Undefined discussion subject.

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

paulyork64 said:

If there are to be spending cuts I hope HS2 is at the top of the list.

Infrastructure spending seems to be the last thing you'd want to cut. What about foreign aid?

We could spend the hs2 money on housing & extra capacity in the rail network in general.

Ah yep, fair enough.

Another magic money tree!

Also don't rule out Jeremy 'Hard as nails' Hunt.

Successful businessman and slayer of trade unions, just like Maggie.

This post is sponsored by my 66/1 bet slip on Hunt as next Tory leader

Boris for leader. Let's destroy the Tories once and for all

OldKingCole said:

SimonStClare said:

TGOHF said:

LOLZA at Farage "none of you have done a proper job in your lives..or created a job.."

I think the majority of the EU regards ‘professional politician’ as a proper job.

If my sources are correct Farage was NOT a nice guy to work for.

Commodities trading is a cut throat field.

MaxPB said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its still Boris vs not Boris. I hope that the Tory party finds the choice as impossible and damaging as our Jezza vs not Jezza

May and Boris are not so far apart, really. Not anything like Corbyn - perhaps the parallel is Liam Fox is somehow he became wildly popular.

Well the worry is that it will be a choice of free movement vs restrictions. I'm not sure that EFTA would win that vote among the membership. It should, and we won't have the problem lf entryists from UKIP to swing the vote in favour of restrictions.

There won't be entryists, not from this point anyway. I was thinking about rejoining yesterday in order to voote in the election (not sure for whom yet) and it says you need to hve been a member for three months before gaining voting rights.

Fenman said:

Boris for leader. Let's destroy the Tories once and for all

Just like the £3 lot did for your party.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its still Boris vs not Boris. I hope that the Tory party finds the choice as impossible and damaging as our Jezza vs not Jezza

May and Boris are not so far apart, really. Not anything like Corbyn - perhaps the parallel is Liam Fox is somehow he became wildly popular.

Boris has made a series of very big promises which cannot be kept. May has not. That is the difference. The Tories would be mad to choose Boris. I very much hope that they do.

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TM4PM

I wish a bookie would open a market on Boris failing to make the final two.

It would be an utter disgrace if after essentially single handedly leading a campaign that won against all the odds, that won over 17 million votes, if neither Gove nor Boris made the final two. One or the other surely has to be there.

Boris it seems has that magical quality of being a winner. He's twice won now in Labour London. He's now won a campaign that had the deck stacked by the government and the Establishment. The Tories need to be led by a winner and who represents that better than Boris now?

Because we don't need a bumbler to conduct our negotiations.

A so called bumbler who has managed time and again to defeat expectations and run rings around political opponents could be exactly what we need.

Did he have to do serious negotiations to do that? And defeating his opponents time and time again? He only stood against Red Ken!

MaxPB said:

Fenman said:

Boris for leader. Let's destroy the Tories once and for all

Just like the £3 lot did for your party.

Except new members can't vote in Tory elections

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also don't rule out Jeremy 'Hard as nails' Hunt.

Successful businessman and slayer of trade unions, just like Maggie.

This post is sponsored by my 66/1 bet slip on Hunt as next Tory leader

He also came out and proposed EEA membership on a second referendum. Clearly manoeuvring.

RochdalePioneers said:

Its still Boris vs not Boris. I hope that the Tory party finds the choice as impossible and damaging as our Jezza vs not Jezza

Regarding Jexit. It seems that the whips will all resign when the no confidence motion is carried. Perhaps Corbyn needs to draft in Momentum activists to be whips as there won't be anyone left to be a whip nor will the whips be able to successfully whip the PLP

The choice for Labour members is now clear: vote for Corbyn and kill the Labour party; or vote for someone else and have a chance of keeping it alive. This is not about Blairites versus the membership. It is about relevance v irrelevance.

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its still Boris vs not Boris. I hope that the Tory party finds the choice as impossible and damaging as our Jezza vs not Jezza

Regarding Jexit. It seems that the whips will all resign when the no confidence motion is carried. Perhaps Corbyn needs to draft in Momentum activists to be whips as there won't be anyone left to be a whip nor will the whips be able to successfully whip the PLP

The choice for Labour members is now clear: vote for Corbyn and kill the Labour party; or vote for someone else and have a chance of keeping it alive. This is not about Blairites versus the membership. It is about relevance v irrelevance.

