Anyone on here attending a Conservative members events this weekend - surely lots of stuff should be happening at this time of year. Would be very helpful to see the results of any straw polls on the leadership contest.
Not this weekend, was at one on Thursday sampled 15 people. 11 definitely May, 3 undecided but leaning May, 1 undecided not leaning either way. For clarity referendum wise they broke 13:2 Leave.
No points to anyone who uses the word "renew" when discussing the nuclear weapons vote.
The British government paid more than £30 billion for the wars it lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping to kill hundreds of thousands of people and making 5 million people into refugees. Very profitable for some.
Now there will be a vote in the House of "Commons" on whether the same regime should spend at least £200 billion on contracts to spruce up its nuclear weapons systems, including paying for new submarines from which it can fire US-made and US-serviced intercontinental missiles carrying nuclear warheads designed to destroy foreign cities.
Meanwhile foodbanks proliferate in the home country.
Anyone on here attending a Conservative members events this weekend - surely lots of stuff should be happening at this time of year. Would be very helpful to see the results of any straw polls on the leadership contest.
Not this weekend, was at one on Thursday sampled 15 people. 11 definitely May, 3 undecided but leaning May, 1 undecided not leaning either way. For clarity referendum wise they broke 13:2 Leave.
Thanks - please everyone keep these anecdotes coming.
I think they are more valuable than in other elections we discuss on here because Con members are likely to be a much more similar demographic to each other than the population as a whole - ie I would be surprised if there were massive variations with say one Local party 80% May and another Local party 80% Leadsom (obviously other than their own Local parties or other exceptional cases).
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
You do realise that comments like this make you look silly don't you? Sharia's? Really?
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
You do realise that comments like this make you look silly don't you? Sharia's? Really?
I am a non-Corbynista voting for Corbyn if the person with the charisma of a wet lettuce is the only challenger.
Why not Yvette, Tom Watson, even Harriet ? I am not sure why Harriet has not put herself forward before. She is the most deserving leader we could have.
I would certainly vote for Ed Miliband. The leader who achieved the largest increase in vote share for any party in the election after they lost since 1950. All parties actually lost vote share except the Tories in 2001 got a miniscule 0.3% increase on 1997. Ed achieved 1.3% despite Scotland. So it was even more in England.
I cannot speak for Lisa Nandy. But I feel Seema Malhotra should throw her hat in the ring.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
You do realise that comments like this make you look silly don't you? Sharia's? Really?
Unlike loathesome Leadsom I suppose
When I call her that feel free to call me on it. I can't see anybody else on here using, if I do Ill call them in there stupidity as well
No points to anyone who uses the word "renew" when discussing the nuclear weapons vote.
The British government paid more than £30 billion for the wars it lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping to kill hundreds of thousands of people and making 5 million people into refugees. Very profitable for some.
Now there will be a vote in the House of "Commons" on whether the same regime should spend at least £200 billion on contracts to spruce up its nuclear weapons systems, including paying for new submarines from which it can fire US-made and US-serviced intercontinental missiles carrying nuclear warheads designed to destroy foreign cities.
Meanwhile foodbanks proliferate in the home country.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
*twitch* I thought it was Gove or Johnson on the final ballot. Or even both of them. I trust nothing and no one any longer (apparently, after listening to Reaction.Life's podcast, much like May).
I would no longer be surprised if May announced a sudden conversion to Islam or a unilateral withdrawal from NATO, or it transpired that she'd secretly been spying for Russia since 1997.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
You do realise that comments like this make you look silly don't you? Sharia's? Really?
Unlike loathesome Leadsom I suppose
When I call her that feel free to call me on it. I can't see anybody else on here using, if I do Ill call them in there stupidity as well
'Leadsom’s failure in that interview was a failure of manners and basic common sense, illustrating again that she is a novice being used by the Tory Right for its own purposes.'
There's no doubt that Trump and Brexit have emboldened the British hard-right, who, after years of thinking they were being marginalized despite being correct about everything, now feel that their time has come. Leadsom gives the impression of being their hapless stooge. I hope she follows Martin's advice, quits with what's left of her dignity intact, and puts the nasties back on the shelf.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
You do realise that comments like this make you look silly don't you? Sharia's? Really?
