Now a move to exclude party members from leadership elections – politicalbetting.com

System

Now a move to exclude party members from leadership elections – politicalbetting.com

It's good to see Graham Brady making this case (in @JohnRentoul's newsletter).The choice of prime minister cannot be a subscriber benefit for a few thousand party members, whom nobody elected and who are accountable to no one.I made the same case here: https://t.co/HqSF1LzT3w pic.twitter.com/qDiNY16Psb

Read the full story here

Foxy

First like Labour in Mid Beds

dr_spyn

First, like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, leave the leadership to the members and watch them foul up with hilarious results.

rottenborough

dr_spyn said:

First, like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, leave the leadership to the members and watch them foul up with hilarious results.

Braverman being the next looney tunes choice.

TheScreamingEagles

Totally agree with Sir Graham.

kle4

Nigelb said:

Interesting details from the Trump fraud case.
Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.

Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460...
https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281

Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.

HYUFD

In government yes MPs should have the final say as a PM needs the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues to pass legislation and make policy.

In opposition though party members should still have the final say on the leader and voters can confirm or not that choice and the subsequent general election

HYUFD

dr_spyn said:

First, like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, leave the leadership to the members and watch them foul up with hilarious results.

Party members also elected Tony Blair and David Cameron and Sir Keir Starmer however.

MPs alone elected Michael Foot, William Hague and Theresa May and Rishi Sunak to name a few

Foxy

On topic.

Wasn't Truss the first Tory Leader where the membership overruled the MPs? And its not as if Sunak has done much better!

For Labour it is less clear, but surely Corbyn was the first one that went against the MPs choice?

Gallowgate

HYUFD said:

dr_spyn said:

First, like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, leave the leadership to the members and watch them foul up with hilarious results.

Party members also elected Tony Blair and David Cameron and Sir Keir Starmer however.

MPs alone elected Michael Foot, William Hague and Theresa May and Rishi Sunak to name a few

Sir Tony Blair, no?

williamglenn

Theuniondivvie said:

Thinks looking up for the Tories?

The 'when in government' stipulation from Brady is interesting. It would leave the path open for Farage to take over the party while in opposition.

kle4

I can't see it gaining traction.

I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.

Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.

Theuniondivvie

On topic from the last thread

Thinks looking up for the Tories?

DecrepiterJohnL

In the short term, any change would likely undermine Rishi Sunak if MPs felt empowered to remove him without worrying the membership would vote for someone worse.

Sean_F

The MPs are as bad as the members, though.

dr_spyn

Being more royalist than the king isn't always the way to broaden the support base.

kle4

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

IanB2

Sean_F said:

The MPs are as bad as the members, though.

Indeed. It makes you wonder who selects them.

HYUFD

Private Eye's controversial new frontpage

https://x.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1714545102977421797?s=20

kle4

Theuniondivvie said:

On topic from the last thread

Thinks looking up for the Tories?

I'd be surprised.

But I wouldn't be that shocked either - a lot of Tories always wanted to be like Farage.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

HYUFD

Theuniondivvie said:

On topic from the last thread

Thinks looking up for the Tories?

CCHQ won't even allow him to be a parliamentary candidate at the next general election so not much chance of his becoming Conservative leader if he cannot even get elected a Tory MP

kle4

HYUFD said:

Private Eye's controversial new frontpage

https://x.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1714545102977421797?s=20

Doesn't look controversial to me, just looks like strawmanning, since few openly advocate for that solution (killing everyone in Gaza), so they are not brave for opposing it.

It would have been stronger to just say "Warning: This magazine may contain criticism of the Israeli government", since that is something which more people will criticise even when it is warranted.

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

Grindr had more of an impact.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting details from the Trump fraud case.
Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.

Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460...
https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281

Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.

Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

On topic.

Wasn't Truss the first Tory Leader where the membership overruled the MPs? And its not as if Sunak has done much better!

For Labour it is less clear, but surely Corbyn was the first one that went against the MPs choice?

No IDS was the first, the largest percentage of Conservative MPs in 2001 voted for Ken Clarke (and IDS only won 1 more Tory MP than Portillo too). Labour MPs also voted for David Miliband not Ed Miliband as well as most Labour MPs twice rejecting Corbyn as leader

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

Looks like it was the government of 1990-1992 that did the real damage.

Butthurt Thatcher fanboys leaving or just the spirit of the times?

I think Labour Membership is pretty impressively consistent in fairness.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

Grindr had more of an impact.

In the 1950s homosexuality was still illegal and while there have long been plenty of homosexuals at CCHQ and senior ranks of the party, there are no more than average amongst members overall

kle4

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting details from the Trump fraud case.
Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.

Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460...
https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281

Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.

Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.

For all of us!

Have you heard about MBS? You cannot say a bad thing about him, literally; that must mean he is great!

(My rates are very reasonable, Saudi Embassy)

HYUFD

Sunak on way to Israel No 10 announces

Theuniondivvie

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting details from the Trump fraud case.
Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.

Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460...
https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281

Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.

Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.

Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.