I know which I'm hoping for. Come on agent Corbyn finish the job.

Jonathan said:

The Corbyn movement within the Labour party is a reaction against Blair, the so-called "Blairites" and New Labour thought.

This is ironic.

Increasingly, they are personality cult and party-within-a-party more than Blair and New Labour ever was.

They are everything they object to.

That's too simplified IMO. There are plenty of us who liked and indeed still like Blair, feel he did valuable things and made an honest mistake on Iraq, but who think we now need to move on: there is a limit to how often we can say "But we brought in the minimum wage, ended the NI conflict and introduced civil partnerships". We'd like to see a positive agenda giving a decent chance to people on low to medium incomes and not in thrall to big business. Corbyn offers that. His challengers so far just go on and on about the need to win a majority - yes, but for what?

Until that question is answered, I'm afraid that the challenge will falter. We have already answered the question last year: "Would you rather be led by an socialist who might possibly win or someone with few policies but a better chance of winning?"

Paristonda said:

I've always supported a directly elected president of the eu as a step in the right direction, and replacing the endless unelected ones, to addressing the undeniable democratic deficit in the EU. Of course it's unlikely to come to pass anytime soon because member state heads of governments wouldn't like the idea. Thoughts on here from leavers regarding that?

(Please, no one respond with "so you want President Blair"!)

President Prescott?

Paristonda said:

I've always supported a directly elected president of the eu as a step in the right direction, and replacing the endless unelected ones, to addressing the undeniable democratic deficit in the EU. Of course it's unlikely to come to pass anytime soon because member state heads of governments wouldn't like the idea. Thoughts on here from leavers regarding that?

(Please, no one respond with "so you want President Blair"!)

The difficulty with this proposal, while it does superficially address the democratic deficit issue, is that the EU lacks a definite demos that would confer proper legitimacy on the winner. Who would stand? On what platform and with what powers? I agree that national governments would be reluctant, at this stage, to cede significant powers to an EU president but I think that their people would be too.

Paristonda said:

I've always supported a directly elected president of the eu as a step in the right direction, and replacing the endless unelected ones, to addressing the undeniable democratic deficit in the EU. Of course it's unlikely to come to pass anytime soon because member state heads of governments wouldn't like the idea. Thoughts on here from leavers regarding that?

(Please, no one respond with "so you want President Blair"!)

A 'directly elected president of the eu' is only a matter of time, along with total federalisation.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also don't rule out Jeremy 'Hard as nails' Hunt.

Successful businessman and slayer of trade unions, just like Maggie.

This post is sponsored by my 66/1 bet slip on Hunt as next Tory leader

He also came out and proposed EEA membership on a second referendum. Clearly manoeuvring.

Another reason he should be leader.

Paristonda said:

I've always supported a directly elected president of the eu as a step in the right direction, and replacing the endless unelected ones, to addressing the undeniable democratic deficit in the EU. Of course it's unlikely to come to pass anytime soon because member state heads of governments wouldn't like the idea. Thoughts on here from leavers regarding that?

(Please, no one respond with "so you want President Blair"!)

We elect our MPs and yet one of the largest votes in modern history has shown even they are completely out of touch.

Paristonda said:

I've always supported a directly elected president of the eu as a step in the right direction, and replacing the endless unelected ones, to addressing the undeniable democratic deficit in the EU. Of course it's unlikely to come to pass anytime soon because member state heads of governments wouldn't like the idea. Thoughts on here from leavers regarding that?

(Please, no one respond with "so you want President Blair"!)

Most Leavers, I suspect, wouldn't accept a foreign EU president no matter how democratic the election was.

I wonder whether Isborne when he leaves the treasury will leave a note saying "there is no money left"?

RochdalePioneers said:

GIN1138 said:

TGOHF said:

Regarding the timetable - we know that nominations have to be in by Noon on Thursday - any idea when the results of the MP vote will be announced ?

They vote every Tuesday and Thursday until they get it down to the final who then go out to the party membership.

I'm hoping that everyone will come to their senses and we'll have a much narrower field to start off with on Thursday.

Why do they need to take so long over a contest? The country needs a government, at the moment it has neither government nor opposition. A quick leadership contest followed by a few months of "what the fuck are we doing" and an election.