Unlike loathesome Leadsom I suppose
When I call her that feel free to call me on it. I can't see anybody else on here using, if I do Ill call them in there stupidity as well
TSE for one
Well, if he has, it's stupid and he should stop. But it doesn't give you a pass to be stupid.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the Conservative Party membership - especially out in the countryside, where reactionary bumpkinism still has strong routes. Your straw poll is all in London, where normal people live. Out in the shires, many Conservative Party members may actually agree with what Leadsom said, see it as an advantage, regret that she has tried to deny it, and are looking gleefully ahead to a new era of neo-bigotism.
I hope you are right, and I hope that Leadsom will continue to make lots of other gaffes and blunders, but I fear that Leadsom may still win.
'Leadsom’s failure in that interview was a failure of manners and basic common sense, illustrating again that she is a novice being used by the Tory Right for its own purposes.'
There's no doubt that Trump and Brexit have emboldened the British hard-right, who, after years of thinking they were being marginalized despite being correct about everything, now feel that their time has come. Leadsom gives the impression of being their hapless stooge. I hope she follows Martin's advice, quits with what's left of her dignity intact, and puts the nasties back on the shelf.
Yes one of the tragedies of Brexit is that the frothing reactionaries feel they have been legitimised
Interesting interview with Theresa May in today's Telegraph. She says she is "very clear that Brexit means Brexit" but also adds "If I am prime minister we will come out of the European Union and part of that will be control of free movement." That suggests she is open to keeping some element of free movement as part of an EEA deal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
You do realise that comments like this make you look silly don't you? Sharia's? Really?
Unlike loathesome Leadsom I suppose
When I call her that feel free to call me on it. I can't see anybody else on here using, if I do Ill call them in there stupidity as well
TSE for one
Well, if he has, it's stupid and he should stop. But it doesn't give you a pass to be stupid.
This or a variation has become a common name for her on alot of the comments boards for what it's worth as it does provide a link back to her comments on Sharia law of which you are no doubt aware?
If Leadsom wins, a slim possibility, but still possible, again the twitterati will be shocked, apalled, astonished - but HOW could this happen when twitter went mad over that awful interview? HOW could the Tories have elected this bigoted, Bible-bashing, incompetent, tea-lady dressed as director? They're bubbling themselves up with visceral hatred for someone totally inoffensive, and once again demonising their opponents rather than attempting to understand or even convince them. And if she wins, once again they won't accept the result, and once again they will actively hope, and do whatever they can (thankfully in most cases little) to ensure, that her time in office is a failure.
It isn't about twitter going mad, it is about evidence piling up of thickness and incompetence. As to the other line you seem to be plugging about May being unnoticeable for 6 years at the H.O., I doubt Leadsom could run the H.O. for 6 weeks without coming to public notice, and not in a good way.
Storm in a tea cup though. The net effect of all this on the relevant electorate will be: Leadsom safe pair of hands on inheritance tax, May leaving it all to the dogs home anyway.
May has said nothing about reversing the IHT cut Osborne proposed
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
Only problem is that activists are only about a quarter of total membership and may have a different view. I'm concerned that could tilt the balance.
I would have thought activists, if anything, would be further right than average members - more likely to be LEAVE. Therefore, more open to Leadsom, in theory?
But then I'm not a Tory, never have been, so am possibly talking total bollocks. It's not unknown.
Activists tend to more buy into the concept of winning in my opinion. From everything I'm hearing TM ought to win handily but I do have a small scintilla of doubt.
Do recent events suggest a case for both Con and Lab changing their leadership rules?
As Kinnock said to the PLP the other day, everything has to be done through Parliament. So how can someone lead their party without the support of MPs?
If it is felt members must have a say then what about an Electoral College of 50% MPs, 50% members?
Then members would have an equal say to MPs, but not the whole say like now.
And it would mean that if MPs are very heavily in favour of one candidate, it would be incredibly unlikely that members would overturn that. But if it's close amongst MPs, then the members say would be more likely to be decisive.
Surely this would give the best chance of the most common sense result - and leaders for both parties that would able to do an effective job.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
I think we need to see the manifestos of the two candidates before any sort of judgement is meaningful.If the Leadsom manifesto is anything like the suggested scoop two nights ago I can see that going down extremely well with Tory grassroots.Not sure what Sharia's manifesto will be like but every reason to suppose it will be dull and lacking in inspiration like her 6 years of inactive incompetence at the Home Office.
