The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
So, Boris has c. 63 backers at present. To my mind, that makes 60-69 @ 10/1 quite attractive - he will have a few more undeclareds, but not all of his declared backers will necessarily vote for him.
There are 330 Tory MPs – so 111 is the magic number needed to get in the final two if my logic holds.
According to Guido Fawkes: Johnson currently has 63 backers while 149 have opted for other candidates and 118 are undeclared. If we assume that the “undeclareds” are likely to be on the government payroll and unlikely to back Johnson, how does he get to 111?
If he took all 25 Raab backers (unlikely) this still only gets him to 88.
I accept that he will pick up some support from other candidates when they are eliminated, but Johnson`s price looks way too short to me.
He'll pick up support from all the other eliminated candidates IMO. Dominic Raab will be the candidate struggling to get any transfers from other candidates because he's the most right-wing.
Apologies if I have 330 wrong - but whatever the number my point stands.
105 Tory MPs makes a mathematical certainty to get into the final 2 on 313.
But that needs a split of 104-104-105. 104 will be enough in ~99.9% of circumstances and you can keep going down till you arrive at a number that will give ~75% and ~ 50% probabilities.
So 105 is a goal, but it's also vanishingly unlikely that'll be the number needed - also as others drop out he will highly likely pick up some more support
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Mailonline is interesting today. Unusually for its army of like/dislike clickers on the below the line comments to its articles, the anti-Boris tax-cuts-for-the-rich policy are sweeping the day.
There are 330 Tory MPs – so 111 is the magic number needed to get in the final two if my logic holds.
According to Guido Fawkes: Johnson currently has 63 backers while 149 have opted for other candidates and 118 are undeclared. If we assume that the “undeclareds” are likely to be on the government payroll and unlikely to back Johnson, how does he get to 111?
If he took all 25 Raab backers (unlikely) this still only gets him to 88.
I accept that he will pick up some support from other candidates when they are eliminated, but Johnson`s price looks way too short to me.
He'll pick up support from all the other eliminated candidates IMO. Dominic Raab will be the candidate struggling to get any transfers from other candidates because he's the most right-wing.
I'd say Mcvey is actually - but her transfers will go straight to Boris I think.
So, Boris has c. 63 backers at present. To my mind, that makes 60-69 @ 10/1 quite attractive - he will have a few more undeclareds, but not all of his declared backers will necessarily vote for him.
I am rather tempted by both the lowest two bands. It's far too easy for an MP to declare support for Boris Johnson and privately vote for someone else. And Boris Johnson is supposedly picking up quite a few reluctant supporters.
Yet despite that, despite the proximity, despite the trading group, despite the fact the protectionist trading group forbids us from signing deals elsewhere . . . elsewhere still forms the majority of our trade.
Oh my goodness, this is the level of stupidity of the 32ish percent who want to wreck our economy. It is quite staggering. It is beyond parody. As I said earlier, this is like being a supplier of fresh produce and saying; "hey we do slightly more business with Budgens, Spar shops and several hundred independent shops than we do to Tesco, Waitrose and Aldi. Let's tell the big guys to fuck themselves. They need us more than we need them." MMM GOOD BUSINESS SENSE!!
No, this is like being a farmer has previously signed a very lopsided deal with Tesco's but now finds their goods being demanded by plenty of alternatives including Budgens, Spar, several hundred independents . . . and yes, Waitrose and Aldi. But currently Tesco's writes their contract terms and conditions and the farmer is only allowed to trade on favourable terms exclusively with Tesco's. So the farmer decides to continue to trade with Tesco's but exercises a clause to get out of the exclusivity deal with them. Now they can sign favourable deals with Waitrose, Aldi, Spar and yes hundreds of independents too.
I was not aware that Budgens, Waitrose, Aldi and Spar were in the habit of signing favourable deals with small producers. I was under the impression that they squeezed them for all they could get. But perhaps that does happen in Thompsonland.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Though for labour corbyn won because of the membership not the MP’s choice although different rules etc.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
It wouldn't be. The final round of MPs' voting has *three* candidates, the loser of which is eliminated.
