politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there is a Tory leadership election, it could go turbo

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there is a Tory leadership election, it could go turbo

Theresa May has had a surprisingly good week. For one thing, she’s still prime minister. This is, admittedly, setting the bar quite low but it was nothing like a foregone conclusion that she’d still be safe in post today, this time last week. Instead, she’s being praised for handling Trump’s visit with tact and dignity despite his provocations. That comes on top of the government having finally developed and published a detailed Brexit policy – with what might in retrospect come to be seen as the added bonus of the resignations of two underperforming awkward squad members – and no particularly negative response from Brussels.

Read the full story here

CD13

Back to glorious sunshine.

CD13

The weather I meant, not the politics.

Jonathan

May’s underlying strength stems from the fact she is still the best unity candidate.

kle4

It's good news the process can probably be shortened because we need the contest to occur. May's days as pm are numbered, but frankly she needs either to know it's numbered in singLe digits or thereabouts, or that she is safe for a year so she can see it all through and resign when it is done.

Jonathan said:

May’s underlying strength stems from the fact she is still the best unity candidate.

And that none of her principle opponents really want to take on the job right now. They are preparing for the aftermath.

Sean_F

I still think May would win the vote.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1018038844321681408

edmundintokyo

Great article, this stuff is what pb is for.

They don't have time to ask the members, and if they do ask the members that'll force the top two candidates into an undeliverable promise match, so the MPs need to stitch the thing up. Looking at what happened last time, the MPs picked two candidates which they sent to the members, but one of them stood down before the members had a chance to vote.

If you want to be sure of achieving the same effect this time, the way to do it would be to have two simple, distinct FPTP or AV votes for candidates to be submitted to the members, with all the MPs voting in both. This would have the following effect: First, the MPs pick their new leader, who is going to be Prime Minister. Second, they all vote again, this time for their designated drop-out.

Sandpit

Very interesting as always David. In practice could it be any more than a tweak to the existing protocols in order to speed up the process, option 1 above?

After all, it was only seven years ago that the Conservatives were pretty much united in their opposition to AV

Roger

Too early to say but the departures of the Brexit Bulldog and Boris might be the new lease of life Theresa needed. There's no doubt both were holding her back and Boris in particular came close to destroying her. If she can now show a little backbone she might yet surprise us and beat Maggies 13 years. Corbyn is the gift that'll keep on giving and he shows no sign of going.

MarqueeMark

"the most dangerous times for her were immediately after the Chequers meeting, after Boris’ resignation, and after the (botched) publication of the White Paper"

The most dangerous time for the PM is when the EU reacts to the White Paper. If they say "non"/more, then the letters will fly in.

not_on_fire

FPT: @kle4 I’m curious to know which protests you would NOT count as “virtue signalling”. Seems like any protest would for your definition. That’s a pretty dismissive attitude to people exercising their precious right to free speech.

Recidivist

I can’t help thinking that the longer she stays the stronger she is whatever the events.

Roger

FPT MD.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, Trump's not the originator of that.

Look at Blair's Iraq dossier. Or Osborne's punishment budget. Political bending of the truth seems to have been rising significantly over the years.

And that's before we get into Labour breaking manifesto commitments on income tax rises and tuition fee increases, or the Conservative attempt to do likewise with National Insurance.

A better example might have been Clinton but all the ones you use are easily arguable as circumstances changing. A lie specifically has to be a known or knowable untruth at the moment of inception

DearPB

A slightly odd intellectual exercise; the time taken up is not the time when MPs do the whittling down to two, it's the time when it's out to the members. So yes, a week could be saved at the MPs stage but the real problem is the postal ballot among party members.

not_on_fire

We appear to be approaching some sort of Brexit singularity. With each day that brings us closer to 29th March, the more important it becomes to agree a deal, but the more unpalatable the options become as the harsh reality of our situation is exposed.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Roger, the Iraq dossier referred to battlefield weaponry. The Lisbon 'change' from the Constitution was purely cosmetic. The income tax increase was forbidden in the manifesto and committed after the election. Likewise, albeit merely an attempt, for the NI increase.

Circumstances didn't change, the truth came to light. And the truth was that trusting the political class to keep election promises or even be honest on matters of war and peace was to trust them too far.

If you want to blame people for the lack of trust in politics, then Blair, Brown, and Campbell are the prime culprits.

Edited extra bit: changed 'truth' to 'trust'.

AlastairMeeks

Jonathan said:

May’s underlying strength stems from the fact she is still the best unity candidate.

Her coat of arms motto is “faute de mieux”.

DearPB

edmundintokyo said:

Great article, this stuff is what pb is for.

They don't have time to ask the members, and if they do ask the members that'll force the top two candidates into an undeliverable promise match, so the MPs need to stitch the thing up. Looking at what happened last time, the MPs picked two candidates which they sent to the members, but one of them stood down before the members had a chance to vote.

Agreed - and I don't think the members (I am one) should have a say anyway; but it won't happen. Since the members have been included in the process, there have been 4 elections and 2 never got to the membership - 3 out of 5 would be becoming suspicious. It's a very contentious time in the Party, there'll be no candidate that everyone is happy with.

SouthamObserver

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

kle4

not_on_fire said:

FPT: @kle4 I’m curious to know which protests you would NOT count as “virtue signalling”. Seems like any protest would for your definition. That’s a pretty dismissive attitude to people exercising their precious right to free speech.

No, because I haven't dismissed that they are exercising their precious right to free speech and I find it mind boggling that you have taken that away from what I said. Yes, pretty much all protesting is virtue signalling of some kind, but as I noted some signalling is sincere, some isn't, I don't think in itself signalling one's virtue is a bad thing. What I was trying to get across was it depends on circumstances and the individual.