You do realise that comments like this make you look silly don't you? Sharia's? Really?
Unlike loathesome Leadsom I suppose
When I call her that feel free to call me on it. I can't see anybody else on here using, if I do Ill call them in there stupidity as well
TSE for one
Well, if he has, it's stupid and he should stop. But it doesn't give you a pass to be stupid.
This or a variation has become a common name for her on alot of the comments boards for what it's worth as it does provide a link back to her comments on Sharia law of which you are no doubt aware?
I am very well aware of the FULL, comments and the attempts of some to deliberately twist them
You can prove me wrong by posting the whole thing yourself and pointing out which bits you take issue with.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
Only problem is that activists are only about a quarter of total membership and may have a different view. I'm concerned that could tilt the balance.
I would have thought activists, if anything, would be further right than average members - more likely to be LEAVE. Therefore, more open to Leadsom, in theory?
But then I'm not a Tory, never have been, so am possibly talking total bollocks. It's not unknown.
Activists tend to be a bit more centrist in my experience since they are younger. However, the older generation value experience and many I have met rate May very highly.
I did contemplate writing a thread a few months ago headlined 'Chuka Can'
And I was also hopeful of a Chuka/Sadiq dream ticket, headline was 'Chuka Khan'
Chuka, a rare anti Iraq War Blairite, can but only after Labour loses the 2020 election, he knows that too which is why he will not challenge Corbyn himself
Chuka withdrew from the previous leadership contest for reasons which presumably still apply.
He launched his leadership campaign and withdrew allegedly because of 'pressures on his family' or his then girlfriend's mother being doorsteeped or more likely he really declined to run because Labour had no chance of winning the 2020 election and the membership was looking for a leftwing leader. Come another Labour defeat and the chance of a Labour win in 2025 he may well decide to put his name forward again
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
Only problem is that activists are only about a quarter of total membership and may have a different view. I'm concerned that could tilt the balance.
I would have thought activists, if anything, would be further right than average members - more likely to be LEAVE. Therefore, more open to Leadsom, in theory?
But then I'm not a Tory, never have been, so am possibly talking total bollocks. It's not unknown.
For the last few weeks, even before June 23rd, your musings have been veritable pearls of wisdom. You're wasted on the trivia of novels and travel. Sometimes.
It's a great question and the various polls of members are the best indicators: anecdotally when meeting members during canvassing etc, I would hazard that you're right and they are marginally less 'ideological' than us activists. For a start I hadn't realized until two days ago that my next door neighbours were party members - both are firm May supporters.
It's the Esher and Walton Association's Summer Party later in the month, usually around 50 plus attending: I shall do a full survey and report back...
Interesting interview with Theresa May in today's Telegraph. She says she is "very clear that Brexit means Brexit" but also adds "If I am prime minister we will come out of the European Union and part of that will be control of free movement." That suggests she is open to keeping some element of free movement as part of an EEA deal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
This is exactly the point I was trying to make about the manifestos.Leadsom will be clearly for a points based system for EU nationals;will May even come out for the EEA or try and fudge it?
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the Conservative Party membership - especially out in the countryside, where reactionary bumpkinism still has strong routes. Your straw poll is all in London, where normal people live. Out in the shires, many Conservative Party members may actually agree with what Leadsom said, see it as an advantage, regret that she has tried to deny it, and are looking gleefully ahead to a new era of neo-bigotism.
I hope you are right, and I hope that Leadsom will continue to make lots of other gaffes and blunders, but I fear that Leadsom may still win.
I am certain Leadsom will win. The Times headline was definitely not fair. It was typical dirty journalism. Using words out of context. I have read the transcript.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
Only problem is that activists are only about a quarter of total membership and may have a different view. I'm concerned that could tilt the balance.
I would have thought activists, if anything, would be further right than average members - more likely to be LEAVE. Therefore, more open to Leadsom, in theory?
But then I'm not a Tory, never have been, so am possibly talking total bollocks. It's not unknown.
Current activists would presumably be Cameron supporters. Con party members who dislike Cameroons would be less motivated to be activists.