The only way I can see the momentum running against Boris is if some Remainy MPs tactically vote for Raab in the last four to put him into the semi-final and so split the Brexiteer vote while unifying the rest. As things stand though, it's more likely that a semi-final of Gove / Hunt / Johnson would produce a big lead for Boris.
Boris Johnson IS able to work electoral miracles. He is able to turn me, a 50 something, one time Tory activist into a Lib Dem voter. Amazing what he can do. Vote Boris for economic and Tory Party meltdown in a manner not seen ever.
Lets take £350m +++ away from the NHS and from tax payers and give it to the IMF !
So, Boris has c. 63 backers at present. To my mind, that makes 60-69 @ 10/1 quite attractive - he will have a few more undeclareds, but not all of his declared backers will necessarily vote for him.
I am rather tempted by both the lowest two bands. It's far too easy for an MP to declare support for Boris Johnson and privately vote for someone else. And Boris Johnson is supposedly picking up quite a few reluctant supporters.
There are 330 Tory MPs – so 111 is the magic number needed to get in the final two if my logic holds.
According to Guido Fawkes: Johnson currently has 63 backers while 149 have opted for other candidates and 118 are undeclared. If we assume that the “undeclareds” are likely to be on the government payroll and unlikely to back Johnson, how does he get to 111?
If he took all 25 Raab backers (unlikely) this still only gets him to 88.
I accept that he will pick up some support from other candidates when they are eliminated, but Johnson`s price looks way too short to me.
He'll pick up support from all the other eliminated candidates IMO. Dominic Raab will be the candidate struggling to get any transfers from other candidates because he's the most right-wing.
An "informed insider" friend of mine says I shouldn't worry, he isn't going to make it! Sorry HYUFD !
So, Boris has c. 63 backers at present. To my mind, that makes 60-69 @ 10/1 quite attractive - he will have a few more undeclareds, but not all of his declared backers will necessarily vote for him.
I am rather tempted by both the lowest two bands. It's far too easy for an MP to declare support for Boris Johnson and privately vote for someone else. And Boris Johnson is supposedly picking up quite a few reluctant supporters.
I think BoJo's votes will be pretty flat after the first round, as people come and people go. But I think he will get declared backers, at least, on the first ask.
So, Boris has c. 63 backers at present. To my mind, that makes 60-69 @ 10/1 quite attractive - he will have a few more undeclareds, but not all of his declared backers will necessarily vote for him.
Not all MPs have declared though by any means, there's about a third left to do so. In 2016 the same thing happened, so each candidate got on average 40% more votes than they had declared backers (though it varied quite a lot from person to person, everyone gained a decent few though). This time the average candidate will gain a similar %, so unless Boris gains none of those he'll clear 69.
My guess: 90s, but it could be 80s or 100-110. It would be shocking if he got under 63. There are 100 MPs out there who have endorsed no-one who will surely vote for someone.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Though for labour corbyn won because of the membership not the MP’s choice although different rules etc.
Corbyn will not be First Among Equals, more like First Among People Who Think He is a Dullard
It's a slightly curious result as the collapse in the UKIP vote should probably have helped Boris more than it did. Maybe they benefited from tactical voting in their favour in 2015 which unwound to the next most likely anti-Tory.
Boris' vote did go up, albeit not by much. I think in London in 2017 that was something of an achievement.
For me Boris is something of a hail Mary play. It might work but the most compelling thing about it is the apparently inevitable consequences of the alternatives. Quite hard not to see the Tories losing in excess of 100 seats at present.
Mike's overall point here is very sound. I could quibble with some of the assertions - Boris's win in 2012 *was* an impressive achievement for a Tory candidate in London at the time (much more so than his win in 2008 was) - but the polling stats suggest there is nothing magical about his appeal, backing up his direct electoal data. Besides, 2012 was seven years ago now and both Boris and Britain's politics have changed greatly since then.
My vote ended up in Boris’s pile in 2012 - the only time in my life when I have expressed a preference for a Tory - and it had nothing to do with his personality or supposedly election winning qualities.
Contrarywise, the poor performance in Uxbridge was due to demographic change which is affecting formerly white outer London particularly. But Mike is right that it is hard to discern any Boris upside.