Your interpretation only makes sense if you presume that I am spitting with anger at all these virtue signallers, which is bollocks as I never said that. You also seem to miss that I noted that most of us who dislike Trump signal our virtue online, which is the same thing, so I myself do it. making the idea I am dismissive of people's exercising their free speech on such an issue even more bollocks than before, which was quite a lot.

If it's pointless I might think it a waste of time, but that's none of my business if that is people's idea of a good time. If it is insincere virtue signalling it is hypocritical. If it is self righteous they are probably arses.

Being conscious about displaying what one assumes is a virtue is not inherently bad. We all do it all the time.

Protests against Trump here are clearly about signalling virtue as the protests have no way of achieving anything as only the american people can do anything to him. So what? It doesn't invalidate the protests in any way to note it is about virtue signalling (edit - in the way I use the term - I accept that as it has typically been used as an attack on the left/liberals, others will do so). Part of my posts to The Apocalypse was around that I disputed the definition some people have that virtue signalling indicates insincerity.

Maybe you should try to be less judgemental and see less malice.

SouthamObserver

not_on_fire said:

We appear to be approaching some sort of Brexit singularity. With each day that brings us closer to 29th March, the more important it becomes to agree a deal, but the more unpalatable the options become as the harsh reality of our situation is exposed.

Right now the only serious game in town is to agree a deal that gets us to 30th March 2019 without falling off a cliff. That means accepting the NI backstop, which the White Paper does.

Pro_Rata

Honestly, Mr. Herdson's Saturday good sense columns on how the politics is looking likely to play have been more the heart and soul of pb than many showier offerings for a long time, so it is good to get them back after a couple of headers throwing good sense off the cliff edge and nailing his own flag to the hard Brexit mast.

It strikes me that if the rules of the Tory leadership contest are malleable then they are gameable, so that the more swivel eyed could deliberately choose to trigger the contest at a point where rule changes would be most likely and could advantage, say, a JRM type. In which case, next week could still be a possibility?

not_on_fire

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, the Iraq dossier referred to battlefield weaponry. The Lisbon 'change' from the Constitution was purely cosmetic. The income tax increase was forbidden in the manifesto and committed after the election. Likewise, albeit merely an attempt, for the NI increase.

Circumstances didn't change, the truth came to light. And the truth was that trusting the political class to keep election promises or even be honest on matters of war and peace was to trust them too far.

If you want to blame people for the lack of trust in politics, then Blair, Brown, and Campbell are the prime culprits.

Edited extra bit: changed 'truth' to 'trust'.

MP’s expenses too. But really the biggest cause was the echo-chamber that social media has created where people rarely engage with political views different to their own, plus the ease at which lies and falsehoods can spread via these means.

Theuniondivvie

Brendan never disappoints.

https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1017846179210649601

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, you're right that it's outrageous.

It's unfortunate that confidence in the British judicial system and the police has been repeatedly undermined in recent years, to the extent that a small but substantial minority believe the arrest/imprisonment to be politically motivated.

But this interference is the kind of thing that should aggravate people, as per Obama's idiotic attempt to influence the referendum vote.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

not_on_fire said:

We appear to be approaching some sort of Brexit singularity. With each day that brings us closer to 29th March, the more important it becomes to agree a deal, but the more unpalatable the options become as the harsh reality of our situation is exposed.

Right now the only serious game in town is to agree a deal that gets us to 30th March 2019 without falling off a cliff. That means accepting the NI backstop, which the White Paper does.

The chequers statement referred to a NI backstop, does the white paper go into more detail about accepting a border in the irish sea etc?

OchEye

AlastairMeeks said:

Jonathan said:

May’s underlying strength stems from the fact she is still the best unity candidate.

Her coat of arms motto is “faute de mieux”.

+1

Roger

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

So this is the country Theresa wants us to get into bed with.

AlastairMeeks

The next Conservative leadership election, whenever it happens, needs to be a bloodbath. Everything needs to be said and conclusions need to be reached.

A stitch-up would just prolong the agony.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fire, agree entirely on social media echo chambers. The ease of muting, blocking, expelling or shadowbanning 'wrong' (divergent) opinions means that people are becoming less interested in debating and more interested in choral performances with a single hymn sheet.

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, ha. That makes me ponder writing an article comparing the Conservatives next leadership election with the Diadochi wars.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Seriously, why are they interested at all in that? Absurd.

AlastairMeeks said:

The next Conservative leadership election, whenever it happens, needs to be a bloodbath. Everything needs to be said and conclusions need to be reached.

A stitch-up would just prolong the agony.

You're absolutely right.

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

The innocent cases obviously are a problem, but I think you are overly dismissive of things like silly claims that were rejected and small items that didn't matter much. In a way, they were big part of the problem showing what was wrong with the political culture, in that people felt able to claim for very silly things (sometimes rejected, sometimes not) and that they claimed for very small, comedy things, which they should have had no need to try and claim and yet did anyway. Why did they claim for such small things? Because they could.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

kle4

Roger said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

So this is the country Theresa wants us to get into bed with.

All UK PMs want to 'get into bed' with the USA. It's a silly line of attack. UK ministers have had several public reactions against comments Trump has made in his short time in office. Here's a story about May 'in a new spat' with Trump over his comments about the NHS, which also references him 'falling out' with her over his promotion of a far right group and questioning our approach to terrorism.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-nhs-claims-theresa-amy-jeremy-hunt-twitter-uk-healthcare-broke-president-universal-healthcare-a8195556.html

Sandpit

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
ttps://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Anyone arguing for Tommy Robinson doesn’t understand why he’s in jail in the first place.

kle4

DearPB said:

A slightly odd intellectual exercise; the time taken up is not the time when MPs do the whittling down to two, it's the time when it's out to the members. So yes, a week could be saved at the MPs stage but the real problem is the postal ballot among party members.