Interesting interview with Theresa May in today's Telegraph. She says she is "very clear that Brexit means Brexit" but also adds "If I am prime minister we will come out of the European Union and part of that will be control of free movement." That suggests she is open to keeping some element of free movement as part of an EEA deal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
Hasn't Ms May also said that she won't trigger article 50 this year?
Interesting interview with Theresa May in today's Telegraph. She says she is "very clear that Brexit means Brexit" but also adds "If I am prime minister we will come out of the European Union and part of that will be control of free movement." That suggests she is open to keeping some element of free movement as part of an EEA deal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
This is exactly the point I was trying to make about the manifestos.Leadsom will be clearly for a points based system for EU nationals;will May even come out for the EEA or try and fudge it?
May will do an EEA fudge before the election, if she wins the leadership that then gives her room to sign up to it
You know what? Angela Eagle is always challenging for the leadership and the challenge is always Manyana, Domani, Tomorrow, and never today. One really has to laugh at the sheer idiocy of these Labour manouvers.
Interesting interview with Theresa May in today's Telegraph. She says she is "very clear that Brexit means Brexit" but also adds "If I am prime minister we will come out of the European Union and part of that will be control of free movement." That suggests she is open to keeping some element of free movement as part of an EEA deal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
Hasn't Ms May also said that she won't trigger article 50 this year?
There is a good argument for holding off on Article 50 until the new French President is elected on May 7 next year. Simply, otherwise you'll have six months of negotiations with (the doomed) Francois Hollande, before transferring to Alain Juppe (or perhaps Marine Le Pen).
Mr. HYUFD, an EEA approach would likely command most support in the country and make it more difficult for Sturgeon to paint Referendum 2: Refer Harder as being in Scotland's interest rather than just the SNP's.
However, it could make things tricky within the Conservative Party.
Be interesting to see whether Eagle actually goes ahead with it on Monday.
Next election could see anything from the Conservatives being shattered (internal war coupled with cocking up the EU exit and an economic downturn) to utterly dominant (facing a splintered opposition with UKIP preying on Labour targets in the north).
Interesting interview with Theresa May in today's Telegraph. She says she is "very clear that Brexit means Brexit" but also adds "If I am prime minister we will come out of the European Union and part of that will be control of free movement." That suggests she is open to keeping some element of free movement as part of an EEA deal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
Hasn't Ms May also said that she won't trigger article 50 this year?
That's correct. Not sure our European friends will be happy with that, but we'll see.
@wstonecardiff: Currently dividing the store into Mothers and Non-Mothers, so readers can tell which books were written by those who care about the future.
@wstonecardiff: Currently dividing the store into Mothers and Non-Mothers, so readers can tell which books were written by those who care about the future.
Jill Stein of the US Green Party has offered Bernie Sanders her place as the Green nominee for the US presidency.
If he accepts, Trump's price is likely to rise fast.
It's too late for someone to enter the race as a new-party or independent candidate. They couldn't get a majority in the electoral college. They could hang it from third place, or perhaps even from higher, but then the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state, so I don't think that aim would sell very well. If a third big name enters the race, it will be through an existing third party.
A Repug taking over as the Constitution or Libertarian candidate - or as both - is unlikely. Sanders running as Green is the possibility to watch.
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
According to Times article, there will be no single market under Leadsom. She wants to allow EU access to UK market as now, and is confident EU will not impose tariffs on UK. Definitely no free movement.
I am a non-Corbynista voting for Corbyn if the person with the charisma of a wet lettuce is the only challenger.
Why not Yvette, Tom Watson, even Harriet ? I am not sure why Harriet has not put herself forward before. She is the most deserving leader we could have.
I would certainly vote for Ed Miliband. The leader who achieved the largest increase in vote share for any party in the election after they lost since 1950. All parties actually lost vote share except the Tories in 2001 got a miniscule 0.3% increase on 1997. Ed achieved 1.3% despite Scotland. So it was even more in England.
I cannot speak for Lisa Nandy. But I feel Seema Malhotra should throw her hat in the ring.
In the yougov members poll Eagle was second favoured after Jarvis to replace Corbyn and did better than Watson and Jarvis head to head against Corbyn.