Uxbridge has actually been trending Tory since the late 1950s. Until won by the Tories in 1959 it had been a Labour marginal, but Labour has only won the seat once since that election - in 1966 - ie it stayed Tory in 1997.
So, Boris has c. 63 backers at present. To my mind, that makes 60-69 @ 10/1 quite attractive - he will have a few more undeclareds, but not all of his declared backers will necessarily vote for him.
I am rather tempted by both the lowest two bands. It's far too easy for an MP to declare support for Boris Johnson and privately vote for someone else. And Boris Johnson is supposedly picking up quite a few reluctant supporters.
Those too - the logic is the same. Sub-50 would be hugely embarrassing: it is possible that some people have set him up to fail, but the more high-profile endorsements he has received suggest that is unlikely.
So, Boris has c. 63 backers at present. To my mind, that makes 60-69 @ 10/1 quite attractive - he will have a few more undeclareds, but not all of his declared backers will necessarily vote for him.
I am rather tempted by both the lowest two bands. It's far too easy for an MP to declare support for Boris Johnson and privately vote for someone else. And Boris Johnson is supposedly picking up quite a few reluctant supporters.
But how many MPs are not supporting him/actively supporting A N Other - but will privately vote for him, because although it might be social death to admit voting for Boris they see his rivals as ineffectual in getting the Party back up and running again?
There are 330 Tory MPs – so 111 is the magic number needed to get in the final two if my logic holds.
According to Guido Fawkes: Johnson currently has 63 backers while 149 have opted for other candidates and 118 are undeclared. If we assume that the “undeclareds” are likely to be on the government payroll and unlikely to back Johnson, how does he get to 111?
If he took all 25 Raab backers (unlikely) this still only gets him to 88.
I accept that he will pick up some support from other candidates when they are eliminated, but Johnson`s price looks way too short to me.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
No, they won't be. It is why the system for both parties needs to return to a system where the MPs have the final say, though how that can be achieved is difficult. MPs are representing proper voters, whereas many members are representing their own extreme prejudice. The system as it stands over represents the eccentric and the extreme, and as such is not representative or democratic.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
It was almost inevitable after the government said they'd stop funding it. Had the BBC taken it on with no restrictions it would have consumed 20% of their budget.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
It wouldn't be. The final round of MPs' voting has *three* candidates, the loser of which is eliminated.
The only way I can see the momentum running against Boris is if some Remainy MPs tactically vote for Raab in the last four to put him into the semi-final and so split the Brexiteer vote while unifying the rest. As things stand though, it's more likely that a semi-final of Gove / Hunt / Johnson would produce a big lead for Boris.
I'm not sure Gove will even make such a semi final now - more likely one of Raab, Javid or Leadsom. Taking class A drugs might be deemed fine among wealthy public school boys and metropolitan trendies but such a candidate has no hope amongst the wider Tory membership which is C2 dominated these days. And although people are possibly more forgiving now I don't think that extends to a potential PM - it is worth remembering the majority of people in the UK still have never taken any form of recreational drug even cannabis.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
It was the first example of why the system for choosing the Tory leader is broken. MPs suspected IDS was as thick as a plank, and then by being leader he proved it completely conclusively.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
Remember? Who could forget? Surely only Corbyn's reannointment after a solid vote of no confidence by his MPs comes even close to that level of stupidity, arrogance and self harm. Even today it seems bewildering.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
It was the first example of why the system for choosing the Tory leader is broken. MPs suspected IDS was as thick as a plank, and then by being leader he proved it completely conclusively.
Instead, the thick as a plank MPs thought the membership would buy into the ultimate Europhile leading them.
If Hunt is 1.45 for the final two and 5.2 to win, what is his implied % if he makes the final two? Pretty rubbish, con siding Johnson's are only 60% or so
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
It wouldn't be. The final round of MPs' voting has *three* candidates, the loser of which is eliminated.
The only way I can see the momentum running against Boris is if some Remainy MPs tactically vote for Raab in the last four to put him into the semi-final and so split the Brexiteer vote while unifying the rest. As things stand though, it's more likely that a semi-final of Gove / Hunt / Johnson would produce a big lead for Boris.