Remove the members from the equation altogether! We all know its the memberships of political parties that are usually the problem

SouthamObserver

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

not_on_fire said:

We appear to be approaching some sort of Brexit singularity. With each day that brings us closer to 29th March, the more important it becomes to agree a deal, but the more unpalatable the options become as the harsh reality of our situation is exposed.

Right now the only serious game in town is to agree a deal that gets us to 30th March 2019 without falling off a cliff. That means accepting the NI backstop, which the White Paper does.

The chequers statement referred to a NI backstop, does the white paper go into more detail about accepting a border in the irish sea etc?

It gets past it being a transition deal-breaker, which is all that matters. There’s a good thread by David Allen Green on this which I can’t link to directly but which is inside the Tweet below. The bottom line, it seems to me, is that once we have left on 29th March next year the referendum result has been delivered. Then everything is on the table and negotiable from a UK perspective. That’s why getting to the transition is really all that matters right now.
https://twitter.com/chrisweston/status/1017750480099905536?s=21

kle4

Anyway, now it is time to be a creepy guy in his 30s going to see a kid's film by himself on a Saturday morning*. Off to the Incredibles 2!

*Sadly not the first time.

OchEye

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, ha. That makes me ponder writing an article comparing the Conservatives next leadership election with the Diadochi wars.

After Alexander died, surely the difference is that he had had an massive empire to fight over, er! what have the Tories got? Now as one of the smaller parties in membership size, already riven at the leadership levels between those who think they can save Brexit and those who don't want to be involved in the top job until after, when they can come in and clean up the mess and be lauded as the Saviour.

OblitusSumMe

David Herdson said:

The great majority of procedure is not set in stone within the Party constitution but is a working document that can be amended by two short meetings, of the 1922 Committee and the Party Board respectively.

On Wikipedia the 1922 Committee is defined as all the backbench MPs and the executive committee has 28 members. Which are you referring to here?

There are 21 members of the Conservative Party board, so I won't list them here.

Does this provide a mechanism for drafting Ruth Davidson for the leadership?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eye, Macedonian politics was always pretty brutal. It was an oddity for the king's son to actually inherit. Philip, Alexander's father, usurped a relative (uncle, I think), although he didn't actually kill his predecessor.

The Diadochi difference was more of scale than vengefulness or conspiracy.

HYUFD

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

Sandpit

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

HYUFD

Theuniondivvie said:

Brendan never disappoints.

https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1017846179210649601

Though Obama had pulled troops out of Iraq by then and did not have the migration bans and pro Wall policies of Trump.

Neither are or were as keen on invading other vpuntries as George W Bush

HYUFD

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

FF43

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

not_on_fire said:

We appear to be approaching some sort of Brexit singularity. With each day that brings us closer to 29th March, the more important it becomes to agree a deal, but the more unpalatable the options become as the harsh reality of our situation is exposed.

Right now the only serious game in town is to agree a deal that gets us to 30th March 2019 without falling off a cliff. That means accepting the NI backstop, which the White Paper does.

The chequers statement referred to a NI backstop, does the white paper go into more detail about accepting a border in the irish sea etc?

It gets past it being a transition deal-breaker, which is all that matters. There’s a good thread by David Allen Green on this which I can’t link to directly but which is inside the Tweet below. The bottom line, it seems to me, is that once we have left on 29th March next year the referendum result has been delivered. Then everything is on the table and negotiable from a UK perspective. That’s why getting to the transition is really all that matters right now.
https://twitter.com/chrisweston/status/1017750480099905536?s=21

Correct. Chequers is.a conjuror's sleight of hand. The audience focuses on the distraction and not on the hand where the real transformation happens i.e. The NI backstop and the withdrawal agreement. The trick could be exposed however.

Dura_Ace

Theuniondivvie said:

Brendan never disappoints.

https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1017846179210649601

Obama was cool. Trump is a twat. It's as simple as that.

NickPalmer

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

Yes, agreed. What was irritating was the sheer randomness of both decisions and denunciations. I had a claim for subscribing to a Danish newspaper to help in my European Select Committee work turned down because "you might enjoy it as well as finding it useful, and we cannot pay for enjoyment". Ruth Kelly was lambasted for merely asking, as a new MP, whether she could have her wonky ceiling fixed (they said no, she said OK). Other MPs got away with the outlandish claims we've read about.

DavidL

May is not going anywhere until the deal is done. It would just be too difficult for us to try and do
a deal with the EU and have a leadership campaign at the ssame time. What happens next depends on what the final deal looks like. If people vote for it through gritted teeth because the no deal alternative is even worse she will be gone fairly quickly. If people think it is ok she may be
strengthened.

What people think of the deal will also have a major impact on who replaces her. If people are unhappy it will be a Brexiteer with a mandate to seek renegotiation immediately. If people are content or just had enough the next leader will be from the more centrist part of the party.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

DearPB said:

A slightly odd intellectual exercise; the time taken up is not the time when MPs do the whittling down to two, it's the time when it's out to the members. So yes, a week could be saved at the MPs stage but the real problem is the postal ballot among party members.

Remove the members from the equation altogether! We all know its the memberships of political parties that are usually the problem

Electorally little evidence for that.

Labour members voted for Blair, David Milband and Corbyn.

Labour MPs voted for Brown and trade unions for Ed Miliband.

Tory members voted for IDS and Cameron.

Tory MPs voted for Hague, Howard and May

Charles

Jonathan said:

May’s underlying strength stems from the fact she is still the best unity candidate.

Aka lowest common denominator

Charles

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1018038844321681408

And how many times how the U.K. made representations to the US about U.K. citizens in US jails (not least those Guantanamo people)?

Dan Hodges is not a stupid man (or nay be I am too generous?) so I assume he is ignoring the fact that this is absolutely normal and proper diplomatic practice in order to make a political point?

