongst the top 2 amongst MPs to show their preferred choice at least
    Oh yes, forget about the rest of the population. All 98% of the population.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    Unless the membership back the Tory MPs choice they can't select the PM without a general election first under my plan
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,841

    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
    Ah, my student foray into debating.

    Run by the most exclusive end of the public school types, of course, they would hold an open competition annually.

    I pulled out something about Hamlet's daughters, and was superciliously asked - they did teach you that in your school didn't they? (No).

    But, sitcom character like, I wasn't having that and decided to bluff and talk around some pretty generic plot traits.

    So, about two minutes in and running out of things to say. I actually fell quite naturally into a Frankie Howard voice and continued in the vane of "Ooooh. the betrayal" for two or three cycles.

    I never debated again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    Well that's about the worst of all worlds!!
    No, it is the only way to either form a stable government or the unity of the party if the first is not possible without an election.

    It looks like the 1922 are now having a final round amongst the top 2 amongst MPs to show their preferred choice at least
    Oh yes, forget about the rest of the population. All 98% of the population.
    No I didn't, they get a general election if members don't back the preferred PM of most Tory MPs ie the majority party in Parliament
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    On the one hand, there is a degree of dark humour to be found in the predicament Tory MPs have managed to engineer.

    They are fucked if they pick BoZo again. They are fucked if they don't.

    On the other hand, fuck 'em.

    They care about the risk to their careers, and "THE PARTY", and care not a jot for the damage and destruction their insane crusade has wreaked on the public, the Country, the economy, the environment.

    Bastards.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,300
    edited October 20
    Larry the cat is the only one there fit for the job.

    He has more experience than the rest, having been in number 10 the longest. He knows how to deal with the media - they love him. He also knows how to dispatch his rivals and assert dominance - see also his feline rival at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    Obviously as a cat, he's lazy, self-centred, and aloof. But that is still a serious improvement on the last half dozen or so cabinets.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited October 20
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    Unless the membership back the Tory MPs choice they can't select the PM without a general election first under my plan
    But they shouldn't nbe selecting the PM at all. That is solely for MPs under the constitution which you pretend to defend.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 57% (+8)
    CON: 22% (-6)
    LDM: 7% (-3)
    GRN: 4% (-1)
    REF: 3% (+1)

    via @Omnisis, 20 Oct

    (Changes with 14 Oct)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    mwadams said:

    I wish they had the moral courage to just give up and call an election. They can see this list as well as the rest of us. It's time to go back to their constituencies and prepare for opposition.

    I tend to agree. It's all getting a bit grisly now.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Keep thinking about Liz Truss’s reading at the Queen’s funeral as akin to when someone brings their new boyfriend or girlfriend to a big family event and they’re then in all the pictures forever despite only lasting 11 months as a couple.

    https://twitter.com/clemfletch/status/1583145881468956674
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    edited October 20
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
    Fair enough: the Tories HAVE lost sight of that, I should have made clearer. Their party is a pamper-fest for OAPs and their slavering heirs wishing to inherit rather than do a reasonable day's work or sort out the housing market. It's not a political party in any rational or legitimate sense, as we know it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    Well that's about the worst of all worlds!!
    No, it is the only way to either form a stable government or the unity of the party if the first is not possible without an election.

    It looks like the 1922 are now having a final round amongst the top 2 amongst MPs to show their preferred choice at least
    Oh yes, forget about the rest of the population. All 98% of the population.
    No I didn't, they get a general election if members don't back the preferred PM of most Tory MPs ie the majority party in Parliament
    But you are letting the members decide first. That IS forgetting about the rest of the population. Bastards.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    edited October 20
    Agree entirely on Mordaunt - could one of her fans explain the attraction (as suitability for PM)?