Regarding the election it seems pretty clear to me that Labour, the LibDems, SNP, Plaid, and probably the Tories will all run on a platform of "if we are the government there will be no Brexit"

Two questions - what odds on UKIP winning 50+ or 100+ seats, and who the hell will they find to be candidates?

I lost a bundle betting on UKIP in 2015. Not going to make that mistake again!

EDIT
They do seem to be trying to speed up the contest.

"The backbench 1922 Committee of Tory MPs yesterday accelerated the process for replacing Mr Cameron. The PM had wanted to stand down in October, but, amid the huge uncertainty over how to implement Brexit, nominations will take place tomorrow and Thursday.
MPs will whittle down the list of candidates to two by the middle of next month. A ballot of the party’s 150,000 members will then follow, with a new Tory leader named by September 2. "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663493/Let-battle-commence-Boris-makes-formal-complaint-Theresa-s-campaign-Tory-leadership-fight-ramps-Osborne-rules-out.html

Scott_P said:

Charles said:

I am fairly sure that option (1) would win in such a vote.

That's a rerun of last week.

We had a deal, and we voted for no deal

Except the deal was so shit nobody on the remain side dared to mention it in case they got.laughed at.

If Cameron had actually got significant reform he would have walked it, but then if the EU we interested in that I am sure we would have got a "vow" in the final week or two of the campaign.

NickPalmer said:

Jonathan said:

The Corbyn movement within the Labour party is a reaction against Blair, the so-called "Blairites" and New Labour thought.

This is ironic.

Increasingly, they are personality cult and party-within-a-party more than Blair and New Labour ever was.

They are everything they object to.

That's too simplified IMO. There are plenty of us who liked and indeed still like Blair, feel he did valuable things and made an honest mistake on Iraq, but who think we now need to move on: there is a limit to how often we can say "But we brought in the minimum wage, ended the NI conflict and introduced civil partnerships". We'd like to see a positive agenda giving a decent chance to people on low to medium incomes and not in thrall to big business. Corbyn offers that. His challengers so far just go on and on about the need to win a majority - yes, but for what?

Until that question is answered, I'm afraid that the challenge will falter. We have already answered the question last year: "Would you rather be led by an socialist who might possibly win or someone with few policies but a better chance of winning?"

The actual question is: "Would you rather be run by a far-left socialist who has absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning and will destroy the party, or someone else?"

FrancisUrquhart said:

Except the deal was so shit nobody on the remain side dared to mention it.

It was better than any other deal we will ever get now

So thanks...

The 25s about Angela Eagle I posted yesterday has long gone and the best prices available are 8s and 9s in a place but is also as low as 4s vying for favouritism.

anotherDave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

GIN1138 said:

TGOHF said:

Regarding the timetable - we know that nominations have to be in by Noon on Thursday - any idea when the results of the MP vote will be announced ?

They vote every Tuesday and Thursday until they get it down to the final who then go out to the party membership.

I'm hoping that everyone will come to their senses and we'll have a much narrower field to start off with on Thursday.

Why do they need to take so long over a contest? The country needs a government, at the moment it has neither government nor opposition. A quick leadership contest followed by a few months of "what the fuck are we doing" and an election.

Regarding the election it seems pretty clear to me that Labour, the LibDems, SNP, Plaid, and probably the Tories will all run on a platform of "if we are the government there will be no Brexit"

Two questions - what odds on UKIP winning 50+ or 100+ seats, and who the hell will they find to be candidates?

I lost a bundle betting on UKIP in 2015. Not going to make that mistake again!

EDIT
They do seem to be trying to speed up the contest.

"The backbench 1922 Committee of Tory MPs yesterday accelerated the process for replacing Mr Cameron. The PM had wanted to stand down in October, but, amid the huge uncertainty over how to implement Brexit, nominations will take place tomorrow and Thursday.
MPs will whittle down the list of candidates to two by the middle of next month. A ballot of the party’s 150,000 members will then follow, with a new Tory leader named by September 2. "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663493/Let-battle-commence-Boris-makes-formal-complaint-Theresa-s-campaign-Tory-leadership-fight-ramps-Osborne-rules-out.html

The timetable is mostly the same from 2005. What is different is that Howard's rule changes meant that the "pre-campaign" was several months.

timmo said:

I wonder whether Isborne when he leaves the treasury will leave a note saying "there is no money left"?