I'm not sure Gove will even make such a semi final now - more likely one of Raab, Javid or Leadsom. Taking class A drugs might be deemed fine among wealthy public school boys and metropolitan trendies but such a candidate has no hope amongst the wider Tory membership which is C2 dominated these days. And although people are possibly more forgiving now I don't think that extends to a potential PM - it is worth remembering the majority of people in the UK still have never taken any form of recreational drug even cannabis.
Something like 30% of adults have taken illegal drugs, in the vast majority of cases cannabis or MDMA. 10% have taken a class A drug. My guess is that the remaining 90% is pretty well represented amongst the membership of the Tory party.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Unlikely to be good for the Tories among older voters. Will Labour promise to reverse this?
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
It was the first example of why the system for choosing the Tory leader is broken. MPs suspected IDS was as thick as a plank, and then by being leader he proved it completely conclusively.
Instead, the thick as a plank MPs thought the membership would buy into the ultimate Europhile leading them.
Epic fails all round.
MPs at that stage were of quite high calibre. The average IQ was lowered when the likes of Mark Francois and other members of the ERG were selected by the swivel-eyed fraternity that took over local Conservative associations
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
Remember? Who could forget? Surely only Corbyn's reannointment after a solid vote of no confidence by his MPs comes even close to that level of stupidity, arrogance and self harm. Even today it seems bewildering.
It is easy to forget that IDS had been well regarded. I still remember a Bagehot column describing how it would be a good idea for the Conservative party to make him their leader.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
It wouldn't be. The final round of MPs' voting has *three* candidates, the loser of which is eliminated.
The only way I can see the momentum running against Boris is if some Remainy MPs tactically vote for Raab in the last four to put him into the semi-final and so split the Brexiteer vote while unifying the rest. As things stand though, it's more likely that a semi-final of Gove / Hunt / Johnson would produce a big lead for Boris.
I'm not sure Gove will even make such a semi final now - more likely one of Raab, Javid or Leadsom. Taking class A drugs might be deemed fine among wealthy public school boys and metropolitan trendies but such a candidate has no hope amongst the wider Tory membership which is C2 dominated these days. And although people are possibly more forgiving now I don't think that extends to a potential PM - it is worth remembering the majority of people in the UK still have never taken any form of recreational drug even cannabis.
Something like 30% of adults have taken illegal drugs, in the vast majority of cases cannabis or MDMA. 10% have taken a class A drug. My guess is that the remaining 90% is pretty well represented amongst the membership of the Tory party.
The 10% seems pretty well represented among Tory MPs.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Not all pensioners not getting pension credit are Wealthy and not all those entitled claim it as it involves a probing 45 minute means test on the phone with the DWP.
At the very least it should also apply to pensioners getting council tax benefit who just miss out on pension credit.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
Remember? Who could forget? Surely only Corbyn's reannointment after a solid vote of no confidence by his MPs comes even close to that level of stupidity, arrogance and self harm. Even today it seems bewildering.
It is easy to forget that IDS had been well regarded. I still remember a Bagehot column describing how it would be a good idea for the Conservative party to make him their leader.
Mmm, only well regarded by the growing band of Europhobes who disliked the fact that Ken Clarke had principles and a brain. They used to like Portillo until he confessed his bisexuality, which must have made many eyes swivel very rapidly indeed.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
Remember? Who could forget? Surely only Corbyn's reannointment after a solid vote of no confidence by his MPs comes even close to that level of stupidity, arrogance and self harm. Even today it seems bewildering.
It is easy to forget that IDS had been well regarded. I still remember a Bagehot column describing how it would be a good idea for the Conservative party to make him their leader.
I really don't remember that. I remember my perception being that he was well meaning but thick. These days I am not so sure about the first part but pretty certain of the second.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
It wouldn't be. The final round of MPs' voting has *three* candidates, the loser of which is eliminated.
The only way I can see the momentum running against Boris is if some Remainy MPs tactically vote for Raab in the last four to put him into the semi-final and so split the Brexiteer vote while unifying the rest. As things stand though, it's more likely that a semi-final of Gove / Hunt / Johnson would produce a big lead for Boris.
