party. Anyone that thinks otherwise will have an agenda or has their head in the sand. The party is FINISHED & neither Sunak or Mordaunt would change those polls.
9:34 PM · Oct 20, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
You seem slightly obsessed with ramping Boris. You are new here, I note…
Leeds fans booed at half time, chanted against their manager at the end.
Good Leicester performance, defended set pieces well, Sideshow Bob as a centre-back is a new fans favourite. Leeds had a good passing game, and good movement off the ball but poor defending. Strange substitutions lost all shape.
Leicester needs to follow up with an away win at Wolves. Only one home game before the World Cup, and that is Man City, so unlikely to be a clean sheet.
Leeds were awful
I was at the game. Certainly their heads dropped after they conceeded the second, though they did manage about 20 min of pressure second half. They could well be sacked into a relegation battle again.
Leicester are looking much more cohesive in recent games. A long way to go, but I think we will end up mid table.
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
Surely the party constitution has been quoted enough times? The 1922 Committee has to present a choice of candidates to the membership. The 1922 Committee also doesn't have the power to change the party constitution, and neither does the party Board. Trying to evade those rules would have precipitated a legal challenge.
Only has to present a choice IF there is more than one. Which in this case means getting 100 MP nominators for more than one hopeful. If only one make threshold, they win automatically.
Which is likely. But NOT a given.
Conservative Party Constitution - SCHEDULE 2: RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
3. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be declared Leader of the Party.
Truss's failure might lead the Tories to embrace realignment more wholeheartedly:
@danny__kruger Spot on from @MelanieLatest (citing @GoodwinMJ research): 'The party now has to make a choice. Does it want to restore the UK as an independent national project that upholds its historic culture, traditions and institutions? Or does it want to finally break that culture apart on the rocks of social or economic individualism and anti-west ideological dogma?'
This is plain speaking and the language will alarm moderate Conservatives. But this is a critical moment when the nettle must be grasped:
Whatever Govt emerges from this crisis needs to rebuild the 2019 coalition of voters. This means Brexit, borders, manufacturing, family, place, defence, tradition, solidarity... not just tax cuts and technocracy.
We can do that in a way which brings the moderates along : people with an interest in localism, public service reform, help for enterprise, environmental action - all this is compatible with the 2019 alignment. Conservatives unite!
An online ballot, with a few days’ notice and little time to test security and integrity, by a Conservative Party membership not subject to any identity check, not all of whom are techie whizz-kids, and whose last choice was Liz Truss. What could possibly go wrong?
I seriously doubt Johnson will have the majority backing of MPs even if he makes the 100 to go forward. The majority who don't want him will not just be MPs who prefer someone else they will largely be MPs that really can't stand the man.
So if and when the membership go on to ignore their MPs and choose him as PM regardless his government will be inherently unstable from the off. Within months we will be right back where we were with Truss. Then off we go again
Much as I would like to see Hunt or Sunak for the good of the country, there is a little bit of me that would like to see Boris so that @hyufd can witness the carnage that will happen.
It would be less than Truss left and would likely save some MPs seats as would Sunak
I wasn't just talking about the election. Boris as PM would carry on with his lies and corruption. It was never ending so why would it end now. He would be emboldened. If he got in it would start all over again, starting with the privileges committee outcome.
If you had read what I said earlier Boris would only become PM if most Tory MPs as well as members backed him, if not there would be a snap general election and he would only return as party leader and not PM unless he won that election
?????? What are you talking about 'If I read your earlier post'? You were responding to a post of mine where I was having a bit of fun about Boris getting appointed PM, nothing about what you posted earlier. This bit of fun has nothing to do with your earlier post'. It is completely unrelated. It was just a bit of fun, but with an underlying seriousness.
Your comprehension of posts is appalling and just spoils the joy of the banter.
Sorry very badly worded. I posted about 'if' and the response you (HYUFD) gave was about 'how'. I could post about if there was cheese on the moon. It doesn't mean I believe there is.
An online ballot, with a few days’ notice and little time to test security and integrity, by a Conservative Party membership not subject to any identity check, not all of whom are techie whizz-kids, and whose last choice was Liz Truss. What could possibly go wrong?