    Surely one vacuous purveyor of soundbites is enough for one year?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    Scott_xP said:

    Keep thinking about Liz Truss’s reading at the Queen’s funeral as akin to when someone brings their new boyfriend or girlfriend to a big family event and they’re then in all the pictures forever despite only lasting 11 months as a couple.

    https://twitter.com/clemfletch/status/1583145881468956674

    11 months!?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
    Fair enough: the Tories HAVE lost sight of that, I should have made clearer. Their party is a pamper-fest for OAPs and their slavering heirs wishing to inherit rather than do a reasonable day's work or sort out the housing market. It's not a political party in any rational or legitimate sense, as we know it.
    The 2017 Tory manifesto promised that people would be able to keep no more than £100k of their estate if they needed social care, all the rest would go to cover care costs. Voters as a whole not Tory members rejected that and the Tories under May lost their majority. Most voters want a care costs cap, whatever the level agreed is
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    The carousel of chaos may slow down, but it may not stop completely.
    For those who got home after a hard day's work, or who struggled through another day of going without, watching TV news of a Govt imploding *again* only widens the gap with their lives
    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/britain-is-crying-out-for-a-one-nation-government-but-the-tories-may-no-longer-be-one-party-1924933 https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1583198911581155329/photo/1
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    How many is Johnson up to now?

    By the way it may be slightly unfair to compare Truss to Brian Clough's ill-fated stint at Leeds Utd. She may have announced she'll be resigning as Tory leader but her tenure as PM will obviously be longer than Clough's 44 days. Doubt she will get the movie though. Another series of The Thick Of It?

    Incidentally I don't think anyone answered my question on the summer of 4 captains. They were respectively in 1988:

    Mike Gatting
    John Emburey
    Chris Cowdrey (really?)
    Graham Gooch

    The four Chancellors are of course:

    Rishi Sunak
    Nadhim Zahawi
    Kwasi Kwarteng
    Jeremy Hunt

    Now England's cricketers had the reasonable excuse that they were playing the mighty West Indies. Not really any such defence for the government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    Unless the membership back the Tory MPs choice they can't select the PM without a general election first under my plan
    But they shouldn't nbe selecting the PM at all. That is solely for MPs under the constitution which you pretend to defend.
    It IS solely for MPs if you had bothered to read my plan before going on a rant.

    I made clear if members did not confirm the choice over 50% of the governing parties MPs backed then there would be a snap general election and they would only be electing the party leader at that election, it would be for voters as a whole to decide if they then became PM or not
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
    Fair enough: the Tories HAVE lost sight of that, I should have made clearer. Their party is a pamper-fest for OAPs and their slavering heirs wishing to inherit rather than do a reasonable day's work or sort out the housing market. It's not a political party in any rational or legitimate sense, as we know it.
    The 2017 Tory manifesto promised that people would be able to keep no more than £100k of their estate if they needed social care, all the rest would go to cover care costs. Voters as a whole not Tory members rejected that and the Tories under May lost their majority. Most voters want a care costs cap, whatever the level agreed is
    When I were young the local Tories prided themselves on self-reliance and not sponging off the state. Now look at you and your fellow party members' obsession with getting their families cared for at public expense just o give their children an unfair leg up in the housing market.

    Away and pull the other plonker, and then the third and fourth and fifth one after that, chum.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    Difficult to disagree with this.

    "Britain is a political wasteland
    The Truss premiership was a new low for our democracy
    Brendan O'Neill

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/20/britain-is-a-political-wasteland/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Pro_Rata said:

    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
    Ah, my student foray into debating.

    Run by the most exclusive end of the public school types, of course, they would hold an open competition annually.

    I pulled out something about Hamlet's daughters, and was superciliously asked - they did teach you that in your school didn't they? (No).

    But, sitcom character like, I wasn't having that and decided to bluff and talk around some pretty generic plot traits.

    So, about two minutes in and running out of things to say. I actually fell quite naturally into a Frankie Howard voice and continued in the vane of "Ooooh. the betrayal" for two or three cycles.

    I never debated again.
    Hamlet's daughters? WTAF?

    The whole point of Hamlet is he and his girlfriend get killed off!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    edited October 20
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    Unless the membership back the Tory MPs choice they can't select the PM without a general election first under my plan
    But they shouldn't nbe selecting the PM at all. That is solely for MPs under the constitution which you pretend to defend.
    It IS solely for MPs if you had bothered to read my plan before going on a rant.

    I made clear if members did not confirm the choice over 50% of the governing parties MPs backed then there would be a snap general election and they would only be electing the party leader at that election, it would be for voters as a whole to decide if they then became PM or not
    You're involving party members, which is sufficient to abolish your claim.