I'm not sure Gove will even make such a semi final now - more likely one of Raab, Javid or Leadsom. Taking class A drugs might be deemed fine among wealthy public school boys and metropolitan trendies but such a candidate has no hope amongst the wider Tory membership which is C2 dominated these days. And although people are possibly more forgiving now I don't think that extends to a potential PM - it is worth remembering the majority of people in the UK still have never taken any form of recreational drug even cannabis.
Something like 30% of adults have taken illegal drugs, in the vast majority of cases cannabis or MDMA. 10% have taken a class A drug. My guess is that the remaining 90% is pretty well represented amongst the membership of the Tory party.
The 10% seems pretty well represented among Tory MPs.
What do we think is the percentage amongst candidates for the Leadership?
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
It was the first example of why the system for choosing the Tory leader is broken. MPs suspected IDS was as thick as a plank, and then by being leader he proved it completely conclusively.
Instead, the thick as a plank MPs thought the membership would buy into the ultimate Europhile leading them.
Epic fails all round.
MPs at that stage were of quite high calibre. The average IQ was lowered when the likes of Mark Francois and other members of the ERG were selected by the swivel-eyed fraternity that took over local Conservative associations
In my experience, the swivel-eyed fraternity were very well represented in local Conservative associations, back in the day. Many then decamped to UKIP.
Mr. Punter, Clarke wanting us to join the single currency and IDS being rubbish has shades of foreshadowing, or so it seems now.
Things would be far better if politicians had actually consulted the electorate earlier, rather than throwing away powers entrusted to them (with no hope of return except by drastic action) and then being surprised when sceptical sentiment spiked.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
The MPs picked May!
Who on offer was any better?
Indeed. I don't think history will completely blame her for the debacle that followed. It may be fair to say that she was daft to try and clear up the shit that was put there by Cameron, Johnson and Gove, and amply added to by the ERG
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Not all pensioners not getting pension credit are Wealthy and not all those entitled claim it as it involves a probing 45 minute means test on the phone with the DWP.
At the very least it should also apply to pensioners getting council tax benefit who just miss out on pension credit.
Why is it £160 or nothing?
My guess is that the more complex the system, the more complex and expensive it is to administer.
Williamglenn: yes I see your point, but if Boris comes in second with less than 111 how will this affect the membership vote?
For example, if Hunt mopped up most support and the final tally was, say, Hunt 230 Johnson 100 think of the pressure there would be on members to mirror the MPs choice.
The MPs picked May!
Who on offer was any better?
Clarke.
Sadly he didn't volunteer
He's 78 !
& It's a more demanding job than POTUS before anyone wheels out the current geriatrics in the running for that one.
The magic number for a candidate is not one third plus one of the Conservative MPs but one half plus one of the Conservative MPs who have not voted for your chief rival. That might be as low as 70, depending on what the front runner gets.
While that's true, any candidate reaching the run-off with only 70 votes - presumably against 170+ for the winner of the semi-final - would almost certainly be doomed simply by the momentum of the campaign and the apparent confidence the MPs had in the leading candidate.
Corbyn won after losing 172 to 40 among MPs. Do you really think Tory membership are minded to be deferential to MPs in the current climate?
Remember that the Conservative membership once chose IDS over Kenneth Clarke. Unless it has changed radically in nature since, this tells you much about the way it is likely to be thinking.
It was the first example of why the system for choosing the Tory leader is broken. MPs suspected IDS was as thick as a plank, and then by being leader he proved it completely conclusively.
Instead, the thick as a plank MPs thought the membership would buy into the ultimate Europhile leading them.
Epic fails all round.
MPs at that stage were of quite high calibre. The average IQ was lowered when the likes of Mark Francois and other members of the ERG were selected by the swivel-eyed fraternity that took over local Conservative associations
In my experience, the swivel-eyed fraternity were very well represented in local Conservative associations, back in the day. Many then decamped to UKIP.
They were well represented, but they used not to make up the majority, which sadly tends to be the case today.
Mr. Punter, Clarke wanting us to join the single currency and IDS being rubbish has shades of foreshadowing, or so it seems now.
Things would be far better if politicians had actually consulted the electorate earlier, rather than throwing away powers entrusted to them (with no hope of return except by drastic action) and then being surprised when sceptical sentiment spiked.
Would joining the single currency have been such a big deal, Morris, when compared, say, to something like leaving the EU?