Osborne when he leaves the treasury will leave a note saying "there is no party left"

The arguments being made by the establishment and chattering classes against Boris being PM are the same as in 2008 when he ran for London Mayor.
The politicians cant stand the fact that people warm to Boris. Granted he is a touch Marmite but he cuts through to the people that matter..the voters

YellowSubmarine said:

The Telegraph: Neither Labour nor the Tories are fit for purpose in a post-Brexit world – we need some new political parties. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw2rfw4iU

Some of us got here first. I've even heard the term 'Opposition of National Unity' on here previously:

"What you would have is an Opposition of National Unity. One capable not of blocking Brexit, after all the people have spoken, but able to make prime minister Johnson tell the people clearly, openly and honestly why he wasn't giving any extra money to the NHS. Why he was embracing free movement of labour in order to trade freely in the single market. And why he was increasing Britain's contribution to the EU because Brexit had lost us the rebate.

This new grouping could also block an early election, and if Boris asked "Why?'"he would receive this answer, slightly adapted from a classic Paul Keating quote:

The answer is, mate, because I want to do you slowly. There has to be a bit of sport in this for all of us. In the psychological battle stakes, we are stripped down and ready to go. I want to see those ashen-faced performances; I want more of them. I want to be encouraged. I want to see you squirm out of this load of rubbish over a number of months. There will be no easy execution for you. You have perpetrated one of the great mischiefs on the British public with this thing, trying to rip away the British values which we built in our society for over a century."

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Except the deal was so shit nobody on the remain side dared to mention it.

It was better than any other deal we will ever get now

So thanks...

You don't really care about Brexit or not Brexit either way. You just want to settle scores for Cameron and Osborne being destroyed...

JohnO said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

Lennon said:

That way you have an election to confirm the type of Brexit

There's a problem with that.

So we have this election and we select Brexit option B, which we then take to the EU, who tell us to take a hike.

We wanted it, we voted for it, we can't have it...

For me the options are someone who will say "despite the vote we are not leaving", (democratic if they put that to a GE)

or Boris who has to try and salvage something, anything from his own wreckage (democratic and foolish)

I do thing - given the disparate views and the significance of the decision - it is important to get it ratified by the public. A general election is the wrong format for that.

It seems to me that whoever the next PM is should negotiate what they think is right and then put it to a vote:

(1) Accept the deal [presumably some kind of FTA with some form of compromise on FoM]

or

(2) Leave the EU with no deal

I am fairly sure that option (1) would win in such a vote.

Is option 1 remaining in the Single Market and if it is why should the EU grant the UK restrictions on FoM. If it isn't, why should they agree it all; that would represent a very poor deal for them, wouldn't it?

The compromise probably be the EEA emergency brake and eventually reciprocal welfare restrictions. Enough for the EU to say they aren't compromising the integrity of free movement within the EU since we won't be in it and enough for the British PM to sell it to the party and voters in 2020.

Scott_P said:

@EdConwaySky: Rupert Murdoch on Brexit: I think it’s wonderful #TimesCeoSummit

@EdConwaySky: Rupert Murdoch: it’s time for change. I just hope the right people give the right leadership #TimesCeoSummit

@EdConwaySky: Rupert Murdoch: if [Boris] backtracks on serious things there’ll be another bloody revolt #TimesCeoSummit

Encouraging.

NickPalmer said:

Jonathan said:

The Corbyn movement within the Labour party is a reaction against Blair, the so-called "Blairites" and New Labour thought.

This is ironic.

Increasingly, they are personality cult and party-within-a-party more than Blair and New Labour ever was.

They are everything they object to.

That's too simplified IMO. There are plenty of us who liked and indeed still like Blair, feel he did valuable things and made an honest mistake on Iraq, but who think we now need to move on: there is a limit to how often we can say "But we brought in the minimum wage, ended the NI conflict and introduced civil partnerships". We'd like to see a positive agenda giving a decent chance to people on low to medium incomes and not in thrall to big business. Corbyn offers that. His challengers so far just go on and on about the need to win a majority - yes, but for what?

Until that question is answered, I'm afraid that the challenge will falter. We have already answered the question last year: "Would you rather be led by an socialist who might possibly win or someone with few policies but a better chance of winning?"