    Edit: possible source of confusion - I am talking about the UK constitution. Not the party constitution or whatever jumped up set of third rate golf club rules you are trying to put in its place, like the subversive and seditious person that you are.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,985
    Hopefully Truss didn't re-model the apartment. Otherwise it'd be another few hundred grand when Mrs Johnson returns.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    Scott_xP said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 57% (+8)
    CON: 22% (-6)
    LDM: 7% (-3)
    GRN: 4% (-1)
    REF: 3% (+1)

    via @Omnisis, 20 Oct

    (Changes with 14 Oct)

    It looks as though the public feel that the Tories are taking the piss. I don't see how continuing to take the piss for a further two years is going to endear the Tories with the voters any more than doing so up to this point has. The public want an election, and they aren't going to thank the Tories for delaying it.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452
    ydoethur said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
    Ah, my student foray into debating.

    Run by the most exclusive end of the public school types, of course, they would hold an open competition annually.

    I pulled out something about Hamlet's daughters, and was superciliously asked - they did teach you that in your school didn't they? (No).

    But, sitcom character like, I wasn't having that and decided to bluff and talk around some pretty generic plot traits.

    So, about two minutes in and running out of things to say. I actually fell quite naturally into a Frankie Howard voice and continued in the vane of "Ooooh. the betrayal" for two or three cycles.

    I never debated again.
    Hamlet's daughters? WTAF?

    The whole point of Hamlet is he and his girlfriend get killed off!
    That's Pro Rata's point also - he was doing a Truss: pretending he knew what he was talking about, while making it clear he did NOT.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Scott_xP said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 57% (+8)
    CON: 22% (-6)
    LDM: 7% (-3)
    GRN: 4% (-1)
    REF: 3% (+1)

    via @Omnisis, 20 Oct

    (Changes with 14 Oct)

    I'm guessing the full horror of yesterday's events wouldn't have come through in time?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Genius front page from the Daily Star, who have had a brilliant Tory crisis. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1583200422449147906/photo/1
  • pancakespancakes Posts: 29
    I agree with most of CycleFree's post, but this statement about Mordaunt - "combines the worst aspects of Truss (...) and Johnson (a liar)" - implies that Truss isn't a liar. She is. One example is that she claimed that she has never invited comparisons between herself and Thatcher. Another example was when she claimed that "the vast majority" of the minibudget was about energy bills. She also claimed that the price cap imposed a maximum annual energy bill, and continued to say so after being corrected. Then, yesterday, when Ian Blackford asked her to commit to raising the state pension in line with inflation, Truss replied "I honestly do not know what the right honourable gentleman is talking about". Which, of course, she must have. She cannot be too stupid to appreciate that he was talking about the headlines in the press saying she had abandoned the triple lock, plus the Downing Street briefing saying that it could no longer be guaranteed. Her use of the word "honestly" in this lie was particularly egregious.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    Scott_xP said:

    Keep thinking about Liz Truss’s reading at the Queen’s funeral as akin to when someone brings their new boyfriend or girlfriend to a big family event and they’re then in all the pictures forever despite only lasting 11 months as a couple.

    https://twitter.com/clemfletch/status/1583145881468956674

    Yes, something of a coincidence that the longest-serving monarch should overlap with the shortest-serving PM, and for such a short period of time.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    ...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
    Fair enough: the Tories HAVE lost sight of that, I should have made clearer. Their party is a pamper-fest for OAPs and their slavering heirs wishing to inherit rather than do a reasonable day's work or sort out the housing market. It's not a political party in any rational or legitimate sense, as we know it.
    The 2017 Tory manifesto promised that people would be able to keep no more than £100k of their estate if they needed social care, all the rest would go to cover care costs. Voters as a whole not Tory members rejected that and the Tories under May lost their majority. Most voters want a care costs cap, whatever the level agreed is
    Voters as a whole voted against Bozo in 2019.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    geoffw said:

    The '22 is having a great centenary, no?

    No, because it started in 23.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    Unless the membership back the Tory MPs choice they can't select the PM without a general election first under my plan
    But they shouldn't nbe selecting the PM at all. That is solely for MPs under the constitution which you pretend to defend.
    It IS solely for MPs if you had bothered to read my plan before going on a rant.