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
That is precisely what Neville Chamberlain did. Which helped Churchill, his new Coalition government (including NC), the UK and their entire world at a key (to put it mildly) point in History.
party. Anyone that thinks otherwise will have an agenda or has their head in the sand. The party is FINISHED & neither Sunak or Mordaunt would change those polls.
9:34 PM · Oct 20, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
You seem slightly obsessed with ramping Boris. You are new here, I note…
An obvious troll I would have thought and a pretty poor one at that.
Seeing as the results are announced at halloween surely the Tory MP for Devizes, Danny Kruger, should be considered. His powers include his sidekick puppy causing 200 deer to stampede in Richmond Park. Just imagine what he could do with the full powers of government.
Boris has drifted to 8s all of a sudden. He was at 4.5 only 10 minutes ago.
Could be a betting manouvre by someone close to Boris to make him look like an underdog
Why would they do that?
Well, if they like losing money they might well do that, but most punters prefer it the other way round.
Or of course potentially lose money to make your guy look hotter than he really is, but the suggestion was to do the reverse and make him look a loser. Odd
Sunak has shortened slowly and steadily. The fun and games concerns the other two runners. The late great John McCririck would have referred to 'flip-flopping second favorites'.
Great for traders. Wouldn't read too much into it as far as who the next PM will be.
I seriously doubt Johnson will have the majority backing of MPs even if he makes the 100 to go forward. The majority who don't want him will not just be MPs who prefer someone else they will largely be MPs that really can't stand the man.
So if and when the membership go on to ignore their MPs and choose him as PM regardless his government will be inherently unstable from the off. Within months we will be right back where we were with Truss. Then off we go again
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
Surely the party constitution has been quoted enough times? The 1922 Committee has to present a choice of candidates to the membership. The 1922 Committee also doesn't have the power to change the party constitution, and neither does the party Board. Trying to evade those rules would have precipitated a legal challenge.
Only has to present a choice IF there is more than one. Which in this case means getting 100 MP nominators for more than one hopeful. If only one make threshold, they win automatically.
Which is likely. But NOT a given.
Conservative Party Constitution - SCHEDULE 2: RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
3. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be declared Leader of the Party.
Yes, I know, I linked to that earlier today. The candidate selection process has to be designed to produce a choice of candidates (requiring nomination from a majority of MPs wouldn't qualify) but as with 2016 that doesn't mean the member vote actually happens.
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
Not remotely a serious suggestion.
Right, so you’ve conceded that you’re wrong, you just don’t think the alternative is “serious”.
Boris has drifted to 8s all of a sudden. He was at 4.5 only 10 minutes ago.
Could be a betting manouvre by someone close to Boris to make him look like an underdog
Why would they do that?
Well, if they like losing money they might well do that, but most punters prefer it the other way round.
Or of course potentially lose money to make your guy look hotter than he really is, but the suggestion was to do the reverse and make him look a loser. Odd
My tongue was firmly in my cheek.
Clement Freud pulled that stunt many, many years ago in an LD leadership contest. We saw it again in the Romney/Obama clash, and a lot of PB punters cleaned up as a result. It's been a while since we've seen a clear cut example, but this contest looks made for that kind of thing.
I seriously doubt Johnson will have the majority backing of MPs even if he makes the 100 to go forward. The majority who don't want him will not just be MPs who prefer someone else they will largely be MPs that really can't stand the man.
So if and when the membership go on to ignore their MPs and choose him as PM regardless his government will be inherently unstable from the off. Within months we will be right back where we were with Truss. Then off we go again
Boris is the only one reckless/strong/cynical enough to call an early GE and demand loyalty to his agenda for any MPs seeking re-election or they shall lose the whip.
It may be the only way to unite the party, by cutting out a load of them and scaring the rest.
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
That is precisely what Neville Chamberlain did. Which helped Churchill, his new Coalition government (including NC), the UK and their entire world at a key (to put it mildly) point in History.
That’s right, it was done during a World War, and it could have been done in this instance.
I seriously doubt Johnson will have the majority backing of MPs even if he makes the 100 to go forward. The majority who don't want him will not just be MPs who prefer someone else they will largely be MPs that really can't stand the man.