Charles

not_on_fire said:

FPT: @kle4 I’m curious to know which protests you would NOT count as “virtue signalling”. Seems like any protest would for your definition. That’s a pretty dismissive attitude to people exercising their precious right to free speech.

Protests about things that you can - in theory - impact?

So U.K. policies (war, fox hunting, nukes, whatever) all make sense.

Protesting to say “we don’t like the president of another country” not so much.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Did you support the U.K. government lobbying on behalf of British citizens held in Guantanamo?

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

May is not going anywhere until the deal is done. It would just be too difficult for us to try and do
a deal with the EU and have a leadership campaign at the ssame time. What happens next depends on what the final deal looks like. If people vote for it through gritted teeth because the no deal alternative is even worse she will be gone fairly quickly. If people think it is ok she may be
strengthened.

What people think of the deal will also have a major impact on who replaces her. If people are unhappy it will be a Brexiteer with a mandate to seek renegotiation immediately. If people are content or just had enough the next leader will be from the more centrist part of the party.

Sent you a vanilla message.

dixiedean

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Did you support the U.K. government lobbying on behalf of British citizens held in Guantanamo?

The key words there are British citizens.

Charles

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Seriously, why are they interested at all in that? Absurd.

AlastairMeeks said:

The next Conservative leadership election, whenever it happens, needs to be a bloodbath. Everything needs to be said and conclusions need to be reached.

A stitch-up would just prolong the agony.

You're absolutely right.

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

The innocent cases obviously are a problem, but I think you are overly dismissive of things like silly claims that were rejected and small items that didn't matter much. In a way, they were big part of the problem showing what was wrong with the political culture, in that people felt able to claim for very silly things (sometimes rejected, sometimes not) and that they claimed for very small, comedy things, which they should have had no need to try and claim and yet did anyway. Why did they claim for such small things? Because they could.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

A suit is way more problematic than a press.

The HMRC explicitly disallows suits being claimed as expenses in the private sector since they presume they are not used “wholly and exclusively” for work purposes

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. It wasn't so much the fact of his resignation, but the way he did it (and his subsequent actions with Trump) was a serious embarrassment to the government.

David Davis, whatever you may think of him, resigned on principle and did it in the right way.
Boris, not so much.

Charles

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Did you support the U.K. government lobbying on behalf of British citizens held in Guantanamo?

The key words there are British citizens.

We also protest to China about their treatment of political prisoners.

I am in no way defending what the US is reported to have done. I think it is silly.

But it is entirrly within their rights for them to speak to the U.K. ambassador about whatever they see fit

Sandpit

Charles said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Seriously, why are they interested at all in that? Absurd.

AlastairMeeks said:

The next Conservative leadership election, whenever it happens, needs to be a bloodbath. Everything needs to be said and conclusions need to be reached.

A stitch-up would just prolong the agony.

You're absolutely right.

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

The innocent cases obviously are a problem, but I think you are overly dismissive of things like silly claims that were rejected and small items that didn't matter much. In a way, they were big part of the problem showing what was wrong with the political culture, in that people felt able to claim for very silly things (sometimes rejected, sometimes not) and that they claimed for very small, comedy things, which they should have had no need to try and claim and yet did anyway. Why did they claim for such small things? Because they could.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

A suit is way more problematic than a press.

The HMRC explicitly disallows suits being claimed as expenses in the private sector since they presume they are not used “wholly and exclusively” for work purposes

A good point, clothing has to be company branded in order to be allowed as expenses. White-collar workers can almost never claim for a suit.

CD13

This thread makes a change from Brexit and the febrile atmosphere it has produced.

People are getting seriously bored with the ins and outs of Brexit, but the heat, if not the light, continues.

But it all comes down to whether the population accept a referendum result. GE election results tend to be argued over but the result is generally accepted. So why not the referendum?

Reasons include ...

(a) The other lot cheated/lied/had an unfair advantage (this includes Russians landing at Tilbury with snow on their boots and fanning out across the country to bamboozle the thick locals). Politics is about subjective views. And people are never really convinced against their will.

You could argue that the MSM preferred the status quo, and outside the three-week neutrality zone, the majority media outlet (the BBC) made little effort to disguise their sympathies. The £9 million government leaflet sent to every house was hardly neutral.

(b) The experts disagreed. Sigh. We're dealing with politics and economics. Even proper scientists disagree on science, let alone Micky Mouse pseudo-science.

(c) Now we have the facts. Do we? We have versions of facts and speculation.

(d) We've changed our minds. Have we? Yes, we're getting bored with the obstructions and also the EU''s normal tendency to dissemble and delay, but that's not the same thing.

(e) The leavers are stupid and not to be taken notice of. The politics of the junior schoolyard.

(f) The young voted remain and it will affect them more. Drop the voting age to six then, or discount anyone with an incurable illness. You could say the same about any election.

(g) There's no clear end-game. Really? We leave the EU. Bino is not really leaving and we know that, don't we?

(g) The self-proclaimed important people lost. Shit happens.


The contortions to want another go will continue, but what would that result in? A complete disgust for politics and elections in general. You can have any colour as long as it's black (or whatever colour the media want you to have).

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers Deal candidate. There are simply too many Brexiteer and anti Chequers Deal backbenchers for them not to be able to give a candidate at least a third of MPs votes in the final MPs round. Hence I think the members will be choosing between Javid and Boris.

The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

Jonathan

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

May’s underlying strength stems from the fact she is still the best unity candidate.

Aka lowest common denominator

Unity has been prized highly in almost all Tory leadership elections. Back the unity candidate and you will generally do well.

If you want to call that the lowest common denominator then go for it, but I don’t think that’s fair for what is supposed to be a party that values pragmatism above most things.