    I made clear if members did not confirm the choice over 50% of the governing parties MPs backed then there would be a snap general election and they would only be electing the party leader at that election, it would be for voters as a whole to decide if they then became PM or not
    You're involving party members, which is sufficient to abolish your claim.

    Edit: possible source of confusion - I am talking about the UK constitution. Not the party constitution or whatever jumped up set of third rate golf club rules you are trying to put in its place, like the subversive and seditious person that you are.
    Only to confirm the choice of Tory MPs and only if they confirm that choice does that candidate become PM. So the country's constitution stands ie the PM has to have the support of most MPs from the party with a majority in Parliament.

    If they reject that choice then as I said they get a second vote only to choose our party leader to lead us into a snap general election, the voters alone would then decide if that candidate became PM or not.
  • Agree entirely on Mordaunt - could one of her fans explain the attraction (as suitability for PM)?

    Surely one vacuous purveyor of soundbites is enough for one year?

    Depends what the point of the government is for the next 24 months.

    If it's to do what the bond markets tell Jeremy Hunt to do, Mordaunt is probably fine to front that. We'll need some vacuous soundbites to get us through the winter and Rishi might be a bit too sleek to sound concerned convincingly.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    Even right wing Tory MPs must know that another Boris leadership would destroy the party. Even if they think he's the best thing since sliced bread, they must know he has 60-70% of the country against him. Why not just go for an emerging genuine right winger, Badenoch?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    An aide memoire for Tories thinking of bringing Johnson back. https://twitter.com/RoseUnwin/status/1583199948199247873/photo/1
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    I think if Johnson came back, I would actually consider voting Labour
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Hear hear. I also remarked on that second point ('mandate') a couple of threads ago! It's outrageous that HYUFD is still trying to claim that party members should have any involvement whatsoever.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
    Fair enough: the Tories HAVE lost sight of that, I should have made clearer. Their party is a pamper-fest for OAPs and their slavering heirs wishing to inherit rather than do a reasonable day's work or sort out the housing market. It's not a political party in any rational or legitimate sense, as we know it.
    The 2017 Tory manifesto promised that people would be able to keep no more than £100k of their estate if they needed social care, all the rest would go to cover care costs. Voters as a whole not Tory members rejected that and the Tories under May lost their majority. Most voters want a care costs cap, whatever the level agreed is
    Voters as a whole voted against Bozo in 2019.
    Voters as a whole voted against every government since 1945 except that from 2010 to 2015 but we have FPTP not PR
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    ydoethur said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
    Ah, my student foray into debating.

    Run by the most exclusive end of the public school types, of course, they would hold an open competition annually.

    I pulled out something about Hamlet's daughters, and was superciliously asked - they did teach you that in your school didn't they? (No).

    But, sitcom character like, I wasn't having that and decided to bluff and talk around some pretty generic plot traits.

    So, about two minutes in and running out of things to say. I actually fell quite naturally into a Frankie Howard voice and continued in the vane of "Ooooh. the betrayal" for two or three cycles.

    I never debated again.
    Hamlet's daughters? WTAF?

    The whole point of Hamlet is he and his girlfriend get killed off!
    That's Pro Rata's point also - he was doing a Truss: pretending he knew what he was talking about, while making it clear he did NOT.
    Ah. Clearly I'm too tired and need some sleep.

    Enjoy your evening one and all.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,673
    Are a minimum of 100 MPs and membership that stupid? You’d be looking at an immediate Tory split and increased calls for a general election
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    Unless the membership back the Tory MPs choice they can't select the PM without a general election first under my plan
    But they shouldn't nbe selecting the PM at all. That is solely for MPs under the constitution which you pretend to defend.
    It IS solely for MPs if you had bothered to read my plan before going on a rant.

    I made clear if members did not confirm the choice over 50% of the governing parties MPs backed then there would be a snap general election and they would only be electing the party leader at that election, it would be for voters as a whole to decide if they then became PM or not
    You're involving party members, which is sufficient to abolish your claim.

    Edit: possible source of confusion - I am talking about the UK constitution. Not the party constitution or whatever jumped up set of third rate golf club rules you are trying to put in its place, like the subversive and seditious person that you are.
    Only to confirm the choice of Tory MPs and only if they confirm that choice does that candidate become PM. So the country's constitution stands ie the PM has to have the support of most MPs from the party with a majority in Parliament.