Fairliered

HYUFD said:

In government yes MPs should have the final say as a PM needs the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues to pass legislation and make policy.

In opposition though party members should still have the final say on the leader and voters can confirm or not that choice and the subsequent general election

A possible compromise would be for party members to choose the first three candidates, who would then be put to MPs for the final choice.

rottenborough

HYUFD said:

Sunak on way to Israel No 10 announces

He's late.

Nigelb

I'd forgotten this, but yep.

In Israel, Biden invokes the disastrous US decision to invade Iraq after 9/11. One of loudest cheerleaders for the US attack on Iraq was Netanyahu, who offered a "guarantee" in 2002 an invasion would pacify the region and mocked people who predicted a group like ISIS would emerge
https://twitter.com/RobertMackey/status/1714753098575700033

kle4

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Sunak on way to Israel No 10 announces

He's late.

Had to make sure it was safe! Biden has one foot in the grave already, he has no fear.

Nigelb

Not bad for an old guy.

Reporter: "Do you have a view of Jim Jordan’s current predicament being unable to secure the speakership?"

Biden: “I ache for him… *laughs* No. Zero. None.”<(I>
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1714743039338394068

rottenborough

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

Fairliered

HYUFD said:

Sunak on way to Israel No 10 announces

If he has the key to open the Rafah crossing, he will be welcomed by all right thinking people.

HYUFD

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

In government yes MPs should have the final say as a PM needs the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues to pass legislation and make policy.

In opposition though party members should still have the final say on the leader and voters can confirm or not that choice and the subsequent general election

A possible compromise would be for party members to choose the first three candidates, who would then be put to MPs for the final choice.

No, in opposition members should get the final say.

A final choice of 3 isn't much of a choice at all

kle4

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

In government yes MPs should have the final say as a PM needs the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues to pass legislation and make policy.

In opposition though party members should still have the final say on the leader and voters can confirm or not that choice and the subsequent general election

A possible compromise would be for party members to choose the first three candidates, who would then be put to MPs for the final choice.

Personally if members are to be involved I think the Tories have it the right way round in theory, in that they should ensure the final two candidates are acceptable to the parliamentary party, and thus it should not overly matter which one the Members pick. In contrast to Labour's approach of not filtering the candidates (beyond a low threshold) before going out to members in 2015.

Of course, in practice we've seen it can still be problematic when MPs much more strongly back one candidate over another, or if MPs do put a loony through anyway (Not saying Truss was that though, honestly she seemed fairly normal as these things go).

I recall Boris boosters moaning about it being unfair if he was kept away from Members in 2019, even though he ended up doing so easily as the front runner.

MikeL

Con drifting in Mid Beds - 1.8 this morning, now 1.97.

Fairliered

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

I am happy to condemn whoever did it.

nico679

Nigelb said:

I'd forgotten this, but yep.

In Israel, Biden invokes the disastrous US decision to invade Iraq after 9/11. One of loudest cheerleaders for the US attack on Iraq was Netanyahu, who offered a "guarantee" in 2002 an invasion would pacify the region and mocked people who predicted a group like ISIS would emerge
https://twitter.com/RobertMackey/status/1714753098575700033

Biden on the money there . Who knows what might happen post the likely new annexation of northern Gaza .

Fairliered

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

In government yes MPs should have the final say as a PM needs the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues to pass legislation and make policy.

In opposition though party members should still have the final say on the leader and voters can confirm or not that choice and the subsequent general election

A possible compromise would be for party members to choose the first three candidates, who would then be put to MPs for the final choice.

No, in opposition members should get the final say.

A final choice of 3 isn't much of a choice at all

Only if the choice is Rees-Mogg, Braverman or Bone.

Andy_JS

It sounds anti-democratic to reduce the number of people voting from the hundreds of thousands to just hundreds.

nico679

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

Hodges needs to stfu as he writes for a vile scum sucking paper which historically was a Nazi appeaser .

williamglenn

Nigelb said:

I'd forgotten this, but yep.

In Israel, Biden invokes the disastrous US decision to invade Iraq after 9/11. One of loudest cheerleaders for the US attack on Iraq was Netanyahu, who offered a "guarantee" in 2002 an invasion would pacify the region and mocked people who predicted a group like ISIS would emerge
https://twitter.com/RobertMackey/status/1714753098575700033

That advice could be taken to mean ‘sort out Gaza rather than invading somewhere that wasn’t involved’.

Stark_Dawning

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

williamglenn

Andy_JS said:

It sounds anti-democratic to reduce the number of people voting from the hundreds of thousands to just hundreds.

But MPs are accountable to the wider electorate in a way that party members aren’t.

rottenborough

Jeez. The Mail. The rank hypocrisy on front page. King warns of rancour and division - especially on social media and then the main headline below is yet another attack on the BBC over the minor issue of what Hamas is labelled as.

EPG

If they want to dictate PPCs and the leadership then what's the point. Let them pay grunts and drones to drop leaflets.