So if and when the membership go on to ignore their MPs and choose him as PM regardless his government will be inherently unstable from the off. Within months we will be right back where we were with Truss. Then off we go again
Does this mean Liz might be back in December? 😡
Maybe she and Boris are going to rotate the position every few months until the GE is due.
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
Not remotely a serious suggestion.
Right, so you’ve conceded that you’re wrong, you just don’t think the alternative is “serious”.
Something that is so unserious that it's imaginary doesn't counteract my point of the reality of the situation.
She can't resign as PM until there's a successor - this is why she hasn't resigned as PM today). Without a party leadership election, how is the successor chosen, especially given that the assumption is that the leader of the party which holds a majority has the confidence of the House?
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
That is precisely what Neville Chamberlain did. Which helped Churchill, his new Coalition government (including NC), the UK and their entire world at a key (to put it mildly) point in History.
That’s right, it was done during a World War, and it could have been done in this instance.
This is not during a world war!
Also, that was in an era when party leaders "emerged" without anything so uncivilised as even a vote of the parliamentary party.
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
Not remotely a serious suggestion.
Right, so you’ve conceded that you’re wrong, you just don’t think the alternative is “serious”.
Something that is so unserious that it's imaginary doesn't counteract my point of the reality of the situation.
She can't resign as PM until there's a successor - this is why she hasn't resigned as PM today). Without a party leadership election, how is the successor chosen, especially given that the assumption is that the leader of the party which holds a majority has the confidence of the House?
It's beyond preposterous.
So preposterous it was used to replace Chamberlain.
The mechanism would be quite straightforward. Truss would announce her intention to resign the premiership and hand over to another Tory chosen by the MPs either by coronation or through voting.
Said Tory becomes PM. Liz then resigns the leadership and the party can do what they want, it has no impact on the premiership.
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
That is precisely what Neville Chamberlain did. Which helped Churchill, his new Coalition government (including NC), the UK and their entire world at a key (to put it mildly) point in History.
That’s right, it was done during a World War, and it could have been done in this instance.
This is not during a world war!
Also, that was in an era when party leaders "emerged" without anything so uncivilised as even a vote of the parliamentary party.
So what. The membership only got a day during Hague, which was hardly the dark ages.
I doubt it was ever intended for such a circumstance as we’ve seen this week; it has certainly brought the party into disrepute.
Sorry but the Ukrainian government needs to be told to butt out. Fighting a righteous war doesn’t give them the right to go interfering in other countries democratic processes
An online ballot, with a few days’ notice and little time to test security and integrity, by a Conservative Party membership not subject to any identity check, not all of whom are techie whizz-kids, and whose last choice was Liz Truss. What could possibly go wrong?
When the members vote by post they reliably pick the worst of the two available options, so this plan to let North Korean hackers make the decision can't possibly be worse, and could only be better.
Lab just hold on in St Helens from a Lib Dem surge.
Con go from 518 to 74.
And Labour go from 1547 to 656 Not much change in Devauden either, the Labour poll surge continues to elude actual elections
Just when I think the Tories are finished some of the local elections results seem to say "Are they?"
I expect the Thorpe ward in Norwich to drop tonight
To Labour I assume? - yes a good benchmark
Yes, although the LDs have some presence too
Yes - the experts who are very good have said 5 Labour gains,4 Tory holds and 3 Lib Dem gains
The LDs only get it if the Tory vote collapses directly to them
Exactly - a tory voter at this moment won't want to vote tory so goes for the Lib Dem option instead of Labour - voting when you reach a certain age is mandatory
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
Not remotely a serious suggestion.
Right, so you’ve conceded that you’re wrong, you just don’t think the alternative is “serious”.
Something that is so unserious that it's imaginary doesn't counteract my point of the reality of the situation.
She can't resign as PM until there's a successor - this is why she hasn't resigned as PM today). Without a party leadership election, how is the successor chosen, especially given that the assumption is that the leader of the party which holds a majority has the confidence of the House?
It's beyond preposterous.
So preposterous it was used to replace Chamberlain.
The mechanism would be quite straightforward. Truss would announce her intention to resign the premiership and hand over to another Tory chosen by the MPs either by coronation or through voting.
Said Tory becomes PM. Liz then resigns the leadership and the party can do what they want, it has no impact on the premiership.
At which point the new party leader becomes PM, because they have a majority in the Commons!