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers Deal candidate. There are simply too many Brexiteer backbenchers for them not to be able to give a candidate at least a third of MPs votes in the final MPs round. Hence I think the members will be choosing between Javid and Boris.

The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

CarlottaVance

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Reuters was unable to determine why the top U.S. official responsible for defending religious freedom would try to intervene with the British government on behalf of an activist who has expressed ant-Islamic views.

Very dry....

dixiedean

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Did you support the U.K. government lobbying on behalf of British citizens held in Guantanamo?

The key words there are British citizens.

We also protest to China about their treatment of political prisoners.

I am in no way defending what the US is reported to have done. I think it is silly.

But it is entirrly within their rights for them to speak to the U.K. ambassador about whatever they see fit

Indeed. But it is a stretch to link Mr Yaxley-Lennon with a political prisoner. Of course they can lobby for whatever they like. Rational observers can draw conclusions about the level of twattishness displayed.

HYUFD

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. It wasn't so much the fact of his resignation, but the way he did it (and his subsequent actions with Trump) was a serious embarrassment to the government.

David Davis, whatever you may think of him, resigned on principle and did it in the right way.
Boris, not so much.

Davis to be fair also has a chance of being the anti Chequers Deal candidate in the final two if Boris falls by the wayside

TheWhiteRabbit

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Seriously, why are they interested at all in that? Absurd.

AlastairMeeks said:

The next Conservative leadership election, whenever it happens, needs to be a bloodbath. Everything needs to be said and conclusions need to be reached.

A stitch-up would just prolong the agony.

You're absolutely right.

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

The innocent cases obviously are a problem, but I think you are overly dismissive of things like silly claims that were rejected and small items that didn't matter much. In a way, they were big part of the problem showing what was wrong with the political culture, in that people felt able to claim for very silly things (sometimes rejected, sometimes not) and that they claimed for very small, comedy things, which they should have had no need to try and claim and yet did anyway. Why did they claim for such small things? Because they could.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

A suit is way more problematic than a press.

The HMRC explicitly disallows suits being claimed as expenses in the private sector since they presume they are not used “wholly and exclusively” for work purposes

A good point, clothing has to be company branded in order to be allowed as expenses. White-collar workers can almost never claim for a suit.

That's opposite HMRC - nothing stopping your employer re-imbursing you as part of your remuneration.

TheScreamingEagles

One of the ideas I've suggested is to have another round of MPs voting between the final two.

Whoever wins that becomes leader/PM.

The country really can't faff around with a 3 month leadership contest with the Brexit deadline looming.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers Deal candidate. There are simply too many Brexiteer backbenchers for them not to be able to give a candidate at least a third of MPs votes in the final MPs round. Hence I think the members will be choosing between Javid and Boris.

The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

CarlottaVance

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1018038844321681408

And how many times how the U.K. made representations to the US about U.K. citizens in US jails (not least those Guantanamo people)?

Dan Hodges is not a stupid man (or nay be I am too generous?) so I assume he is ignoring the fact that this is absolutely normal and proper diplomatic practice in order to make a political point?

What political point do you think he was trying to make, given his role?

Reuters was unable to determine why the top U.S. official responsible for defending religious freedom would try to intervene with the British government on behalf of an activist who has expressed ant-Islamic views.

Theuniondivvie

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1018038844321681408

And how many times how the U.K. made representations to the US about U.K. citizens in US jails (not least those Guantanamo people)?

Dan Hodges is not a stupid man (or nay be I am too generous?) so I assume he is ignoring the fact that this is absolutely normal and proper diplomatic practice in order to make a political point?

What political point would that be, racist far righters should be given special consideration when breaking the laws of their country?

Charles

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

May’s underlying strength stems from the fact she is still the best unity candidate.

Aka lowest common denominator

Unity has been prized highly in almost all Tory leadership elections. Back the unity candidate and you will generally do well.

If you want to call that the lowest common denominator then go for it, but I don’t think that’s fair for what is supposed to be a party that values pragmatism above most things.

I don’t think May is a unity candidate. I think she’s tolerated by all as the least bad alternative. That’s not the same.

Pulpstar

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Seriously, why are they interested at all in that? Absurd.

AlastairMeeks said:

The next Conservative leadership election, whenever it happens, needs to be a bloodbath. Everything needs to be said and conclusions need to be reached.

A stitch-up would just prolong the agony.

You're absolutely right.

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

A suit is way more problematic than a press.

The HMRC explicitly disallows suits being claimed as expenses in the private sector since they presume they are not used “wholly and exclusively” for work purposes

A good point, clothing has to be company branded in order to be allowed as expenses. White-collar workers can almost never claim for a suit.

That's opposite HMRC - nothing stopping your employer re-imbursing you as part of your remuneration.

On a more general point, can people stop mixing up employer and state obligations when we're discussing employment vs self employment, pretty please ^_^

Charles

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Did you support the U.K. government lobbying on behalf of British citizens held in Guantanamo?

The key words there are British citizens.

We also protest to China about their treatment of political prisoners.

I am in no way defending what the US is reported to have done. I think it is silly.

But it is entirrly within their rights for them to speak to the U.K. ambassador about whatever they see fit

Indeed. But it is a stretch to link Mr Yaxley-Lennon with a political prisoner. Of course they can lobby for whatever they like. Rational observers can draw conclusions about the level of twattishness displayed.

I completely agree with that.

I was just disagreeing with Dan Hodges’s view that it’s something to get outraged about

We saw the same 2 days ago with the BBC attacking Brexiteers for not getting upset with Trump for commenting on whether the US would do a trade deal with the U.K.

TheScreamingEagles

Sean_F said:

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

Indeed.

Sean_F

I'm not sure if ComRes will release voting intention numbers, but from the tables they look like 40/40/8.