MightyAlex

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

This was the Ch4 analysis:
https://www.channel4.com/news/who-was-behind-the-gaza-hospital-blast-visual-investigation

rottenborough

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Sunak on way to Israel No 10 announces

He's late.

Had to make sure it was safe! Biden has one foot in the grave already, he has no fear.

Timothy Snyder
@TimothyDSnyder
·
7h
Number of war zones visited by 45 previous presidents without US military protection: zero. Number visited by President Biden: two. The guy has courage.

nico679

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

It’s vomit inducing to see these DM journalists suddenly showing they care . No one will forget the disgusting attacks on Ed Millibands dad .

rcs1000

Nigelb said:

Not bad for an old guy.

Reporter: "Do you have a view of Jim Jordan’s current predicament being unable to secure the speakership?"

Biden: “I ache for him… *laughs* No. Zero. None.”<(I>
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1714743039338394068

He's looking pretty ancient, isn't he?

Malmesbury

nico679 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

It’s vomit inducing to see these DM journalists suddenly showing they care . No one will forget the disgusting attacks on Ed Millibands dad .

The thing about whataboutery, is that is emphasises the original point.

kle4

Andy_JS said:

It sounds anti-democratic to reduce the number of people voting from the hundreds of thousands to just hundreds.

Only if you start from the idea that they should be entitled to vote for leader of a political party. But why?

• They've done so for barely 20 years, and they had more members when they didn't let them vote for leader so it clearly is not that big an incentive to join.
  
• We've seen with Corbyn the problems that arise if the leader has a separate mandate than support from the MPs, who do not want the leader.
  
• The main requirement is to hold the confidence of the Commons, and being able to appeal to unrepresentative party activists and media does not help with that.
  
• It causes unnecessary delay to what could be critical political decisions.
  
• Even under the most generous of interpretations and restricting to modern post war political history, at least 1/4 PMs neither won an election to get the job or even sought an electoral mandate within an entire year, and having a party membership election wouldn't provide such a mandate. Because
  
• 100k-200k is not going to be accepted as democratic by detractors in any case.
  

It's nonsense when you have a system like ours where the PM is effectively chosen by MPs (if in legal terms by choice of the Monarch) collectively backing someone to treat it as undemocratic because a few hundred people per constituency did not get a go.

Burgessian

kle4 said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

In government yes MPs should have the final say as a PM needs the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues to pass legislation and make policy.

In opposition though party members should still have the final say on the leader and voters can confirm or not that choice and the subsequent general election

A possible compromise would be for party members to choose the first three candidates, who would then be put to MPs for the final choice.

Personally if members are to be involved I think the Tories have it the right way round in theory, in that they should ensure the final two candidates are acceptable to the parliamentary party, and thus it should not overly matter which one the Members pick. In contrast to Labour's approach of not filtering the candidates (beyond a low threshold) before going out to members in 2015.

Of course, in practice we've seen it can still be problematic when MPs much more strongly back one candidate over another, or if MPs do put a loony through anyway (Not saying Truss was that though, honestly she seemed fairly normal as these things go).

I recall Boris boosters moaning about it being unfair if he was kept away from Members in 2019, even though he ended up doing so easily as the front runner.

The Tory problem is when the factional right in the parliamentary party has just enough numbers to scrape a plainly unsuitable candidate into the final two who is then elected by the members. This has happened twice: in 2001 when IDS edged out Portillo, and last year when Truss edged out Mordaunt. Obviously far more serious when this happens in Govt and the inevitable crash affects the country. In opposition the MPs can sort things out without too much harm as they did by ditching IDS and bringing in Howard. So the Brady proposal is eminently sensible.

kyf_100

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

Paywalled, but the evidence is analysed here in The Times and it comes out pretty unequivocally in Israel's favour - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-bombed-hospital-gaza-israel-hamas-rgjqlmj68

It's a fairly long analysis, but the line that sums it up for me is "The laws of physics are on the Israelis’ side" - i.e. all the evidence from the blast site point to it being a rocket, and fired from the south.

The US has separately said that their own intelligence (i.e. their own sources, not the ones they've been shown by the IDF) indicates Israel were not responsible. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1714645034878812453

Here's Sky News eating a slice of humble pie (it has much the same analysis as the Times article, but with a different tone) https://twitter.com/SussexFriends/status/1714619247828062687

This is also a rather good thread of evidence leading up to the conclusion that "A missile launched by a Palestinian group exploded mid-air (Reason unknown) and one piece fell on the hospital causing an explosion." https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272

It feels quite conclusive to me.

kle4

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

Not bad for an old guy.

Reporter: "Do you have a view of Jim Jordan’s current predicament being unable to secure the speakership?"

Biden: “I ache for him… *laughs* No. Zero. None.”<(I>
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1714743039338394068

He's looking pretty ancient, isn't he?

And sounding it.

Just hold on Joe, 16 more months.

Sharper and more energetic than he looks or sounds though, given what his opponents claim he is always doing to thwart them.