Exactly Nick - a majority for what. Blair took over from Major who Blair described as "in office but not in power". Cameron led his party to a small majority and produced a Queen's speech that proposes a programme of thumb-twiddling. You have to have an agenda, a purpose. Supporters and Critics of Blair miss the fact that there are many Blairs. Blair 97 had a programme of constitutional and economic reform, minimum wage, mass investment. Blair 05 had a programme of privatisation, 90 days detention and ID cards. The same man?

The bitterites bang on about the need for electability - they insisted the route to winning was to abstain on basic principles such as opposing the abuse of the poor. Tristan Hunt claims Corbyn isn't electable yet advocates an EU position rejected by 70% of his Stoke on Trent voters.

But there are two party within a party movements and I would ban them both - Progress and Momentum. For all that Momentum rightly get criticised for the Corbyn or Death position, Progress are just as bad. We need both left and right in this movement as counter-balances.

murali_s said:

NickPalmer said:

Jonathan said:

The Corbyn movement within the Labour party is a reaction against Blair, the so-called "Blairites" and New Labour thought.

This is ironic.

Increasingly, they are personality cult and party-within-a-party more than Blair and New Labour ever was.

They are everything they object to.

That's too simplified IMO. There are plenty of us who liked and indeed still like Blair, feel he did valuable things and made an honest mistake on Iraq, but who think we now need to move on: there is a limit to how often we can say "But we brought in the minimum wage, ended the NI conflict and introduced civil partnerships". We'd like to see a positive agenda giving a decent chance to people on low to medium incomes and not in thrall to big business. Corbyn offers that. His challengers so far just go on and on about the need to win a majority - yes, but for what?

Until that question is answered, I'm afraid that the challenge will falter. We have already answered the question last year: "Would you rather be led by an socialist who might possibly win or someone with few policies but a better chance of winning?"

Come on Nick!!

"A socialist who might possibly win" - that socialist is not Corbyn sadly.

Corbyn will take the Labour party to its worst defeat since WW2. That is as sure as night following day.

This is why we must act now to ensure working people and the vulnerable have a voice in Parliament. Corbyn must go - no ifs, no buts.

The idea that Corbyn might possibly win a general election is utterly ludicrous and shows just how divorced from reality Nick is. Last September the UK had not just voted to leave the EU, David Cameron had not resigned and the UK was not facing a general election within a year. The plan was to amble gently along to a meh kind of defeat at the 2020 general election - once again taking Labour heartlands for granted - and to see what kind of internal changes Corbyn and his mates could engineer in the meantime to seal the socialist deal internally. Well, look how things have changed. A serious political party would face up to that. Unfortunately, too many Labour members are not serious people.

Nick does not like me saying it, but it is clear that his support for Corbyn is more important to him than Labour being in power and preventing a right wing Tory government with a fresh mandate inflicting more misery on the people that Labour is supposed to represent. Unfortunately, I suspect his mindset still predominates inside the membership and that Corbyn will continue as leader. That will kill the Labour party.

The worst you can say about May is that she's cold. Maybe her soft Remain is worse than a soft Leave, but there's not too much in that.

Whilst I didn't expect to do so a few months ago, if it is her v Boris (or Fox) I will happily vote for her.

midwinter said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

timmo said:

I wonder whether Isborne when he leaves the treasury will leave a note saying "there is no money left"?

Osborne when he leaves the treasury will leave a note saying "there is no party left"

And that'll be thanks to the Europhobes. So cheers for that.

While the sun isn't fully shining, we are undoubtedly in a stronger position than in 2010.

Never have I hated a politician as much Farage. What he has done to our country is beyond words. What a horrible horrible human being.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not seen ScottP this angry

What makes you think I am angry?

I have "taken back control"

Swimming in Sovereignty

Is this not the sunlit uplands you Brexiteers promised? What is there to be angry about?

I am bemused by all the "winners" whining that Cameron and Osborne won't sort out their shit? The string of Tory backbench Brexiteers in the Commons yesterday was hilarious.

Why are you lot not happy? You won. Suck it up, winners...

matt said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I did read Boris wants Ozzy to continue as Chancellor, because being Chancellor won't be fun and a career ender for Gove.

Apparently the cuts in our credit ratings means selling Government debt will be harder as some organisations only buy debt from top rated countries.

Most of those requirements were relaxed after the US lost its triple A rating. In any case it seems likely that the BoE will announce £50-75bn in QE to calm markets and to ensure there are no failures in debt auctions.