    If they reject that choice then as I said they get a second vote only to choose our party leader to lead us into a snap general election, the voters alone would then decide if that candidate became PM or not.
    Forget it. The moment you let the partty members into the decision, that's it, you're subverting UK democracy and ther constitution.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
    Fair enough: the Tories HAVE lost sight of that, I should have made clearer. Their party is a pamper-fest for OAPs and their slavering heirs wishing to inherit rather than do a reasonable day's work or sort out the housing market. It's not a political party in any rational or legitimate sense, as we know it.
    The 2017 Tory manifesto promised that people would be able to keep no more than £100k of their estate if they needed social care, all the rest would go to cover care costs. Voters as a whole not Tory members rejected that and the Tories under May lost their majority. Most voters want a care costs cap, whatever the level agreed is
    That isn't true. If you have half a million in savings and your care costs are 100k, you get to keep 400k.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Carnyx said:

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Hear hear. I also remarked on that second point ('mandate') a couple of threads ago! It's outrageous that HYUFD is still trying to claim that party members should have any involvement whatsoever.
    How dare you lie and distort my post to suit your agenda!!!!

    I made clear if party members reject the choice of MPs their choice does not become PM, instead only party leader in a snap general election
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Scott_xP said:

    Genius front page from the Daily Star, who have had a brilliant Tory crisis. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1583200422449147906/photo/1

    "And you won't believe which cabbage might be coming to save us".....
  • Scott_xP said:

    An aide memoire for Tories thinking of bringing Johnson back. https://twitter.com/RoseUnwin/status/1583199948199247873/photo/1

    Remain-deranged conspiracy, I tell you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    WillG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1922 should now do the following.

    Whoever gets 100 Tory MPs on Monday nominating them obviously goes forward to a leadership election. If only 1 candidate meets that threshold they obviously become Tory leader and PM.

    If not then rounds should be held amongst the candidates until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the parliamentary party supporting them, even if that requires a final round amongst the top 2.

    The membership should be given 2 votes then. The first should be to either confirm or reject the candidate chosen by MPs.

    If the membership confirm that choice that candidate automatically becomes PM as well as party leader.

    If the membership reject that choice then consideration is given to their second vote, a head to head between the top 2 candidates amongst MPs. Whoever wins that ballot amongst members then becomes Tory leader and leads the Tories into a snap general election, Truss remaining PM but not party leader while that general election takes place

    The membership have about as much legitimacy in choosing a Prime Minister as the National Union of Miners in the 1970s/1980s. Each is/was a pressure group for its own interests. Nothinbg more. Which was at least legitimate for a trade union, but is outrageous for a political party that pretends to have the interests of the UK at heart.

    You're morally worse than Arthur Scargill.
    I am surprised to find myself defending Hyufd, but that isn't actually true. The aim of a union is to further the interests of its members. The aim of a political party is to elect people to put into practice its governing philosophy.

    You may say that's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. A union would never act against the interests of its members. A political party can, and fairly often does.

    Whether the Tory members have lost sight of this is another question.
    Fair enough: the Tories HAVE lost sight of that, I should have made clearer. Their party is a pamper-fest for OAPs and their slavering heirs wishing to inherit rather than do a reasonable day's work or sort out the housing market. It's not a political party in any rational or legitimate sense, as we know it.
    The 2017 Tory manifesto promised that people would be able to keep no more than £100k of their estate if they needed social care, all the rest would go to cover care costs. Voters as a whole not Tory members rejected that and the Tories under May lost their majority. Most voters want a care costs cap, whatever the level agreed is
    That isn't true. If you have half a million in savings and your care costs are 100k, you get to keep 400k.
    Yes, so you still covered all your care costs in full then
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Less tone deafness than lack of understanding (and/or inability to understand) what the heck you are going on about.

    Know the type - superficially reasonably intelligent & occasionally well-briefed, but actually dumb as a box of rocks.

    Plenty of apparatchiks that way. She's a prize example of that - and of course the Peter Principle.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Hear hear. I also remarked on that second point ('mandate') a couple of threads ago! It's outrageous that HYUFD is still trying to claim that party members should have any involvement whatsoever.
    How dare you lie and distort my post to suit your agenda!!!!