Burgessian

kyf_100 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

Paywalled, but the evidence is analysed here in The Times and it comes out pretty unequivocally in Israel's favour - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-bombed-hospital-gaza-israel-hamas-rgjqlmj68

It's a fairly long analysis, but the line that sums it up for me is "The laws of physics are on the Israelis’ side" - i.e. all the evidence from the blast site point to it being a rocket, and fired from the south.

The US has separately said that their own intelligence (i.e. their own sources, not the ones they've been shown by the IDF) indicates Israel were not responsible. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1714645034878812453

Here's Sky News eating a slice of humble pie (it has much the same analysis as the Times article, but with a different tone) https://twitter.com/SussexFriends/status/1714619247828062687

This is also a rather good thread of evidence leading up to the conclusion that "A missile launched by a Palestinian group exploded mid-air (Reason unknown) and one piece fell on the hospital causing an explosion." https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272

It feels quite conclusive to me.

The Guardian has published an analysis which points to the same conclusion. Slam dunk it is then. But I suspect a fair few people will still emotionally blame Israel as it would overturn their imagined sense of being "even-handed " to think otherwise.

StillWaters

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

Looks like it was the government of 1990-1992 that did the real damage.

Butthurt Thatcher fanboys leaving or just the spirit of the times?

I think Labour Membership is pretty impressively consistent in fairness.

Isn’t a bunch of the labour members hip affiliated members from the unions?

May include people who join the union for legal services, for example, like the member for the FDA I saw on Friday but aren’t Labour leaning

rottenborough

kle4 said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

Not bad for an old guy.

Reporter: "Do you have a view of Jim Jordan’s current predicament being unable to secure the speakership?"

Biden: “I ache for him… *laughs* No. Zero. None.”<(I>
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1714743039338394068

He's looking pretty ancient, isn't he?

And sounding it.

Just hold on Joe, 16 more months.

Sharper and more energetic than he looks or sounds though, given what his opponents claim he is always doing to thwart them.

Almost certainly now too late for an alternative unless health crisis between now and the conventions.

There were rumours of an October surprise where he says he aint running. But we are mid way through and he's in the very thick of it with Middle East.

So 'aint gonna happen.

It is Trump vs Biden and we pray the indie voters save the republic.

rcs1000

kyf_100 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

Paywalled, but the evidence is analysed here in The Times and it comes out pretty unequivocally in Israel's favour - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-bombed-hospital-gaza-israel-hamas-rgjqlmj68

It's a fairly long analysis, but the line that sums it up for me is "The laws of physics are on the Israelis’ side" - i.e. all the evidence from the blast site point to it being a rocket, and fired from the south.

The US has separately said that their own intelligence (i.e. their own sources, not the ones they've been shown by the IDF) indicates Israel were not responsible. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1714645034878812453

Here's Sky News eating a slice of humble pie (it has much the same analysis as the Times article, but with a different tone) https://twitter.com/SussexFriends/status/1714619247828062687

This is also a rather good thread of evidence leading up to the conclusion that "A missile launched by a Palestinian group exploded mid-air (Reason unknown) and one piece fell on the hospital causing an explosion." https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272

It feels quite conclusive to me.

I think it's 90% likely to be Hamas; so not certain yet, but by far the most likely scenario.

StillWaters

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

Hodges needs to stfu as he writes for a vile scum sucking paper which historically was a Nazi appeaser .

And the guardian is a Cayman island based tax efficient structure which was funded from slavery.

If he has a point he has a point. You don’t get to shut him down because you don’t like what he is saying

nico679

Malmesbury said:

nico679 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

It’s vomit inducing to see these DM journalists suddenly showing they care . No one will forget the disgusting attacks on Ed Millibands dad .

The thing about whataboutery, is that is emphasises the original point.

As far as I’m concerned I agreed from last night that Israel were unlikely to have targeted the hospital and have accepted their evidence . And nothing Hamas or the equally evil PIJ do would surprise me, neither give a fig over civilians in Gaza.

The media should next time show more balance and not report blame until they’ve got more evidence .

Alphabet_Soup

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

Young Farmers are still a thing, though, if you're looking for a girl who knows how to milk a cow.

SeaShantyIrish2

kle4 said:

Andy_JS said:

It sounds anti-democratic to reduce the number of people voting from the hundreds of thousands to just hundreds.

Only if you start from the idea that they should be entitled to vote for leader of a political party. But why?

• They've done so for barely 20 years, and they had more members when they didn't let them vote for leader so it clearly is not that big an incentive to join.
  
• We've seen with Corbyn the problems that arise if the leader has a separate mandate than support from the MPs, who do not want the leader.
  
• The main requirement is to hold the confidence of the Commons, and being able to appeal to unrepresentative party activists and media does not help with that.
  
• It causes unnecessary delay to what could be critical political decisions.
  
• Even under the most generous of interpretations and restricting to modern post war political history, at least 1/4 PMs neither won an election to get the job or even sought an electoral mandate within an entire year, and having a party membership election wouldn't provide such a mandate. Because
  
• 100k-200k is not going to be accepted as democratic by detractors in any case.
  