Freggles

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Brendan never disappoints.

https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1017846179210649601

Obama was cool. Trump is a twat. It's as simple as that.

Things Trump has done that Obama didn't (a few)

- separate parents from children in order to deter immigrants
- encourage a foreign power to hack his opponent's emails
- make a long long list of derogatory personal comments about women and minorities, before and after becoming a candidate and in some cases after taking office
- blanket travel bans
- have multiple staff including former Chief of Staff indicted for various crimes
- threaten NATO stability


So let's not have this rubbish false equivalence by cherry picking a few similarities.

Charles

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Seriously, why are they interested at all in that? Absurd.

AlastairMeeks said:

The next Conserpens, needs to be a bloodbath. Everything needs to be said and conclusions need to be reached.

A stitch-up would just prolong the agony.

You're absolutely right.

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

The innocent cases obviously are a problem, but I think you are overly dismissive of things like silly claims that were rejected and small items that didn't matter much. In a way, they were big part of the problem showing what was wrong with the political culture, in that people felt able to claim for very silly things (sometimes rejected, sometimes not) and that they claimed for very small, comedy things, which they should have had no need to try and claim and yet did anyway. Why did they claim for such small things? Because they could.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

A suit is way more problematic than a press.

The HMRC explicitly disallows suits being claimed as expenses in the private sector since they presume they are not used “wholly and exclusively” for work purposes

A good point, clothing has to be company branded in order to be allowed as expenses. White-collar workers can almost never claim for a suit.

That's opposite HMRC - nothing stopping your employer re-imbursing you as part of your remuneration.

But if they do it would be taxable income not expenses. Bet that MPs don’t include suits on their P11Ds

Charles

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1018038844321681408

And how many times how the U.K. made representations to the US about U.K. citizens in US jails (not least those Guantanamo people)?

Dan Hodges is not a stupid man (or nay be I am too generous?) so I assume he is ignoring the fact that this is absolutely normal and proper diplomatic practice in order to make a political point?

What political point would that be, racist far righters should be given special consideration when breaking the laws of their country?

I’ve no idea. May be because the President saw a brief snippet on Fox and didn’t bother to inquire further?

Makes them look foolish but not much more

Sandpit

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

The innocent cases obviously are a problem, but I think you are overly dismissive of things like silly claims that were rejected and small items that didn't matter much. In a way, they were big part of the problem showing what was wrong with the political culture, in that people felt able to claim for very silly things (sometimes rejected, sometimes not) and that they claimed for very small, comedy things, which they should have had no need to try and claim and yet did anyway. Why did they claim for such small things? Because they could.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

A suit is way more problematic than a press.

The HMRC explicitly disallows suits being claimed as expenses in the private sector since they presume they are not used “wholly and exclusively” for work purposes

A good point, clothing has to be company branded in order to be allowed as expenses. White-collar workers can almost never claim for a suit.

That's opposite HMRC - nothing stopping your employer re-imbursing you as part of your remuneration.

Anything that's not a uniform or protective clothing is a benefit in kind for tax purposes.
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-clothing/what-to-report-and-pay

Your company is allowed to buy you a suit if they wish, but you and they will have to pay tax and NI on the cost of it.

GIN1138

When's Donald's interview with Piers Morgan supposed to be going out?

If it's Monday (i.e when he's out of the country) I bet he ditches everything he said with May at Chequers and goes back to what he said to The Sun.

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers Deal candidate. There are simply too many Brexiteer backbenchers for them not to be able to give a candidate at least a third of MPs votes in the final MPs round. Hence I think the members will be choosing between Javid and Boris.

The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

That is not a killer, Survation had Hunt, Gove and Williamson with big net unfavourable rating with voters, Boris was second only to Mogg with the highest favourable rating and equal with Javid on net favourability

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

One of the ideas I've suggested is to have another round of MPs voting between the final two.

Whoever wins that becomes leader/PM.

The country really can't faff around with a 3 month leadership contest with the Brexit deadline looming.

The membership will not tolerate another coronation of a Remainer, especially a coronation of a pro Chequers Deal candidate without being consulted.

Momentum style threats of deselections of Blairite MPs could then follow from the hard Brexiteer wing of the membership for Remainer MPs if that was the result

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One of the ideas I've suggested is to have another round of MPs voting between the final two.

Whoever wins that becomes leader/PM.

The country really can't faff around with a 3 month leadership contest with the Brexit deadline looming.

The membership will not tolerate another coronation of a Remainer, especially a coronation of a pro Chequers Deal candidate without being consulted.

Momentum style threats of deselections of Blairite MPs could then follow from the hard Brexiteer wing of the membership for Remainer MPs if that was the result

As we saw with the attempts to deselect Anna Soubry such attempts are all fart and no follow through.

TheWhiteRabbit

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree on expenses too but would add the media covered that in an incredibly poor manner. There were genuine disgraces (flipping) but that got cover provided by silly claims that were rejected and small comedy items that didn't mater much. There were also innocent cases presented as wrongdoing (a Conservative MP who sold his house but had a delay moving into the new one temporarily lived at a club of which he was a member and had that, briefly, as his home for expenses purposes, which appears entirely reasonable).

The innocent cases obviously are a problem, but I think you are overly dismissive of things like silly claims that were rejected and small items that didn't matter much. In a way, they were big part of the problem showing what was wrong with the political culture, in that people felt able to claim for very silly things (sometimes rejected, sometimes not) and that they claimed for very small, comedy things, which they should have had no need to try and claim and yet did anyway. Why did they claim for such small things? Because they could.

My archtypical example is claiming for a trouser press, as I can justify MPs claiming a suit on expenses (even though I should think most can easily afford plenty!), but if they want a press they can pay for it themselves, as there's no reason the public should pay for them to have sharper creases. Is that a very small, even petty issue? Yes, to an extent. But it is illustrative of an overly generous system and an attitude wherein some MPs claimed for whatever they could get, rather than what they needed and paying for any extras themselves.