Lab just hold on in St Helens from a Lib Dem surge.
Con go from 518 to 74.
And Labour go from 1547 to 656 Not much change in Devauden either, the Labour poll surge continues to elude actual elections
Just when I think the Tories are finished some of the local elections results seem to say "Are they?"
I expect the Thorpe ward in Norwich to drop tonight
To Labour I assume? - yes a good benchmark
Yes, although the LDs have some presence too
Yes - the experts who are very good have said 5 Labour gains,4 Tory holds and 3 Lib Dem gains
The LDs only get it if the Tory vote collapses directly to them
Exactly - a tory voter at this moment won't want to vote tory so goes for the Lib Dem option instead of Labour - voting when you reach a certain age is mandatory
posted that before I saw the Tillingbourne (Guildford) council by-election result:
The 1922 are utter morons for giving members any say.
This is the third time I’ve posted on this.
And if you keep posting it, I'll have to keep reminding you that they had no choice.
Well, you’re simply wrong about it.
No he is not. They are bound by the rules of the party - they don't make them. They can tinker at a low level with timetables and nomination requirements but that is all.
He is wrong, because he assumes perhaps that the question in hand was the party leadership.
Liz should have been told to resign as Prime Minister, but not as Party Leader.
Not remotely a serious suggestion.
Right, so you’ve conceded that you’re wrong, you just don’t think the alternative is “serious”.
Something that is so unserious that it's imaginary doesn't counteract my point of the reality of the situation.
She can't resign as PM until there's a successor - this is why she hasn't resigned as PM today). Without a party leadership election, how is the successor chosen, especially given that the assumption is that the leader of the party which holds a majority has the confidence of the House?
It's beyond preposterous.
So preposterous it was used to replace Chamberlain.
The mechanism would be quite straightforward. Truss would announce her intention to resign the premiership and hand over to another Tory chosen by the MPs either by coronation or through voting.
Said Tory becomes PM. Liz then resigns the leadership and the party can do what they want, it has no impact on the premiership.
At which point the new party leader becomes PM, because they have a majority in the Commons!
Nope, that’s not required. It’s merely a convention. In any case, they are hardly likely to unseat a sitting PM at that stage.
Lab just hold on in St Helens from a Lib Dem surge.
Con go from 518 to 74.
And Labour go from 1547 to 656 Not much change in Devauden either, the Labour poll surge continues to elude actual elections
Just when I think the Tories are finished some of the local elections results seem to say "Are they?"
I expect the Thorpe ward in Norwich to drop tonight
To Labour I assume? - yes a good benchmark
Yes, although the LDs have some presence too
Yes - the experts who are very good have said 5 Labour gains,4 Tory holds and 3 Lib Dem gains
The LDs only get it if the Tory vote collapses directly to them
Exactly - a tory voter at this moment won't want to vote tory so goes for the Lib Dem option instead of Labour - voting when you reach a certain age is mandatory
posted that before I saw the Tillingbourne (Guildford) council by-election result:
The real story is that Green voters switched to the Lib Dems. Tactical voting in operation.
Lab just hold on in St Helens from a Lib Dem surge.
Con go from 518 to 74.
And Labour go from 1547 to 656 Not much change in Devauden either, the Labour poll surge continues to elude actual elections
Just when I think the Tories are finished some of the local elections results seem to say "Are they?"
I expect the Thorpe ward in Norwich to drop tonight
To Labour I assume? - yes a good benchmark
Yes, although the LDs have some presence too
Yes - the experts who are very good have said 5 Labour gains,4 Tory holds and 3 Lib Dem gains
The LDs only get it if the Tory vote collapses directly to them
Exactly - a tory voter at this moment won't want to vote tory so goes for the Lib Dem option instead of Labour - voting when you reach a certain age is mandatory
posted that before I saw the Tillingbourne (Guildford) council by-election result:
The real story is that Green voters switched to the Lib Dems. Tactical voting in operation.
Boris Johnson is privately urging Rishi Sunak to join forces with him in a remarkable olive branch to his foe
Ally of Boris tells @Telegraph: “If the Tories are serious about winning in 2024 + want to stop a general election before then they need to revert to the…”
“…guy with a mandate who is a seasoned campaigner. They need someone to take the fight to Labour. There’s no point going to a yellow box junction without knowing how you are going to get out of it. Rishi should make contact + work out how the two of them can get back together.”