In 1987 Kinnock increased the Labour voteshare by 3.2% after the 1983 loss and in 1992 by 3.6%, Ed Miliband only increased the Labour voteshare by 1.3% in 2015 so your point there is wrong. In terms of seats Michael Howard gained 33 seats in 2005 too, Miliband lost 26. In fact in terms of seat losses Miliband did even worse than Hague who gained 1 seat in 2001 and Gaitskill who in 1959 lost 19 seats. In terms of seat losses he was the worst postwar opposition leader after Foot who lost 52 seats
I am a non-Corbynista voting for Corbyn if the person with the charisma of a wet lettuce is the only challenger.
Why not Yvette, Tom Watson, even Harriet ? I am not sure why Harriet has not put herself forward before. She is the most deserving leader we could have.
I would certainly vote for Ed Miliband. The leader who achieved the largest increase in vote share for any party in the election after they lost since 1950. All parties actually lost vote share except the Tories in 2001 got a miniscule 0.3% increase on 1997. Ed achieved 1.3% despite Scotland. So it was even more in England.
I cannot speak for Lisa Nandy. But I feel Seema Malhotra should throw her hat in the ring.
Oh for goodness sake! When Labour is facing an existential crisis if Corbyn gets back in, it's hardly the time to be splitting hairs about the qualities or otherwise of his challenger.
Good for Eagle. At least she's had the guts to trigger a contest.
Do recent events suggest a case for both Con and Lab changing their leadership rules?
As Kinnock said to the PLP the other day, everything has to be done through Parliament. So how can someone lead their party without the support of MPs?
If it is felt members must have a say then what about an Electoral College of 50% MPs, 50% members?
Then members would have an equal say to MPs, but not the whole say like now.
And it would mean that if MPs are very heavily in favour of one candidate, it would be incredibly unlikely that members would overturn that. But if it's close amongst MPs, then the members say would be more likely to be decisive.
Surely this would give the best chance of the most common sense result - and leaders for both parties that would able to do an effective job.
Good system. Would make a lot more sense than the current shambles
There is a good argument for holding off on Article 50 until the new French President is elected on May 7 next year. Simply, otherwise you'll have six months of negotiations with (the doomed) Francois Hollande, before transferring to Alain Juppe (or perhaps Marine Le Pen).
Nonsense.
Yet more uncertainty, dither and drift. No thank you.
PM May - Action this day. "We leave the EU on 31st December 2018."
Interesting interview with Theresa May in today's Telegraph. She says she is "very clear that Brexit means Brexit" but also adds "If I am prime minister we will come out of the European Union and part of that will be control of free movement." That suggests she is open to keeping some element of free movement as part of an EEA deal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
Hasn't Ms May also said that she won't trigger article 50 this year?
That's correct. Not sure our European friends will be happy with that, but we'll see.
According to the betting, it is most likely that it won't be triggered until at least July 2017.
I am a non-Corbynista voting for Corbyn if the person with the charisma of a wet lettuce is the only challenger.
Why not Yvette, Tom Watson, even Harriet ? I am not sure why Harriet has not put herself forward before. She is the most deserving leader we could have.
I would certainly vote for Ed Miliband. The leader who achieved the largest increase in vote share for any party in the election after they lost since 1950. All parties actually lost vote share except the Tories in 2001 got a miniscule 0.3% increase on 1997. Ed achieved 1.3% despite Scotland. So it was even more in England.
I cannot speak for Lisa Nandy. But I feel Seema Malhotra should throw her hat in the ring.
Oh for goodness sake! When Labour is facing an existential crisis if Corbyn gets back in, it's hardly the time to be splitting hairs about the qualities or otherwise of his challenger.
Good for Eagle. At least she's had the guts to trigger a contest.
She hasn't triggered it yet.
We have been at this point before - and she bottled it then.
All that is happening at the moment is she is giving Momentum time to recruit even more fellow travellers - and increasing the size of her defeat. Either way she is going to end up being deselected.
There is a good argument for holding off on Article 50 until the new French President is elected on May 7 next year. Simply, otherwise you'll have six months of negotiations with (the doomed) Francois Hollande, before transferring to Alain Juppe (or perhaps Marine Le Pen).
Nonsense.
Yet more uncertainty, dither and drift. No thank you.
PM May - Action this day. "We leave the EU on 31st December 2018."
There's leadership for you ....
I think it will be tough to get a heads of agreement with Hollande and then have Juppe or Sarkozy sign it into law with few to no changes.