It's nonsense when you have a system like ours where the PM is effectively chosen by MPs (if in legal terms by choice of the Monarch) collectively backing someone to treat it as undemocratic because a few hundred people per constituency did not get a go.

Personally feel that party nominations by party members are questionable as democracy UNLESS the definition of membership is very broad AND it takes more members to nominate than can be crammed into a Mini Cooper.

For example, nominations by US party primaries, where eligible voters are either pre-registered as party adherents, or can choose a party ballot (one per customer) when they actually vote in the primary.

PROVIDED voters have ample notice and access to the process, which requires zero party financial dues or other obligations, beyond the act of voting via secret ballot.

System was first established in US in Wisconsin under the administration of progress Republican Governor (later US Senator) Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette. As antidote to party machine politics based on party nominating caucuses and conventions, with low participation and high manipulation.

In other words, the British system.

In USA, primaries have expanded from sea to shining sea, to every state and most elected offices.

About only holdouts today are a) the Iowa presidential precinct caucuses of both major parties a major quadrennial cottage industry; and b) the Trump-Putin-MAGA-maniac wing of the GOP with its demonstrated disdain for actual democracy.

Dumbosaurus

MikeL said:

Con drifting in Mid Beds - 1.8 this morning, now 1.97.

That's (partly) me. D/W about it. I'm terrible at by elections anyway.

nico679

StillWaters said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

Hodges needs to stfu as he writes for a vile scum sucking paper which historically was a Nazi appeaser .

And the guardian is a Cayman island based tax efficient structure which was funded from slavery.

If he has a point he has a point. You don’t get to shut him down because you don’t like what he is saying

He might have a point but the DM is a hate filled cancer on this country .

kyf_100

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

Paywalled, but the evidence is analysed here in The Times and it comes out pretty unequivocally in Israel's favour - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-bombed-hospital-gaza-israel-hamas-rgjqlmj68

It's a fairly long analysis, but the line that sums it up for me is "The laws of physics are on the Israelis’ side" - i.e. all the evidence from the blast site point to it being a rocket, and fired from the south.

The US has separately said that their own intelligence (i.e. their own sources, not the ones they've been shown by the IDF) indicates Israel were not responsible. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1714645034878812453

Here's Sky News eating a slice of humble pie (it has much the same analysis as the Times article, but with a different tone) https://twitter.com/SussexFriends/status/1714619247828062687

This is also a rather good thread of evidence leading up to the conclusion that "A missile launched by a Palestinian group exploded mid-air (Reason unknown) and one piece fell on the hospital causing an explosion." https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272

It feels quite conclusive to me.

I think it's 90% likely to be Hamas; so not certain yet, but by far the most likely scenario.

Agree, I'd put the odds slightly higher based on the above sources, but I don't think we'll ever be able to definitively, 100% prove one way or the other.

Where it gets interesting is, having viewed the pictures of the blast site in the day time (a car park, no impact crater, no fallen buildings or extensive fire damage to surrounding buildings) you wonder how it's possible to get to a casualty figure of 500 from that. That alone makes me question the Hamas side of the story.

MaxPB

nico679 said:

Malmesbury said:

nico679 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

It’s vomit inducing to see these DM journalists suddenly showing they care . No one will forget the disgusting attacks on Ed Millibands dad .

The thing about whataboutery, is that is emphasises the original point.

As far as I’m concerned I agreed from last night that Israel were unlikely to have targeted the hospital and have accepted their evidence . And nothing Hamas or the equally evil PIJ do would surprise me, neither give a fig over civilians in Gaza.

The media should next time show more balance and not report blame until they’ve got more evidence .

Yes, I think a lot of people were on the same page. Hopefully the media has learned a lesson to not take anything Hamas say at face value ever again. I doubt it but I do really hope that the BBC in particular has learned its lesson from this, they are a globally trusted organisation and for one of their journalists to go live on air and essentially blame Israel based on nothing but what Hamas were telling them is hugely damaging to Israel, the cause of peace and the BBC itself. That clip will be shown all over the Arab world and used as evidence that Israel attacked a hospital and it has the BBC stamp of approval.

Luckyguy1983

IanB2 said:

Sean_F said:

The MPs are as bad as the members, though.

Indeed. It makes you wonder who selects them.

CCHQ selects them.

Nigelb

Anyone know how much substance there is to this story ?
Seems almost incredible.

Eyeless in Gaza
How the U.S. blinded Israeli intelligence gathering efforts on Hamas and other Palestinian groups inside Lebanon
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/america-leaves-israel-eyeless-in-gaza

Andy_JS

Dumbosaurus said:

MikeL said:

Con drifting in Mid Beds - 1.8 this morning, now 1.97.

That's (partly) me. D/W about it. I'm terrible at by elections anyway.

My hunch is the Tories will win one, lose one, but can't decide which way round it'll be.

Sunil_Prasannan

Andy_JS said:

LostPassword said:

The Met Office are forecasting up to 10 inches of rain in the wettest spots of Angus and Aberdeenshire over Thursday and Friday.