Well if Rishi accepts its all over..Boris is the next PM
Or the other way around.
The shameless can often outlast others by sheer stubborness.
Clever tactics from Boris allies though - they've already come out of the blocks fast and established him as having momentum, it isn't obvious others would do better with the public (despite Boris's manifest unsuitability), and talk of him reaching out presents him as the guy to beat being generous, not a scrap between equals.
Sunak doesn't have the force of will or talent to overcome Boris, and Mordaunt lacks the support.
Not so clever if Boris stalls and Sunak overtakes him and goes out of sight.... Boris will look all fart and no follow through.
I'm finding it weird that neither Sunak or Johnson have made any sort of public appearance. Too soon maybe?
Like trying to bet on ghosts
Several possible factors including
> this is insider baseball for most part, give that electorate is 357 or thereabouts, with all kinds of expectations, some policy, some ideology,some professional, mostly personal, occasionally principle beyond ideological.
> thus internal communication - including planted media - is likely more important than candidate's pubic speeches and pronouncements, at least until end game IF somebody is feeling desperate.
> while there is scope for whipping up supporters including certainly party members to hard lobby their MPs, worth keeping in mind that one reason why Liz Truss had to face a long ladder but short rope, was the aggressive way Tory MPs were "lobbied" into the No Lobby for the Clusterfrack. Meaning applying TOO much enthusiasm could well backfire.
That all said, give Boris Johnson's persona, experience and ego slight larger than the Goodyear Blimp, high likelihood he will begin to exhort the Bojo-ites in his accustomed style, and like his model #45.
Esp. if he gets desperate. Or rather WHEN he gets desperate, because am I'm sure Johnson's got a definite ceiling. And also (with something less than moral certainty) that it's NOT as high as 100.
Sorry but the Ukrainian government needs to be told to butt out. Fighting a righteous war doesn’t give them the right to go interfering in other countries democratic processes
I don’t even get what the imagery is trying to suggest. It would seem stupidly puerile from some twitter random let alone an official government account.
Sorry but the Ukrainian government needs to be told to butt out. Fighting a righteous war doesn’t give them the right to go interfering in other countries democratic processes
I don’t even get what the imagery is trying to suggest. It would seem stupidly puerile from some twitter random let alone an official government account.
Being in an existential fight, we can forgive them, no?
(It's a clumsy reference to the Netflix show "Better Call Saul")
Astonishing result from Porchester, a pretty safe LD ward
Results for Portchester East By-election
Conservative - 957 Labour - 379 Liberal Democrats - 932 Fareham Independent Group - 275
Harry Patrick Davis, Conservative, has been elected
Any reasons why?
No, its been LD since 2002! Must be the Braverman effect as MP?!!!
It's this sort of result that makes me think - why? why? why? - if I knew I would be a millionaire
Not a humongous margin. Was previous result also relatively close, the other way? Also impact of Lab & Inds? Could a Suella sympathy vote have prodded Tory activists & voters to boost turnout just enough? Enquiring minds want to know!
Astonishing result from Porchester, a pretty safe LD ward
Results for Portchester East By-election
Conservative - 957 Labour - 379 Liberal Democrats - 932 Fareham Independent Group - 275
Harry Patrick Davis, Conservative, has been elected
Any reasons why?
No, its been LD since 2002! Must be the Braverman effect as MP?!!!
It's this sort of result that makes me think - why? why? why? - if I knew I would be a millionaire
Not a humongous margin. Was previous result also relatively close, the other way? Also impact of Lab & Inds? Could a Suella sympathy vote have prodded Tory activists & voters to boost turnout just enough? Enquiring minds want to know!
LDs have held the ward consistently since the millenium, Tories were closish in 2021 and 2016 but very unexpected result given the national picture
Sorry but the Ukrainian government needs to be told to butt out. Fighting a righteous war doesn’t give them the right to go interfering in other countries democratic processes
I don’t even get what the imagery is trying to suggest. It would seem stupidly puerile from some twitter random let alone an official government account.
Being in an existential fight, we can forgive them, no?