If Eagle finished top of the list for Shadow cabinet nominations(as I understand she did), it clearly shows the absolute dearth of political talent within Labour. No one doubts her intelligence , but the way she comes across is painfully awful.
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
According to Times article, there will be no single market under Leadsom. She wants to allow EU access to UK market as now, and is confident EU will not impose tariffs on UK. Definitely no free movement.
Yes, it is a clear choice. The Leadsom line, no free movement and no single market, is the UKIP line so if she wins then UKIP probably dies a death and infiltrates the Tory Party instead. If May wins UKIP will be the main voice of opposition to any EEA deal
Anyhoo battle for PM is foregone conclusion, let's talk about next cabinet members.
Justine greening for next home Secretary? From Rotherham and studied at Southampton two plusses.
And Hammond for next CoE from Epping, Essex. Working/middle-class tories.
I'd put Crabb as Home myself, Hammond is a good shout for Chancellor but there could be other options like Javid. Think you'd want a Leaver as Foreign Sec and there aren't many who emerge with much credit other than Fox so he's possible.
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
According to Times article, there will be no single market under Leadsom. She wants to allow EU access to UK market as now, and is confident EU will not impose tariffs on UK. Definitely no free movement.
It is possible to unilaterally waive tariffs. The IFS report did review some of the modelling on that scenario (my overall impression is the authors were looking down their nostrils in haughty disdain while they were writing that section). All of the models (and I mean all) used are incomplete, WTO, EEA, FTA, whatever.
The IFS itself tends to favour the NIESR models. Compared with a baseline of staying in the EU (i.e. the OBR long range forecast), the three pertinent scenarios are:
EEA : -1.5 to -2.1% FTA: -1.9 to -2.3% (this is a bespoke EU/UK deal) WTO: -2.7 to -3.7%
The above three model budget effects, trade and FDI. They don't take into account any additional FTAs or any changes to WTO rules.
In this sense, Leadom's ideas aren't completely bonkers.
Do recent events suggest a case for both Con and Lab changing their leadership rules?
As Kinnock said to the PLP the other day, everything has to be done through Parliament. So how can someone lead their party without the support of MPs?
If it is felt members must have a say then what about an Electoral College of 50% MPs, 50% members?
Then members would have an equal say to MPs, but not the whole say like now.
And it would mean that if MPs are very heavily in favour of one candidate, it would be incredibly unlikely that members would overturn that. But if it's close amongst MPs, then the members say would be more likely to be decisive.
Surely this would give the best chance of the most common sense result - and leaders for both parties that would able to do an effective job.
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Judging by these and other responses, May is going to walk it.
Only problem is that activists are only about a quarter of total membership and may have a different view. I'm concerned that could tilt the balance.
I would have thought activists, if anything, would be further right than average members - more likely to be LEAVE. Therefore, more open to Leadsom, in theory?
But then I'm not a Tory, never have been, so am possibly talking total bollocks. It's not unknown.
Activists tend to be a bit more centrist in my experience since they are younger. However, the older generation value experience and many I have met rate May very highly.
They are also grateful to those who make the effort to visit constituencies. May visited Torbay in the election campaign last year. As far as I know, Leadsom didn't (why should she - nobody would know who she was). That effort translates into MP endorsements, which members will be made aware of.
Mr. HYUFD, an EEA approach would likely command most support in the country and make it more difficult for Sturgeon to paint Referendum 2: Refer Harder as being in Scotland's interest rather than just the SNP's.
However, it could make things tricky within the Conservative Party.
Be interesting to see whether Eagle actually goes ahead with it on Monday.
Next election could see anything from the Conservatives being shattered (internal war coupled with cocking up the EU exit and an economic downturn) to utterly dominant (facing a splintered opposition with UKIP preying on Labour targets in the north).
I agree, an EFTA deal would make it less likely Scotland votes for Brexit, being out of the single market is one thing, refusing to join an association with Norway and Switzerland and leaving the UK to join the EU is quite another.
I think Eagle will now go ahead and has nothing to lose. Personally I think May will win the leadership and the next election and Eagle or McDonnell will lead Labour. I expect a mirror image of 2005 at the moment with UKIP taking the place of the resurgent LDs and the Tories losing votes to the Kippers with Labour gaining a few seats with little increase in voteshare, much as Howard gained seats in 2005 as a result of Labour voters defecting to the LDs over Iraq despite only increasing the Tory vote by 0.7%
Anyhoo battle for PM is foregone conclusion, let's talk about next cabinet members.