Ten inches of rain is a kilotonne of water per acre.

Last time I was in Angus was the day before the train slide caused by heavy rain. Useless fact. Can't remember whether it was 2021 or 2020.

August 2020. We visited Dunnottar Castle (via Stonehaven station) just 7 months earlier.

nico679

MaxPB said:

nico679 said:

Malmesbury said:

nico679 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

It’s vomit inducing to see these DM journalists suddenly showing they care . No one will forget the disgusting attacks on Ed Millibands dad .

The thing about whataboutery, is that is emphasises the original point.

As far as I’m concerned I agreed from last night that Israel were unlikely to have targeted the hospital and have accepted their evidence . And nothing Hamas or the equally evil PIJ do would surprise me, neither give a fig over civilians in Gaza.

The media should next time show more balance and not report blame until they’ve got more evidence .

Yes, I think a lot of people were on the same page. Hopefully the media has learned a lesson to not take anything Hamas say at face value ever again. I doubt it but I do really hope that the BBC in particular has learned its lesson from this, they are a globally trusted organisation and for one of their journalists to go live on air and essentially blame Israel based on nothing but what Hamas were telling them is hugely damaging to Israel, the cause of peace and the BBC itself. That clip will be shown all over the Arab world and used as evidence that Israel attacked a hospital and it has the BBC stamp of approval.

That’s a good point . I think suspicions were also raised at how quickly the Hamas media frenzy went into action and the timing was very strange . With Biden due it would have been insane to target a hospital.

Stuartinromford

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

From voting right to swiping right.

Fairliered

Alphabet_Soup said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

Young Farmers are still a thing, though, if you're looking for a girl who knows how to milk a cow.

I once went out with a Young Farmer, but she left me for an udder. 🐮

Yokes

Now that we are over the attack on the hospital which now is pretty much confirmed as an accidental attack on the car park, the question is what next. I believe we are still awaiting the Israeli missile fragments...

What is clear is that this idea floating about that Biden was somehow trying to restrain the Israelis is a myth. The assessment of a lot of days back that in fact the US was making it clear to other parties that if they got involved the US would drectly retaliate still holds. They were also bolstering their regional position with particular worries about their own and Allied forces in Iraq/Syria in particular. My understanding is the US wanted the Israelis to take into account the humanitarian aid issue and also emphasise to them to try to not get involved in a full on conflict on Hizbollah and other Iranian backed militias up north. The Israelis hierarchy arent at all keen to do that full on assault anyway though its on the options list. Around the current level of shotting is possible to manage, both for Israel and Hizbollah. I still have doubts Hizbollah wants a face to face large scale battlefield situation but may find themselves in it by momentum.

Per se, there is no brake on Israel to move into Gaza. The forces are there, the operational plan options are there, its which one and when to execute. If it doesnt start within the next 24 hours, something is amiss.

Luckyguy1983

kle4 said:

I can't see it gaining traction.

I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.

Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.

Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.

rottenborough

Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
Yikes.

New Hart-POS poll, high quality D and R pollsters, has Trump leading Biden 46%-42%. And “some of the data suggests that both independents and undecided voters would break for Trump.”

The economy’s good. Biden’s handling foreign policy well. But…
https://cnbc.com/2023/10/18/biden-would-lose-in-match-up-vs-trump-according-to-cnbc-survey-israel-funding-has-strong-support.html

Dumbosaurus

Andy_JS said:

Dumbosaurus said:

MikeL said:

Con drifting in Mid Beds - 1.8 this morning, now 1.97.

That's (partly) me. D/W about it. I'm terrible at by elections anyway.

My hunch is the Tories will win one, lose one, but can't decide which way round it'll be.

That's my feeling too. Makes them value in Tamworth too, but that market is ridiculously thin, but still I've had a bit on. The two together are also something of a hedge against us totally misreading things, but of course can both lose if we're right and both fairly knife edgey... I hope I have time tomorrow to trade my positions but I a) have work and b) have to see a consultant as a fetal scan of my first daughter who is currently approximately minus 4 weeks old is showing issues with her femur length.

Andy_JS

"Vow of ‘never again’ has never felt so hollow
The aftermath of the Gaza hospital blast has revealed that too many in the West do not want Israel to succeed
Juliet Samuel" (£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vow-of-never-again-has-never-felt-so-hollow-t6dsbbsh0

Luckyguy1983

Fairliered said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Also, bringing party members into the process has not led to a restoration of the days of mass membership of political parties, in which case all you are doing is asking party activists, the least sensible people on planet earth.

https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/sn05125_hoc_membershipofukpoliticalparties.pdf

Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.

I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner

Young Farmers are still a thing, though, if you're looking for a girl who knows how to milk a cow.

I once went out with a Young Farmer, but she left me for an udder. 🐮

Before you could fertiliser?

*apologies

nico679

Yokes said:

Now that we are over the attack on the hospital which now is pretty much confirmed as an accidental attack on the car park, the question is what next. I believe we are still awaiting the Israeli missile fragments...