A suit is way more problematic than a press.

The HMRC explicitly disallows suits being claimed as expenses in the private sector since they presume they are not used “wholly and exclusively” for work purposes

A good point, clothing has to be company branded in order to be allowed as expenses. White-collar workers can almost never claim for a suit.

That's opposite HMRC - nothing stopping your employer re-imbursing you as part of your remuneration.

Anything that's not a uniform or protective clothing is a benefit in kind for tax purposes.
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-clothing/what-to-report-and-pay

Your company is allowed to buy you a suit if they wish, but you and they will have to pay tax and NI on the cost of it.

Right, it's part of your remuneration. But we might want to restrict MPs to benefits in kind rather than bumps to their salary.

Jonathan

Clearly the trick with Trump is to outbid him in the lie department. No one will believe his version.

May should have announced that Trump promised a specific trade deal. The reason Trump gets away with it is that everyone else is playing it straight and not calling out the boy who cries wolf. In this story the boy is president and everyone is too polite/afraid to take advantage.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers Deal candidate. There are simply too many Brexiteer backbenchers for them not to be able to give a candidate at least a third of MPs votes in the final MPs round. Hence I think the members will be choosing between Javid and Boris.

The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

It is a question of if not when there is a VONC from what I understand Brady is nearing the 48 but has pressed to hold back while Trump is here. Though I think May would survive a no confidence vote now

DecrepitJohnL

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Did you support the U.K. government lobbying on behalf of British citizens held in Guantanamo?

The key words there are British citizens.

We also protest to China about their treatment of political prisoners.

I am in no way defending what the US is reported to have done. I think it is silly.

But it is entirrly within their rights for them to speak to the U.K. ambassador about whatever they see fit

Indeed. But it is a stretch to link Mr Yaxley-Lennon with a political prisoner. Of course they can lobby for whatever they like. Rational observers can draw conclusions about the level of twattishness displayed.

I had to look up what Tommy Robinson had been jailed for when asked about it by American colleagues a few weeks back. Like it or not, he is big news over there, especially as it had been spun as a TV journalist jailed for reporting the facts.

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers Deal candidate. There are simply too many Brexiteer backbenchers for them not to be able to give a candidate at least a third of MPs votes in the final MPs round. Hence I think the members will be choosing between Javid and Boris.

The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

That is not a killer, Survation had Hunt, Gove and Williamson with big net unfavourable rating with voters, Boris was second only to Mogg with the highest favourable rating and equal with Javid on net favourability

Ten years ago, Boris would have had Tory voters supporting him by 4 -1. More people are aware of his unfitness for office, now.

david_herdson

OblitusSumMe said:

David Herdson said:

The great majority of procedure is not set in stone within the Party constitution but is a working document that can be amended by two short meetings, of the 1922 Committee and the Party Board respectively.

On Wikipedia the 1922 Committee is defined as all the backbench MPs and the executive committee has 28 members. Which are you referring to here?

There are 21 members of the Conservative Party board, so I won't list them here.

Does this provide a mechanism for drafting Ruth Davidson for the leadership?

Sorry - careless from me - it's the Executive of the 1922 Committee which would take the lead in drafting revisions to the process. (It's in the third/last rule I quoted in the article, in italics).

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to s Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

That is not a killer, Survation had Hunt, Gove and Williamson with big net unfavourable rating with voters, Boris was second only to Mogg with the highest favourable rating and equal with Javid on net favourability

Ten years ago, Boris would have had Tory voters supporting him by 4 -1. More people are aware of his unfitness for office, now.

Evidence? Ten years ago Boris had Remainers and Leavers behind him hence he is the ONLY Tory ever to have won the London Mayoralty in a largely Labour city.

Now obviously he has aligned with Leavers losing Remainers in the process but in the Tories at least there are still significantly more Leavers thsn Remainers. Gove is now considered Judas and a traitor by the anti Chequers wing of the party, Mogg is probably too inexperienced in government to become PM which just leaves Boris as the main Leaver candidate with maybe Davis as reserve

williamglenn

Jonathan said:

Clearly the trick with Trump is to outbid him in the lie department. No one will believe his version.

May should have announced that Trump promised a specific trade deal. The reason Trump gets away with it is that everyone else is playing it straight and not calling out the boy who cries wolf. In this story the boy is president and everyone is too polite/afraid to take advantage.

The problem is that once you engage Trump in that kind of battle, it would become a full-time job staying one step ahead of his attempts to gain revenge.

DecrepitJohnL

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers Deal candidate. There are simply too many Brexiteer backbenchers for them not to be able to give a candidate at least a third of MPs votes in the final MPs round. Hence I think the members will be choosing between Javid and Boris.

The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

No, the killer for Boris is Labour antisemitism. SpAds of the other candidates will go round the tea rooms with a list of Boris's less diplomatic quotes saying, "look what happened to Labour; read these; even if you agree with him. we can't risk Boris".

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to s Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

That is not a killer, Survation had Hunt, Gove and Williamson with big net unfavourable rating with voters, Boris was second only to Mogg with the highest favourable rating and equal with Javid on net favourability

Ten years ago, Boris would have had Tory voters supporting him by 4 -1. More people are aware of his unfitness for office, now.

Evidence? Ten years ago Boris had Remainers and Leavers behind him hence he is the ONLY Tory ever to have won the London Mayoralty in a largely Labour city.

Now obviously he has aligned with Leavers losing Remainers in the process but in the Tories at least there are still significantly more Leavers thsn Remainers. Gove is now considered Judas and a traitor by the anti Chequers wing of the party, Mogg is probably too inexperienced in government to become PM which just leaves Boris as the main Leaver candidate with maybe Davis as reserve

Many Leavers also now dislike Boris, seeing him as flakey and incompetent.