    I made clear if party members reject the choice of MPs their choice does not become PM, instead only party leader in a snap general election
    That's still aborting the choise of MPs - and subverting the constitution. Where in Dicey or Bagehot does it say that Conservative Party members have the right to wreck the decisions of MPs?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,734
    Re the Privileges Committee. The members are:

    Ms Harriet Harman MP (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham) (Chair)
    Andy Carter MP (Conservative, Warrington South)
    Alberto Costa MP (Conservative, South Leicestershire)
    Allan Dorans MP (Scottish National Party, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
    Laura Farris MP (Conservative, Newbury)
    Yvonne Fovargue MP (Labour, Makerfield)
    Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex)

    Being cynical, I assume it is probable that the two Labour and one SNP members will find against Johnson.

    It therefore only leaves one of the four Tories to do so for a majority to be reached. The only one to have declared so far this contest is Farris, for Sunak.

    Make of that what you will.

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,841
    ydoethur said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
    Ah, my student foray into debating.

    Run by the most exclusive end of the public school types, of course, they would hold an open competition annually.

    I pulled out something about Hamlet's daughters, and was superciliously asked - they did teach you that in your school didn't they? (No).

    But, sitcom character like, I wasn't having that and decided to bluff and talk around some pretty generic plot traits.

    So, about two minutes in and running out of things to say. I actually fell quite naturally into a Frankie Howard voice and continued in the vane of "Ooooh. the betrayal" for two or three cycles.

    I never debated again.
    Hamlet's daughters? WTAF?

    The whole point of Hamlet is he and his girlfriend get killed off!
    I've obviously suppressed this to the extent of misremembering and avoiding many of the plays (had a friend who was mad on Marlowe and went through much of his work). Lear, of course.A bit more Frankie Howard.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,937
    edited October 20
    Is Stevie G going to be also getting his marching orders this evening?

    The dream of doing an ok job with Aston Villa and then swooping into manage Liverpool when Kloop goes has gone the way as Fizzy Lizzy as the new Thatcher.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    edited October 20
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Hear hear. I also remarked on that second point ('mandate') a couple of threads ago! It's outrageous that HYUFD is still trying to claim that party members should have any involvement whatsoever.
    How dare you lie and distort my post to suit your agenda!!!!

    I made clear if party members reject the choice of MPs their choice does not become PM, instead only party leader in a snap general election
    That's still aborting the choise of MPs - and subverting the constitution. Where in Dicey or Bagehot does it say that Conservative Party members have the right to wreck the decisions of MPs?
    No it isn't, you idiot.

    If party members rejected the choice of MPs then as I said their choice for leader would never become PM unless they won the snap general election that would be triggered immediately. If you really want to be pedantic May could be caretaker PM while that general election campaign takes place, having herself won a majority of MPs support before
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    I'm not saying Boris becoming PM again would be a legitimate reason for Scotland to Unilaterally Declare Independence that would be recognised by International case law but I am absolutely saying that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Hear hear. I also remarked on that second point ('mandate') a couple of threads ago! It's outrageous that HYUFD is still trying to claim that party members should have any involvement whatsoever.
    How dare you lie and distort my post to suit your agenda!!!!

    I made clear if party members reject the choice of MPs their choice does not become PM, instead only party leader in a snap general election
    That's still aborting the choise of MPs - and subverting the constitution. Where in Dicey or Bagehot does it say that Conservative Party members have the right to wreck the decisions of MPs?
    No it isn't, you idiot.

    If party members rejected the choice of MPs then as I said their choice for leader would never become PM unless they won the snap general election that would be triggered immediately
    But that is it. They're wrecking the MPs selection. Can't you get it into your head that you are giving Party members a veto over Parliamentary business?
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg has come out for Boris.
    What an odious creep.

    Gis a job, gis a go. Chancellor? I can do that. Gis a job.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044

    How many is Johnson up to now?

    By the way it may be slightly unfair to compare Truss to Brian Clough's ill-fated stint at Leeds Utd. She may have announced she'll be resigning as Tory leader but her tenure as PM will obviously be longer than Clough's 44 days. Doubt she will get the movie though. Another series of The Thick Of It?