Justine greening for next home Secretary? From Rotherham and studied at Southampton two plusses.
And Hammond for next CoE from Epping, Essex. Working/middle-class tories.
I'd put Crabb as Home myself, Hammond is a good shout for Chancellor but there could be other options like Javid. Think you'd want a Leaver as Foreign Sec and there aren't many who emerge with much credit other than Fox so he's possible.
Crabb will struggle after yesterday's sexting revelations.
Hammond as Chancellor, Boris as FS, Grayling as HS.
Comments
Mr. Urquhart, I'm surprised Nuttall isn't standing.
I think they are more valuable than in other elections we discuss on here because Con members are likely to be a much more similar demographic to each other than the population as a whole - ie I would be surprised if there were massive variations with say one Local party 80% May and another Local party 80% Leadsom (obviously other than their own Local parties or other exceptional cases).
Thought people might like this.
If the answer to the questions is no you may have a point
http://reaction.life/one-word-defence-andrea-leadsom/
19 responses.
May 15
Leadsom 1
Undecided 3
Leave 10
Remain 9
Still waiting for more people to come back to me. I've sent it out to a group of about 40 people who campaigned across north and west London for Zac.
Are these the same people you straw polled last week?
Also what is the age range - is it typical of all members?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/a-marrow-victory?utm_term=.tmY0q6aj23
Why not Yvette, Tom Watson, even Harriet ? I am not sure why Harriet has not put herself forward before. She is the most deserving leader we could have.
I would certainly vote for Ed Miliband. The leader who achieved the largest increase in vote share for any party in the election after they lost since 1950. All parties actually lost vote share except the Tories in 2001 got a miniscule 0.3% increase on 1997. Ed achieved 1.3% despite Scotland. So it was even more in England.
I cannot speak for Lisa Nandy. But I feel Seema Malhotra should throw her hat in the ring.
I would no longer be surprised if May announced a sudden conversion to Islam or a unilateral withdrawal from NATO, or it transpired that she'd secretly been spying for Russia since 1997.
I won't rest easy until September 9th.
'Leadsom’s failure in that interview was a failure of manners and basic common sense, illustrating again that she is a novice being used by the Tory Right for its own purposes.'
There's no doubt that Trump and Brexit have emboldened the British hard-right, who, after years of thinking they were being marginalized despite being correct about everything, now feel that their time has come. Leadsom gives the impression of being their hapless stooge. I hope she follows Martin's advice, quits with what's left of her dignity intact, and puts the nasties back on the shelf.
I hope you are right, and I hope that Leadsom will continue to make lots of other gaffes and blunders, but I fear that Leadsom may still win.
Could David Cameron have done one last favour to the centrists with the timing of the Trident vote.
Unions are strongly pro Trident
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Andrea Leadsom by contrast has said "We want to be able to control the numbers that are coming here. I don't think there should be another general election. Freedom of movement will end, and the British Parliament will decide how many people enter our country each year to live, work and contribute to our national life."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/
So there will be a choice for party members, free movement and the single market with May or an end to free movement and a potential exit from the single market with Leadsom
Can’t quite see how at the moment, but ......
Notches in the bedpost?
Putting the emphasis on *mother* in a sentence - MELTDOWN
Rather odd to make a quick qualifying tip and have so little idea of potential value for the race. Perhaps I should ingest more coffee.
As Kinnock said to the PLP the other day, everything has to be done through Parliament. So how can someone lead their party without the support of MPs?
If it is felt members must have a say then what about an Electoral College of 50% MPs, 50% members?
Then members would have an equal say to MPs, but not the whole say like now.
And it would mean that if MPs are very heavily in favour of one candidate, it would be incredibly unlikely that members would overturn that. But if it's close amongst MPs, then the members say would be more likely to be decisive.
Surely this would give the best chance of the most common sense result - and leaders for both parties that would able to do an effective job.
You can prove me wrong by posting the whole thing yourself and pointing out which bits you take issue with.