CarlottaVance

No mention of the queen....he’s on to the Russians:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018074723140427776?s=20

GIN1138

DecrepitJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Just imagine the reaction from the Churchill busters if Obama had done something like this:
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1017922938513879040?s=21

Did you support the U.K. government lobbying on behalf of British citizens held in Guantanamo?

The key words there are British citizens.

We also protest to China about their treatment of political prisoners.

I am in no way defending what the US is reported to have done. I think it is silly.

But it is entirrly within their rights for them to speak to the U.K. ambassador about whatever they see fit

Indeed. But it is a stretch to link Mr Yaxley-Lennon with a political prisoner. Of course they can lobby for whatever they like. Rational observers can draw conclusions about the level of twattishness displayed.

I had to look up what Tommy Robinson had been jailed for when asked about it by American colleagues a few weeks back. Like it or not, he is big news over there, especially as it had been spun as a TV journalist jailed for reporting the facts.

Why is Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, aka Andrew McMaster, aka Paul Harris ) "news" in America? I've just had a look at his Wiki page and he was born in Luton to Irish parents?

Can't see any connection with USA at all?

HYUFD

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to resign from the Cabinet over Chequers catapulted him to the front with Mogg and ahead of Gove of potential candidates to represent the pro Leave, hard Brexit, anti Chequers Deal wing of the parliamentary party in the leadership election when May goes.

I have also detected a definite swing towards Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the final two.

I know a few MPs who have said Boris ruined what was left of his chances when he skipped the COBRA meeting and the Balkans meeting.

I mean the COBRA meeting wasn’t a meeting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers Deal candidate and an anti Chequers
The Cobra Meeting and Balkans meeting issue will just be an issue for mainly pro Chequers Deal MPs who will vote for Javid, Gove or Hunt and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

No, the killer for Boris is Labour antisemitism. SpAds of the other candidates will go round the tea rooms with a list of Boris's less diplomatic quotes saying, "look what happened to Labour; read these; even if you agree with him. we can't risk Boris".

Being unPC does not stop you winning elections, see Trump and Berlusconi. At the end of the day Tory MPs in marginal seats want a charismatic candidate who can beat Corbyn and save their seats

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Whichever method is chosen even if the MP rounds are amended I think it is increasingly likely MPs will pick Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson as their final two to be sent to party members, Javid being the slightly more Eurosceptic than May candidate of the Remain pro Chequers Deal wing of the party and Boris being the candidate of the hard Brexit Leavers and ERG anti Chequers Deal wing of the party.

I think Mogg will back Boris in the end

You still think Boris has any support from either MPs or members, after his antics of the past week?

From the hard Brexit wing absolutely. His decision to s Boris from pro Leave, anti Chequers Deal members over the last week too since he resigned, some see him as Churchill to May's Chamberlain

But the members don’t get to choose who is on the ting about something important.

No but at the end of the day there will be a pro Chequers and won't touch Boris with a bargepole anyway

If the the anti-Chequers deal lot are struggling to get 48 MPs to trigger a VONC in Mrs May I wouldn't be too confident on them having a candidate in the final two.

The killer for Boris is surely in the Yougov poll. Tory voters are evenly divided whether he's an asset or liability.

That is not a killer, Survation had Hunt, Gove and Williamson with big net unfavourable rating with voters, Boris was second only to Mogg with the highest favourable rating and equal with Javid on net favourability

Ten years ago, Boris would have had Tory voters supporting him by 4 -1. More people are aware of his unfitness for office, now.

Evidence? Ten years ago Boris had Remainers and Leavers behind him hence he is the ONLY Tory ever to have won the London Mayoralty in a largely Labour city.

Now obviously he has aligned with Leavers losing Remainers in the process but in the Tories at least there are still significantly more Leavers thsn Remainers. Gove is now considered Judas and a traitor by the anti Chequers wing of the party, Mogg is probably too inexperienced in government to become PM which just leaves Boris as the main Leaver candidate with maybe Davis as reserve

Many Leavers also now dislike Boris, seeing him as flakey and incompetent.

Some but the absolute loathing for Gove amongst hard Brexiteers this last week is astonishing

david_herdson

DearPB said:

A slightly odd intellectual exercise; the time taken up is not the time when MPs do the whittling down to two, it's the time when it's out to the members. So yes, a week could be saved at the MPs stage but the real problem is the postal ballot among party members.

Actually, it could be 2-3 weeks saved because of the Tuesday/Thursday thing. It matters because if there is a VoNC very soon - or indeed, at any point when there's a looming recess - then the procedures wouldn't fit with the parliamentary timetable.

For example, suppose the 48th letter went in on Tuesday. The timetable, assuming May lost (which is no guarantee but run with it for the sake of this exercise), would then probably look something like:

Tue 17 July - VoNC delcared

Wed 18 July - VoNC held
In 2003, the vote was the day after the threshold was reached.

Thu 26 July - Close of nominations for leadership election.
See rule 15: "Nominations will close at Noon on a Thursday and the Returning Officer will immediately publish a list of the valid nominations received." To close nominations only 18 hours after a VoNC result (and less than 48 hours after the vote was announced) would be unreasonably short.

Let's assume five candidates and three rounds of voting (there could be fewer, if candidates withdraw, or more, if there's a tie for last place and both candidates continue)

Tue 31 July - First round of MP voting

Thu 2 Aug - Second round of MP voting

Tue 7 Aug - Third round of MP voting

Except that parliament is due to rise for the summer recess on 24 July. So how are MPs supposed to vote if they are not physically present? In theory, electronic voting would be within the rules but to hold a secure and private ballot may not be feasible within the timeframe.

In practice, the only option would be to amend the timescale and/or the election system.