What is clear is that this idea floating about that Biden was somehow trying to restrain the Israelis is a myth. The assessment of a lot of days back that in fact the US was making it clear to other parties that if they got involved the US would drectly retaliate still holds. They were also bolstering their regional position with particular worries about their own and Allied forces in Iraq/Syria in particular. My understanding is the US wanted the Israelis to take into account the humanitarian aid issue and also emphasise to them to try to not get involved in a full on conflict on Hizbollah and other Iranian backed militias up north. The Israelis hierarchy arent at all keen to do that full on assault anyway though its on the options list. Around the current level of shotting is possible to manage, both for Israel and Hizbollah. I still have doubts Hizbollah wants a face to face large scale battlefield situation but may find themselves in it by momentum.

Per se, there is no brake on Israel to move into Gaza. The forces are there, the operational plan options are there, its which one and when to execute. If it doesnt start within the next 24 hours, something is amiss.

It won’t be tomorrow as Sunak is visiting and I’d have thought for operational reasons and politics you wouldn’t want him to get caught up in a lot of drama as no one yet knows what the response might be from Hamas and the PIJ and also from Lebanon .

rcs1000

MaxPB said:

nico679 said:

Malmesbury said:

nico679 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?

What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.

It’s vomit inducing to see these DM journalists suddenly showing they care . No one will forget the disgusting attacks on Ed Millibands dad .

The thing about whataboutery, is that is emphasises the original point.

As far as I’m concerned I agreed from last night that Israel were unlikely to have targeted the hospital and have accepted their evidence . And nothing Hamas or the equally evil PIJ do would surprise me, neither give a fig over civilians in Gaza.

The media should next time show more balance and not report blame until they’ve got more evidence .

Yes, I think a lot of people were on the same page. Hopefully the media has learned a lesson to not take anything Hamas say at face value ever again. I doubt it but I do really hope that the BBC in particular has learned its lesson from this, they are a globally trusted organisation and for one of their journalists to go live on air and essentially blame Israel based on nothing but what Hamas were telling them is hugely damaging to Israel, the cause of peace and the BBC itself. That clip will be shown all over the Arab world and used as evidence that Israel attacked a hospital and it has the BBC stamp of approval.

The problem the Israelis had is that they'd warned people to evacuate the hospitals before the strike happened. (See: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-10-2023-evacuation-orders-by-israel-to-hospitals-in-northern-gaza-are-a-death-sentence-for-the-sick-and-injured)

This made is all too plausible.

We now know that (a) the hospital wasn't actually directly hit, and (b) it is far more likely an errant Hamas missile. But when we didn't know that, the Israeli warning - combined with the fact that they were hitting targets inside Gaza - certainly made it a possible scenario.

Stuartinromford

Burgessian said:

kle4 said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

In government yes MPs should have the final say as a PM needs the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues to pass legislation and make policy.

In opposition though party members should still have the final say on the leader and voters can confirm or not that choice and the subsequent general election

A possible compromise would be for party members to choose the first three candidates, who would then be put to MPs for the final choice.

Personally if members are to be involved I think the Tories have it the right way round in theory, in that they should ensure the final two candidates are acceptable to the parliamentary party, and thus it should not overly matter which one the Members pick. In contrast to Labour's approach of not filtering the candidates (beyond a low threshold) before going out to members in 2015.

Of course, in practice we've seen it can still be problematic when MPs much more strongly back one candidate over another, or if MPs do put a loony through anyway (Not saying Truss was that though, honestly she seemed fairly normal as these things go).

I recall Boris boosters moaning about it being unfair if he was kept away from Members in 2019, even though he ended up doing so easily as the front runner.

The Tory problem is when the factional right in the parliamentary party has just enough numbers to scrape a plainly unsuitable candidate into the final two who is then elected by the members. This has happened twice: in 2001 when IDS edged out Portillo, and last year when Truss edged out Mordaunt. Obviously far more serious when this happens in Govt and the inevitable crash affects the country. In opposition the MPs can sort things out without too much harm as they did by ditching IDS and bringing in Howard. So the Brady proposal is eminently sensible.

In a way, the worrying thing is that plainly unsuitable candidates for party leader make it onto the shortlist. That's not just about ideology; even if you want a left wing true believer, how do you end up thinking that Jezza C is the best standard bearer you have? Or IDS or Truss on the right?

We've had people who have flopped as party leaders before, but they were mostly flawed but you could see the point. Foot (say) was obviously going to lose really badly, but he was a substantial figure. Now the process seems to have a significant risk of elevating a complete nitwit.

HYUFD

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Sean_F said:

The MPs are as bad as the members, though.

Indeed. It makes you wonder who selects them.

CCHQ selects them.

Certainly in terms of the approved list, members select from that shortlist

Richard_Tyndall

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

I can't see it gaining traction.

I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.

Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.

Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.

The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.

And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.

Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.

HYUFD

@RedfieldWilton
Andrew RT Davies leads Mark Drakeford in our polling for first time.