I think it is the two notch drop that is causing issues.

City bloke on sky said the credit rating "didn't really matter", and mattered more for corporations. Not sure if he was an "expert" though.........

Maybe. Many investment funds have investment criteria which means that their investments must have a minimum credit rating. An inability to hold UK government debt widely would have an unfortunate effect on pricing.

Let's see what happens to gilt prices. When the Americans were downgraded it made no difference as investors thought the US Treasury more reliable than the ratings agencies.

And a betting market on the year that Brexit is signed off.

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not seen ScottP this angry

What makes you think I am angry?

I have "taken back control"

Swimming in Sovereignty

Is this not the sunlit uplands you Brexiteers promised? What is there to be angry about?

I am bemused by all the "winners" whining that Cameron and Osborne won't sort out their shit? The string of Tory backbench Brexiteers in the Commons yesterday was hilarious.

Why are you lot not happy? You won. Suck it up, winners...

You don't know which way I voted. I lampooned both sides throughout the campaign. As I said below I was & am fairly relaxed either way, although I wanted neither option, I ideally wanted Cameron to have got a proper deal. That is what would have been best for the UK.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

The worst you can say about May is that she's cold. Maybe her soft Remain is worse than a soft Leave, but there's not too much in that.

Whilst I didn't expect to do so a few months ago, if it is her v Boris (or Fox) I will happily vote for her.

The PB 4 May faction is gathering strength!

TheWhiteRabbit said:

The worst you can say about May is that she's cold.

Someone calm and ice cold is excactly what we need to take on the negotiations.

But we need to wait and see what her "vision" is Brexit is. She's said virtually nothing for months and months. Let's wait and see...

She could surprise us all and out Brexit Boris or should could play it safe and go for EEA. We just don't know...

TheWhiteRabbit said:

anotherDave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

GIN1138 said:

TGOHF said:

Regarding the timetable - we know that nominations have to be in by Noon on Thursday - any idea when the results of the MP vote will be announced ?

They vote every Tuesday and Thursday until they get it down to the final who then go out to the party membership.

I'm hoping that everyone will come to their senses and we'll have a much narrower field to start off with on Thursday.

Why do they need to take so long over a contest? The country needs a government, at the moment it has neither government nor opposition. A quick leadership contest followed by a few months of "what the fuck are we doing" and an election.

Regarding the election it seems pretty clear to me that Labour, the LibDems, SNP, Plaid, and probably the Tories will all run on a platform of "if we are the government there will be no Brexit"

Two questions - what odds on UKIP winning 50+ or 100+ seats, and who the hell will they find to be candidates?

I lost a bundle betting on UKIP in 2015. Not going to make that mistake again!

EDIT
They do seem to be trying to speed up the contest.

"The backbench 1922 Committee of Tory MPs yesterday accelerated the process for replacing Mr Cameron. The PM had wanted to stand down in October, but, amid the huge uncertainty over how to implement Brexit, nominations will take place tomorrow and Thursday.
MPs will whittle down the list of candidates to two by the middle of next month. A ballot of the party’s 150,000 members will then follow, with a new Tory leader named by September 2. "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663493/Let-battle-commence-Boris-makes-formal-complaint-Theresa-s-campaign-Tory-leadership-fight-ramps-Osborne-rules-out.html

The timetable is mostly the same from 2005. What is different is that Howard's rule changes meant that the "pre-campaign" was several months.

In Opposition it makes sense to spend some time finding the right choice for the future, and in that respect the 2005 election worked very well, in choosing someone young, promising and reformist such as Cameron.

With the Party in government however, it's not going to be a Young Turk elected this time, the new leader will be PM so it needs to be someone that can fulfil that role and unite the party around them. I still can't see past Theresa May for that role.

DanSmith said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

The choice for Labour members is now clear: vote for Corbyn and kill the Labour party; or vote for someone else and have a chance of keeping it alive. This is not about Blairites versus the membership. It is about relevance v irrelevance.

@paulwaugh: Exclusive: Now Jeremy Corbyn's own local Labour council refuses to back his leadership.
https://t.co/6UFbyuDwLz

The idea that Corbyn is going to be able to win a leadership election is for the birds.

That looks significant. If Islington won't back him, he's surely a gonna.