Mr. Punter, Clarke wanting us to join the single currency and IDS being rubbish has shades of foreshadowing, or so it seems now.
Things would be far better if politicians had actually consulted the electorate earlier, rather than throwing away powers entrusted to them (with no hope of return except by drastic action) and then being surprised when sceptical sentiment spiked.
European integration gives more powers to the British people to control their destiny, arguably at the expense of Westminster. It's a very good thing.
I haven't read all the posts about numbers of MPs needed to guarantee reaching the final two, but... isn't it theoretically 1?
If Mrs Front Runner gets N-1 and Mr Also Ran gets 1, (where N is the total number of voting MPs), surely FR and AR go through?
I appreciate it isn't going to work like that - and with the rules introduced by the '22 last week, presumably they need at least 8/16 votes in R1/R2. But all the "he needs a half or a third or n/2+1" seems wide of the mark to me??
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Unlikely to be good for the Tories among older voters. Will Labour promise to reverse this?
I believe Farage wants free tv licences for all - by abolishing the licence entirely!
Why in 2019 should anyone be forced to pay for the BBC when they can watch ITV and loads of other channels on free view funded by adverts.
Why not let people or at least over 75s choose in a free market - BBC if you want it for £160 a year and zero if you don’t. Love island, Corrie and Britain’s got Talent will still be free for everyone!
Mr. Punter, Clarke wanting us to join the single currency and IDS being rubbish has shades of foreshadowing, or so it seems now.
Things would be far better if politicians had actually consulted the electorate earlier, rather than throwing away powers entrusted to them (with no hope of return except by drastic action) and then being surprised when sceptical sentiment spiked.
Mr Dancer, calibre politicians lead, not follow. Therein lies the difference between Ken Clarke and Boris Johnson. Sadly those of the Clarke world view did not prevail. He will still be seen to be right in the long term IMO.
That's absolutely the correct decision. It will of course be hugely unpopular.
It was however a very common view expressed during the consultation.
Jack W will be livid but it has to be the correct decision.
In fact anything that annoys Jack is a good thing.
I thank my Deputy TOTY for his unstinting support over the past years and his personal unswerving service to the bank balance of impoverished Scottish aristocrats. It is a noble cause .....
Unfortunately the soul of the Tory Party has been corrupted, just like the Labour Party. The extremists and nutjobs are in the ascendancy. Nothing good will come of it.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Unlikely to be good for the Tories among older voters. Will Labour promise to reverse this?
If Michael Gove thinks we shouldn't have triggered A50 without a plan to deliver Brexit, then why did he vote for the bill to do so?
I'm also not enamoured with the argument that we need a candidate with a deliverable Brexit plan - and that Gove's deliverable plan is to renegotiate the backstop.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Not all pensioners not getting pension credit are Wealthy and not all those entitled claim it as it involves a probing 45 minute means test on the phone with the DWP.
At the very least it should also apply to pensioners getting council tax benefit who just miss out on pension credit.
We'd be empowered by losing the ability to set our own interest rates. In much the same way a fulfilling sex life is acquired by locking oneself into a chastity belt and handing the keys to a committee.
Still, if that's what you believe, fair enough. I'd like access to your bank account, incidentally. It's true it probably has more money than mine, to which you'd have access, but I'm willing to enter a money union with you on the basis of brotherhood and friendship. This isn't you losing financial sovereignty, it's us pooling sovereignty.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Unlikely to be good for the Tories among older voters. Will Labour promise to reverse this?
I believe Farage wants free tv licences for all - by abolishing the licence entirely!
Why in 2019 should anyone be forced to pay for the BBC when they can watch ITV and loads of other channels on free view funded by adverts.
Why not let people or at least over 75s choose in a free market - BBC if you want it for £160 a year and zero if you don’t. Love island, Corrie and Britain’s got Talent will still be free for everyone!
There was a time on pb when I formed the impression that one or two posters were reading news on the BBC site and then searching for a rival news site to post the link. What larks!
Still, if that's what you believe, fair enough. I'd like access to your bank account, incidentally. It's true it probably has more money than mine, to which you'd have access, but I'm willing to enter a money union with you on the basis of brotherhood and friendship. This isn't you losing financial sovereignty, it's us pooling sovereignty.