(It's a clumsy reference to the Netflix show "Better Call Saul")
Yeah, I got that. What is a mask of Boris being moved aside to reveal a sleazy, morally compromised lawyer supposed to mean?
BTW (also FYI) over morning coffee this AM, just after Liz Truss gave her resignation announcement, yours truly was reading about the 1963 Labour Leadership contest (PLP only) after death of Hugh Gaitskell in "The Making of the Prime Minister 1964" by Anthony Howard & Richard West.
Oldie but goodie, has info & insights still relevant this millennium.
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.
Sorry but the Ukrainian government needs to be told to butt out. Fighting a righteous war doesn’t give them the right to go interfering in other countries democratic processes
I don’t even get what the imagery is trying to suggest. It would seem stupidly puerile from some twitter random let alone an official government account.
Being in an existential fight, we can forgive them, no?
(It's a clumsy reference to the Netflix show "Better Call Saul")
Yeah, I got that. What is a mask of Boris being moved aside to reveal a sleazy, morally compromised lawyer supposed to mean?
Nothing. Just directly taken from the season 4 title card. No deep meaning, just a shit pun.
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.
It’s reasonable to let them have a role.
Say 20 MPs required to nominate.
Members then vote for a shortlist of 5 (using AV)
MPs then chose 1 winner from that shortlist.
Why is it reasonable? It’s not. Same applies to Labour as well. It’s a subversion of the parliamentary system.
May be she could claim the Earldom that she is technically entitled to (but no one has since Stockton)… the Countess of Truss (no sniggering at the northern accent)
Sorry but the Ukrainian government needs to be told to butt out. Fighting a righteous war doesn’t give them the right to go interfering in other countries democratic processes
I don’t even get what the imagery is trying to suggest. It would seem stupidly puerile from some twitter random let alone an official government account.
Being in an existential fight, we can forgive them, no?
(It's a clumsy reference to the Netflix show "Better Call Saul")
Yeah, I got that. What is a mask of Boris being moved aside to reveal a sleazy, morally compromised lawyer supposed to mean?
Nothing. Just directly taken from the season 4 title card. No deep meaning, just a shit pun.
They would have been better advised to use Breaking Bad.
May be she could claim the Earldom that she is technically entitled to (but no one has since Stockton)… the Countess of Truss (no sniggering at the northern accent)
Comments
The betting is a bit weird. I think everybody is guessing. Sunak has been solid though, and frankly he does look the solid punt.
https://twitter.com/channel_tsc/status/1583212304719495170?s=20&t=IDzmKDJBxECrV6y2ZOrj1A
Which is likely. But NOT a given.
Conservative Party Constitution - SCHEDULE 2: RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
3. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be declared Leader of the Party.
https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf
https://twitter.com/georgeperetzkc/status/1583223049557458944
Yes, backed at 5.1, which is value - it’s essentially a bet on 100 Tory MPs being certifiably insane, which I make an even money shot.
So if and when the membership go on to ignore their MPs and choose him as PM regardless his government will be inherently unstable from the off. Within months we will be right back where we were with Truss. Then off we go again
Lost a bit on the mortgage payments though.
Great for traders. Wouldn't read too much into it as far as who the next PM will be.
The winner is going to have no mandate and the supporters of the other two will be against them from day 1.
https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1583209400671809537
DYOR
Clement Freud pulled that stunt many, many years ago in an LD leadership contest. We saw it again in the Romney/Obama clash, and a lot of PB punters cleaned up as a result. It's been a while since we've seen a clear cut example, but this contest looks made for that kind of thing.
This post is a sort of health warning.
Wealth warning, even.
It may be the only way to unite the party, by cutting out a load of them and scaring the rest.
There are 357 Con MPs so something like the following is entirely plausible and would eliminate him.
Sunak 130
Mordaunt 117
Johnson 110
ie very similar to the final ballot last time. Changes:
Sunak -7
Mordaunt +12
Truss/Johnson -3
(2 abstentions last time)
She can't resign as PM until there's a successor - this is why she hasn't resigned as PM today). Without a party leadership election, how is the successor chosen, especially given that the assumption is that the leader of the party which holds a majority has the confidence of the House?
It's beyond preposterous.
Also, that was in an era when party leaders "emerged" without anything so uncivilised as even a vote of the parliamentary party.