    Incidentally I don't think anyone answered my question on the summer of 4 captains. They were respectively in 1988:

    Mike Gatting
    John Emburey
    Chris Cowdrey (really?)
    Graham Gooch

    The four Chancellors are of course:

    Rishi Sunak
    Nadhim Zahawi
    Kwasi Kwarteng
    Jeremy Hunt

    Now England's cricketers had the reasonable excuse that they were playing the mighty West Indies. Not really any such defence for the government.

    I got 3 out or 4 IIRC. Funny that Cowdrey was dropped altogether at the next test match after the one where he made his captaining debut.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,507
    edited October 20

    Are a minimum of 100 MPs and membership that stupid? You’d be looking at an immediate Tory split and increased calls for a general election

    Yes. Yes they are.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452

    Jacob Rees-Mogg has come out for Boris.
    What an odious creep.

    Which one? (Trick question!)

    Wonder just how many of the anti-fracking Tories he pushed into the No Lobby will be clamoring for JRM to help them campaign at next general election?

    Maybe the ones who defect to Labour (or Lib Dems) as part of their "older but wiser" mea culpa to their constituents?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Hear hear. I also remarked on that second point ('mandate') a couple of threads ago! It's outrageous that HYUFD is still trying to claim that party members should have any involvement whatsoever.
    How dare you lie and distort my post to suit your agenda!!!!

    I made clear if party members reject the choice of MPs their choice does not become PM, instead only party leader in a snap general election
    That's still aborting the choise of MPs - and subverting the constitution. Where in Dicey or Bagehot does it say that Conservative Party members have the right to wreck the decisions of MPs?
    No it isn't, you idiot.

    If party members rejected the choice of MPs then as I said their choice for leader would never become PM unless they won the snap general election that would be triggered immediately
    But that is it. They're wrecking the MPs selection. Can't you get it into your head that you are giving Party members a veto over Parliamentary business?
    Yes as the voluntary party still is entitled to have a say in who their party leader is, just not who the PM is if it is not the same choice as MPs without a general election first
  • Are a minimum of 100 MPs and membership that stupid? You’d be looking at an immediate Tory split and increased calls for a general election

    In fairness, put yourself in the shoes of a Red Wall MP like Ian Levy. Your majority is 712.

    Clearly you have no chance of holding your seat under Rishi or Penny. Your only slim hope is to bring Boris back and hope he can somehow conjure up the old magic.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    We think the best thing to do with Liz Truss is ignore her.

    Job done.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    Andy_JS said:

    How many is Johnson up to now?

    By the way it may be slightly unfair to compare Truss to Brian Clough's ill-fated stint at Leeds Utd. She may have announced she'll be resigning as Tory leader but her tenure as PM will obviously be longer than Clough's 44 days. Doubt she will get the movie though. Another series of The Thick Of It?

    Incidentally I don't think anyone answered my question on the summer of 4 captains. They were respectively in 1988:

    Mike Gatting
    John Emburey
    Chris Cowdrey (really?)
    Graham Gooch

    The four Chancellors are of course:

    Rishi Sunak
    Nadhim Zahawi
    Kwasi Kwarteng
    Jeremy Hunt

    Now England's cricketers had the reasonable excuse that they were playing the mighty West Indies. Not really any such defence for the government.

    I got 3 out or 4 IIRC. Funny that Cowdrey was dropped altogether at the next test match after the one where he made his captaining debut.
    Same happened with Mark Butcher in 1999.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,278
    ydoethur said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
    Ah, my student foray into debating.

    Run by the most exclusive end of the public school types, of course, they would hold an open competition annually.

    I pulled out something about Hamlet's daughters, and was superciliously asked - they did teach you that in your school didn't they? (No).

    But, sitcom character like, I wasn't having that and decided to bluff and talk around some pretty generic plot traits.

    So, about two minutes in and running out of things to say. I actually fell quite naturally into a Frankie Howard voice and continued in the vane of "Ooooh. the betrayal" for two or three cycles.

    I never debated again.
    Hamlet's daughters? WTAF?

    The whole point of Hamlet is he and his girlfriend get killed off!
    It should be all about the pirates, but they couldn't afford to stage that bit.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    Is Stevie G going to be also getting his marching orders this evening?

    The dream of doing an ok job with Aston Villa and then swooping into manage Liverpool when Kloop goes has gone the way as Fizzy Lizzy as the new Thatcher.