It's a great question and the various polls of members are the best indicators: anecdotally when meeting members during canvassing etc, I would hazard that you're right and they are marginally less 'ideological' than us activists. For a start I hadn't realized until two days ago that my next door neighbours were party members - both are firm May supporters.
It's the Esher and Walton Association's Summer Party later in the month, usually around 50 plus attending: I shall do a full survey and report back...
Mrs May is a former Tory chairman. She would have done the rubber chicken circuit and built up quite some friendships and contacts.
Granted this was over a decade ago, but it does give her an advantage that Andrea Leadsom doesn't possess.
Both of them also would be the first Tory leader to be a former councillor since John Major
It would be rude to look too closely at the gnashers of this particular horsey.
If May wins she was always going to.
https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/751787409235378176
You know what? Angela Eagle is always challenging for the leadership and the challenge is always Manyana, Domani, Tomorrow, and never today. One really has to laugh at the sheer idiocy of these Labour manouvers.
However, it could make things tricky within the Conservative Party.
Be interesting to see whether Eagle actually goes ahead with it on Monday.
Next election could see anything from the Conservatives being shattered (internal war coupled with cocking up the EU exit and an economic downturn) to utterly dominant (facing a splintered opposition with UKIP preying on Labour targets in the north).
If he accepts, Trump's price is likely to rise fast.
It's too late for someone to enter the race as a new-party or independent candidate. They couldn't get a majority in the electoral college. They could hang it from third place, or perhaps even from higher, but then the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state, so I don't think that aim would sell very well. If a third big name enters the race, it will be through an existing third party.
A Repug taking over as the Constitution or Libertarian candidate - or as both - is unlikely. Sanders running as Green is the possibility to watch.
In 1987 Kinnock increased the Labour voteshare by 3.2% after the 1983 loss and in 1992 by 3.6%, Ed Miliband only increased the Labour voteshare by 1.3% in 2015 so your point there is wrong. In terms of seats Michael Howard gained 33 seats in 2005 too, Miliband lost 26. In fact in terms of seat losses Miliband did even worse than Hague who gained 1 seat in 2001 and Gaitskill who in 1959 lost 19 seats. In terms of seat losses he was the worst postwar opposition leader after Foot who lost 52 seats
Good for Eagle. At least she's had the guts to trigger a contest.
Justine greening for next home Secretary? From Rotherham and studied at Southampton two plusses.
And Hammond for next CoE from Epping, Essex. Working/middle-class tories.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/07/bernie-sanders-confirms-clinton-endorsement-talks/86798398/
Yet more uncertainty, dither and drift. No thank you.
PM May - Action this day. "We leave the EU on 31st December 2018."
There's leadership for you ....
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125398889
We have been at this point before - and she bottled it then.
All that is happening at the moment is she is giving Momentum time to recruit even more fellow travellers - and increasing the size of her defeat. Either way she is going to end up being deselected.
Doomed.
The IFS itself tends to favour the NIESR models. Compared with a baseline of staying in the EU (i.e. the OBR long range forecast), the three pertinent scenarios are:
EEA : -1.5 to -2.1%
FTA: -1.9 to -2.3% (this is a bespoke EU/UK deal)
WTO: -2.7 to -3.7%
The above three model budget effects, trade and FDI. They don't take into account any additional FTAs or any changes to WTO rules.
In this sense, Leadom's ideas aren't completely bonkers.
I think Eagle will now go ahead and has nothing to lose. Personally I think May will win the leadership and the next election and Eagle or McDonnell will lead Labour. I expect a mirror image of 2005 at the moment with UKIP taking the place of the resurgent LDs and the Tories losing votes to the Kippers with Labour gaining a few seats with little increase in voteshare, much as Howard gained seats in 2005 as a result of Labour voters defecting to the LDs over Iraq despite only increasing the Tory vote by 0.7%
Hammond as Chancellor, Boris as FS, Grayling as HS.
Wisconsin .. Clinton 47 .. Trump 36
Pennsylvania .. Clinton 49 .. Trump 39
Ohio .. Clinton 47 .. Trump 48
Nevada .. Clinton 45 .. Trump 47
North Carolina .. Clinton 51 ..Trump 41
Michigan .. Clinton 50 ..Trump 39
Florida .. Clinton 52 .. Trump 39
Arizona .. Clinton 43 .. Trump 49
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Dcorps_WV_BG_063016.pdf