A nation state doesn't equate to communism any more than a supranational union does.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Not all pensioners not getting pension credit are Wealthy and not all those entitled claim it as it involves a probing 45 minute means test on the phone with the DWP.
At the very least it should also apply to pensioners getting council tax benefit who just miss out on pension credit.
Why is it £160 or nothing?
My guess is that the more complex the system, the more complex and expensive it is to administer.
The poll tax was simple to adminster - the licence fee is a poll tax on watching tv as everyone pays the same and you have no choice. Doesn’t make it fair though.
If you are going to start means testing it then perhaps you need a more sophisticated system.
Comments
I looked at this a bit in this piece:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/08/14/numerology-the-next-conservative-leader/
But that needs a split of 104-104-105.
104 will be enough in ~99.9% of circumstances and you can keep going down till you arrive at a number that will give ~75% and ~ 50% probabilities.
So 105 is a goal, but it's also vanishingly unlikely that'll be the number needed - also as others drop out he will highly likely pick up some more support
The only way I can see the momentum running against Boris is if some Remainy MPs tactically vote for Raab in the last four to put him into the semi-final and so split the Brexiteer vote while unifying the rest. As things stand though, it's more likely that a semi-final of Gove / Hunt / Johnson would produce a big lead for Boris.
Lets take £350m +++ away from the NHS and from tax payers and give it to the IMF !
My guess: 90s, but it could be 80s or 100-110. It would be shocking if he got under 63. There are 100 MPs out there who have endorsed no-one who will surely vote for someone.
Boris' vote did go up, albeit not by much. I think in London in 2017 that was something of an achievement.
For me Boris is something of a hail Mary play. It might work but the most compelling thing about it is the apparently inevitable consequences of the alternatives. Quite hard not to see the Tories losing in excess of 100 seats at present.
We don't always see eye to eye (far from it) but some seriously compelling analyses being posted by him in recent times.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
He'll be a disaster, and everyone which isn't bats*it crazy can see it already.
Hunt 5.3 / 5.4
Leadsom 9.2 / 9.6
Gove 23 / 26
Raab 29 / 30
Javid 30 / 34
Stewart 34 / 50
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125574963
Epic fails all round.
At the very least it should also apply to pensioners getting council tax benefit who just miss out on pension credit.
Why is it £160 or nothing?
Things would be far better if politicians had actually consulted the electorate earlier, rather than throwing away powers entrusted to them (with no hope of return except by drastic action) and then being surprised when sceptical sentiment spiked.
Stoned. Throughout. 90s.
& It's a more demanding job than POTUS before anyone wheels out the current geriatrics in the running for that one.
https://twitter.com/thepileus/status/1138077073036206081
It was, and is, a wretched idea.
If Mrs Front Runner gets N-1 and Mr Also Ran gets 1, (where N is the total number of voting MPs), surely FR and AR go through?
I appreciate it isn't going to work like that - and with the rules introduced by the '22 last week, presumably they need at least 8/16 votes in R1/R2. But all the "he needs a half or a third or n/2+1" seems wide of the mark to me??
Why in 2019 should anyone be forced to pay for the BBC when they can watch ITV and loads of other channels on free view funded by adverts.
Why not let people or at least over 75s choose in a free market - BBC if you want it for £160 a year and zero if you don’t. Love island, Corrie and Britain’s got Talent will still be free for everyone!
Next.
"Can't talk about the state I'm in..."
I'm also not enamoured with the argument that we need a candidate with a deliverable Brexit plan - and that Gove's deliverable plan is to renegotiate the backstop.
We'd be empowered by losing the ability to set our own interest rates. In much the same way a fulfilling sex life is acquired by locking oneself into a chastity belt and handing the keys to a committee.
Still, if that's what you believe, fair enough. I'd like access to your bank account, incidentally. It's true it probably has more money than mine, to which you'd have access, but I'm willing to enter a money union with you on the basis of brotherhood and friendship. This isn't you losing financial sovereignty, it's us pooling sovereignty.
Isn't the deadline 5pm?
If you are going to start means testing it then perhaps you need a more sophisticated system.