    Marsch needs to join him. Leeds were fucking appalling tonight, League One quality at best
  • Are a minimum of 100 MPs and membership that stupid? You’d be looking at an immediate Tory split and increased calls for a general election

    Yes and yes.
  • Alistair said:

    I'm not saying Boris becoming PM again would be a legitimate reason for Scotland to Unilaterally Declare Independence that would be recognised by International case law but I am absolutely saying that.

    The way things are going it wouldn't surprise me that Starmer is PM by the time the Supreme Court make their ruling on indyref2.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,937

    Is Stevie G going to be also getting his marching orders this evening?

    The dream of doing an ok job with Aston Villa and then swooping into manage Liverpool when Kloop goes has gone the way as Fizzy Lizzy as the new Thatcher.

    Marsch needs to join him. Leeds were fucking appalling tonight, League One quality at best
    Bring back Boris Bielsa.....
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540

    Are a minimum of 100 MPs and membership that stupid? You’d be looking at an immediate Tory split and increased calls for a general election

    Johnson provoked a split in 2019 and then won a majority of 80 with his true believers.

    I know that the situation is different now, but if you're a desperate MP staring at a polling deficit of more than 30pp, I can see why the second coming of Johnson might appeal as a Hail Mary play.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Baxter says:

    Labour 560
    SNP 52
    Lib Dem 11
    Plaid 4
    Conservative 3

    So if we lose Scotland there is a danger of England and Wales becoming a one party state.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,084
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    The Prime Minster has to command the majority of the House. If it gets to the members and they return the second choice we'll have another clusterf*ck. Once we get the final two, the second should step aside (into a high office of state) and let the one most likely to command that majority take up office.

    I was struck in Truss's resignation speech about how she couldn't deliver the manifesto she was elected by Conservative members on. FFS Parliament to which she owes her position was elected on the basis of the 2019 GE. Manifestos are not holy writ, but to purport that something she campaigned on to the tiny selectorate of Tory members has greater priority than the whole UK electorate is tone deafness of the highest order.

    Hear hear. I also remarked on that second point ('mandate') a couple of threads ago! It's outrageous that HYUFD is still trying to claim that party members should have any involvement whatsoever.
    How dare you lie and distort my post to suit your agenda!!!!

    I made clear if party members reject the choice of MPs their choice does not become PM, instead only party leader in a snap general election
    That's still aborting the choise of MPs - and subverting the constitution. Where in Dicey or Bagehot does it say that Conservative Party members have the right to wreck the decisions of MPs?
    No it isn't, you idiot.

    If party members rejected the choice of MPs then as I said their choice for leader would never become PM unless they won the snap general election that would be triggered immediately
    But that is it. They're wrecking the MPs selection. Can't you get it into your head that you are giving Party members a veto over Parliamentary business?
    Yes as the voluntary party still is entitled to have a say in who their party leader is, just not who the PM is if it is not the same choice as MPs without a general election first
    But why should the party members be allowed to trigger an election at all? They'rte not MPs.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592

    Are a minimum of 100 MPs and membership that stupid? You’d be looking at an immediate Tory split and increased calls for a general election

    Yes and yes.
    Do you think the 100+ MPs are actual true believers in Boris? Or just weaklings bullied by their Associations?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    Pro_Rata said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    JACK_W said:

    Titter

    ye not
    Ah, my student foray into debating.

    Run by the most exclusive end of the public school types, of course, they would hold an open competition annually.

    I pulled out something about Hamlet's daughters, and was superciliously asked - they did teach you that in your school didn't they? (No).

    But, sitcom character like, I wasn't having that and decided to bluff and talk around some pretty generic plot traits.

    So, about two minutes in and running out of things to say. I actually fell quite naturally into a Frankie Howard voice and continued in the vane of "Ooooh. the betrayal" for two or three cycles.

    I never debated again.
    Hamlet's daughters? WTAF?

    The whole point of Hamlet is he and his girlfriend get killed off!
    I've obviously suppressed this to the extent of misremembering and avoiding many of the plays (had a friend who was mad on Marlowe and went through much of his work). Lear, of course.A bit more Frankie Howard.
    Howerd.
This discussion has been closed.