The mechanism would be quite straightforward. Truss would announce her intention to resign the premiership and hand over to another Tory chosen by the MPs either by coronation or through voting.
Said Tory becomes PM.
Liz then resigns the leadership and the party can do what they want, it has no impact on the premiership.
I doubt it was ever intended for such a circumstance as we’ve seen this week; it has certainly brought the party into disrepute.
Tillingbourne (Guildford) council by-election result:
LDEM: 46.5% (+16.3)
CON: 21.4% (-15.2)
RGV: 13.5% (+13.5)
GRN: 12.3% (-20.8)
LAB: 6.2% (+6.2)
Votes cast: 1,367
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
How many Whips are there in total?
He also has two 1922 Exec, two Party Board and one CCHQ Vice-Chair (all unnamed) backing Boris.
Again how many of these roles are there in total?
Seems extraordinary that Boris has 15/15 unnamed backers in official positions.
Like trying to bet on ghosts
It’s merely a convention. In any case, they are hardly likely to unseat a sitting PM at that stage.
11/2 in some places
"Schroders lost £20bn in LDI division amid gilts market turmoil"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c58c5224-509d-11ed-b120-ca4f3ffbcdc5?shareToken=f549e19ac458711a817fe99cecb97e27
Apparently not one of the big three though.
Results for Portchester East By-election
Conservative - 957
Labour - 379
Liberal Democrats - 932
Fareham Independent Group - 275
Harry Patrick Davis, Conservative, has been elected
Johnson 50 (including 15 unnamed Party officials)
Sunak 39
Mordaunt 17 (including one unnamed Party official)
He’s still under investigation, and his track record is hardly going to avoid scandal over the next two years.
All this talk of avoiding a general election . There’s more likely to be one if the party implodes if he gets into no 10 again .
CON: 37.6% (+3.0)
LDEM: 36.6% (-14.2)
LAB: 14.9% (+4.5)
FIG: 10.8% (+10.8)
Votes cast: 2,543
Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat.
> this is insider baseball for most part, give that electorate is 357 or thereabouts, with all kinds of expectations, some policy, some ideology,some professional, mostly personal, occasionally principle beyond ideological.
> thus internal communication - including planted media - is likely more important than candidate's pubic speeches and pronouncements, at least until end game IF somebody is feeling desperate.
> while there is scope for whipping up supporters including certainly party members to hard lobby their MPs, worth keeping in mind that one reason why Liz Truss had to face a long ladder but short rope, was the aggressive way Tory MPs were "lobbied" into the No Lobby for the Clusterfrack. Meaning applying TOO much enthusiasm could well backfire.
That all said, give Boris Johnson's persona, experience and ego slight larger than the Goodyear Blimp, high likelihood he will begin to exhort the Bojo-ites in his accustomed style, and like his model #45.
Esp. if he gets desperate. Or rather WHEN he gets desperate, because am I'm sure Johnson's got a definite ceiling. And also (with something less than moral certainty) that it's NOT as high as 100.
(It's a clumsy reference to the Netflix show "Better Call Saul")
If people aren't prepared to put their name down, they surely don't count, for now?
What is a mask of Boris being moved aside to reveal a sleazy, morally compromised lawyer supposed to mean?
Oldie but goodie, has info & insights still relevant this millennium.
Say 20 MPs required to nominate.
Members then vote for a shortlist of 5 (using AV)
MPs then chose 1 winner from that shortlist.
It’s not. Same applies to Labour as well.
It’s a subversion of the parliamentary system.
Liz Truss/ 7 /0 /0
Nadhim Zahawi/ 0 /0 /0
Penny Mordaunt/ 3 /0 /10
Kemi Badenoch/ 1 /1 /0
Suella Braverman/ 4 /1 /0
Rishi Sunak/ 0 18 /0
Kemi Badenoch/ 1 /0 /0
Tom Tugendhat/ 0 /2 /0
Jeremy Hunt/ 1 /0 /0
Noone/ 30 /10 /4
https://twitter.com/rhonddabryant/status/1583225583357415424?s=46&t=ssP1xq7z4QDeOm17Z2QWWQ
For instance David Morris originally supported Hunt in r1 of the contest last time. This time he supports Boris.