Which of the following do Welsh voters think would be the better First Minister? (14-15 October)

Andrew RT Davies 34% (+4)
Mark Drakeford 33% (-11)

Changes +/- 16-17 September
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1714676562539303337?s=20

Yokes

Nigelb said:

Anyone know how much substance there is to this story ?
Seems almost incredible.

Eyeless in Gaza
How the U.S. blinded Israeli intelligence gathering efforts on Hamas and other Palestinian groups inside Lebanon
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/america-leaves-israel-eyeless-in-gaza

Kinda but i think its connecting up some very far apart dots. Its not unusual if you look at US & broader Western reapprochment actions over decades have ended up with similar outcomes as what happened in Lebanon, where the party you are trying to weaken ends up being on the inside and benefitting. The idea that US support for the Lebanese security appartus led directly to Israeli spies being flushed out though is a stretch. It may be a side effect but not by any estimation a rock solid certainty that it was going to happen.

Yokes

nico679 said:

Yokes said:

Now that we are over the attack on the hospital which now is pretty much confirmed as an accidental attack on the car park, the question is what next. I believe we are still awaiting the Israeli missile fragments...

What is clear is that this idea floating about that Biden was somehow trying to restrain the Israelis is a myth. The assessment of a lot of days back that in fact the US was making it clear to other parties that if they got involved the US would drectly retaliate still holds. They were also bolstering their regional position with particular worries about their own and Allied forces in Iraq/Syria in particular. My understanding is the US wanted the Israelis to take into account the humanitarian aid issue and also emphasise to them to try to not get involved in a full on conflict on Hizbollah and other Iranian backed militias up north. The Israelis hierarchy arent at all keen to do that full on assault anyway though its on the options list. Around the current level of shotting is possible to manage, both for Israel and Hizbollah. I still have doubts Hizbollah wants a face to face large scale battlefield situation but may find themselves in it by momentum.

Per se, there is no brake on Israel to move into Gaza. The forces are there, the operational plan options are there, its which one and when to execute. If it doesnt start within the next 24 hours, something is amiss.

It won’t be tomorrow as Sunak is visiting and I’d have thought for operational reasons and politics you wouldn’t want him to get caught up in a lot of drama as no one yet knows what the response might be from Hamas and the PIJ and also from Lebanon .

Fair point but Sunak will be in and out before dark.

Anabobazina

On topic, is there much evidence that the Tory membership are any more crackers than the PCP?

Nigelb

Yokes said:

Nigelb said:

Anyone know how much substance there is to this story ?
Seems almost incredible.

Eyeless in Gaza
How the U.S. blinded Israeli intelligence gathering efforts on Hamas and other Palestinian groups inside Lebanon
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/america-leaves-israel-eyeless-in-gaza

Kinda but i think its connecting up some very far apart dots. Its not unusual if you look at US & broader Western reapprochment actions over decades have ended up with similar outcomes as what happened in Lebanon, where the party you are trying to weaken ends up being on the inside and benefitting. The idea that US support for the Lebanese security appartus led directly to Israeli spies being flushed out though is a stretch. It may be a side effect but not by any estimation a rock solid certainty that it was going to happen.

Yes, there are also large gaps - particularly timeline - in the account.
But it's a curious story.

viewcode

HYUFD said:

@RedfieldWilton
Andrew RT Davies leads Mark Drakeford in our polling for first time.

Which of the following do Welsh voters think would be the better First Minister? (14-15 October)

Andrew RT Davies 34% (+4)
Mark Drakeford 33% (-11)

Changes +/- 16-17 September
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1714676562539303337?s=20

The Drake votes will be along in a minute. They're in the car. Which is speeding towards us. At 20mph.

Andy_JS

Nigelb said:

Anyone know how much substance there is to this story ?
Seems almost incredible.

Eyeless in Gaza
How the U.S. blinded Israeli intelligence gathering efforts on Hamas and other Palestinian groups inside Lebanon
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/america-leaves-israel-eyeless-in-gaza

Never heard of this magazine before. Interesting articles, like this one on group-think.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked-once-and-for-all

HYUFD

Richard_Tyndall said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

I can't see it gaining traction.

I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.

Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.

Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.

The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.

And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.

Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.

Members can select the Leader of the Opposition and voters can confirm if they want them to become PM at the next general election.

MPs from the governing party alone should be able to remove and elect a new PM in power yes

Luckyguy1983

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

@RedfieldWilton
Andrew RT Davies leads Mark Drakeford in our polling for first time.

Which of the following do Welsh voters think would be the better First Minister? (14-15 October)

Andrew RT Davies 34% (+4)
Mark Drakeford 33% (-11)

Changes +/- 16-17 September
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1714676562539303337?s=20

The Drake votes will be along in a minute. They're in the car. Which is speeding towards us. At 20mph.

20mph? Bit fast - won't someone think of the kittens?

Luckyguy1983

Richard_Tyndall said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

I can't see it gaining traction.

I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.

Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.

Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.

The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.

And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.

Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.

Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.

Anabobazina

T H E

D R A K E