Theresa May Resigns & Conservative Leader Election Discussion

[DarloRich]

the Tories are talking about fox hunting again. FFS. 21st century Britain and we are talking about ruddy faced, plummy twonks wearing stupid outfits, riding all over the country on horseback chasing animals with dogs. The number and size of the bigger fish awaiting frying..........................

 

[Esker-pades]

Maybe fox will be the only meat after a no deal Brexit?

 

[Cowley]

Maybe fox will be the only meat after a no deal Brexit?

Could they hunt Liam Fox maybe?
I’d wear silly clothes and ride a horse for that.

 

[DerekC]

I think the main reason would be to get the “Tory Faithful” to vote for him over Boris.
That’s the crowd that these two are playing to at the moment.

There isn't any "I think" about it! Hunt has obviously decided that if Johnson can promise anything at all to get elected, so can he! He has now backtracked, I gather. He lacks Johnson's brass neck.

 

[Geezertronic]

the Tories are talking about fox hunting again. FFS. 21st century Britain and we are talking about ruddy faced, plummy twonks wearing stupid outfits, riding all over the country on horseback chasing animals with dogs. The number and size of the bigger fish awaiting frying..........................

+1 - the only things that should be hunted are the ridiculous politicians that think that the average normal person wants Fox Hunting back

 

[Typhoon]

+1 - the only things that should be hunted are the ridiculous politicians that think that the average normal person wants Fox Hunting back

Unfortunately, in the election to appoint who is effectively the next Prime Minister, a great many of the electorate are not 'average normal' people!

In case anyone objects to the last statement, I would question the 'normality' of those individuals who voted to deselect a mainstream tory like David Gauke (https://news.sky.com/story/david-ga...nce-vote-by-local-conservative-party-11751076), never mind the associations who have voted to deselect pro-Remain MPs.

 

[Mag_seven]

Could they hunt Liam Fox maybe?
I’d wear silly clothes and ride a horse for that.

 

[Typhoon]

Tory leadership: Voters 'issued two ballots' by mistake

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48890803

And these people run the country? "People who have changed their name, after marriage for example, may also have been affected." How many years have they had to adapt to that?

Relevant part of the article:

BBC Radio 4's Today Programme has learned that some members have received two ballot papers, in some cases because members live and work in different constituencies and may have joined local Conservative Associations in both areas.

People who have changed their name, after marriage for example, may also have been affected.

The BBC has also seen duplicate ballot papers which have been issued to the same person at the same address.

The Conservative Party and the independent body hired to scrutinise the running of the leadership election were both unable to say how many ballot papers had been sent in error.

"The ballot holds clear instructions that members voting more than once will be expelled," the party said.

In most elections, voting more than once would be illegal, but the leadership contest is only governed by the Conservative Party's internal rules.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder how many of the contributors to this thread will receive their ballot papers in order to cast their vote as they qualify to do so?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The fact he is the putative PM means that there is a public interest angle to this. For me it goes to character. Personally I think his past history of incompetence, indiscretion, adultery and denied paternity make him unfit for high office.

Had the time warp allowed you to make comment at the time of Lloyd George, I wonder what you might have said about him in the days before he attained high office.

 

[mmh]

I wonder how many of the contributors to this thread will receive their ballot papers in order to cast their vote as they qualify to do so?

Quite. Personally I don't care, I'm not eligible to vote and I don't really see how the internal administrative affairs of the Conservative Party are any more of my business than those of, say, the Lib Dems or the Greens.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Quite. Personally I don't care, I'm not eligible to vote and I don't really see how the internal administrative affairs of the Conservative Party are any more of my business than those of, say, the Lib Dems or the Greens.

Whoever wins the LibDem leadership election won't become your Prime Minister!

To my mind, there is something very disturbing about a process that means the Prime Minister is elected by a tiny minority of voters, who happen to generally have pretty extreme right wing views that are completely unrepresentative of the electorate as a whole - meaning that the two candidates have a strong incentive to make promises that pander to those views. And then the winner almost automatically becomes Prime Minister of the entire country, without anyone else having a say in the matter. The system was in principle just as bad when Gordon Brown became PM, but the flaws weren't really shown up then because there was no real contest (due to no-one else getting enough nominations under Labour's rules at the time), and therefore no incentive for the candidate to pander to any minority views.

I realise to some extent this is the inevitable result of our system in which the Prime Minister is not directly elected, and would be quite hard to change while keeping the essentials of our Parliamentary system, but the current contest does seem to show up a big problem.

 

[DarloRich]

Had the time warp allowed you to make comment at the time of Lloyd George, I wonder what you might have said about him in the days before he attained high office.

Did Lloyd George have a number of children that he refused to acknowledge.

I dont really mind johnson is a serial adulterer. I do mind he doesnt face up to his responsibilities stemming from that adultery.

Personally I expected better from someone of your generation.

Quite. Personally I don't care, I'm not eligible to vote and I don't really see how the internal administrative affairs of the Conservative Party are any more of my business than those of, say, the Lib Dems or the Greens.

You don't care about what kind of character Boris Johnson possesses? The man who will be our PM and you dont care? It is a good job you are not eligible to vote if that is your view.

Perhaps try some research on his character and his past actions in office and in his personal life.

 

[krus_aragon]

Had the time warp allowed you to make comment at the time of Lloyd George, I wonder what you might have said about him in the days before he attained high office.

That's a very interesting parallel to draw. Both could claim that they gained power (or sought to, at least) during a time of national crisis. I have to admit that I don't know how much of Lloyd George's private character and behaviour was public knowledge in 1916. I might have to get a biography of his from the library (when I find space in my reading list).

I suspect that the social expectations of the age would have had an influence on matters. Universal sufferage was still a way off back then, for example.

 

[krus_aragon]

Did Lloyd George have a number of children that he refused to acknowledge.

At least one, with his long-term mistress, Frances Stephenson, though she later claimed the father was another man instead.

 

[AM9]

I have a wish that Johnson wins the vote by a small majority, about 52% to 48%. With a mandate like that, there would be an election very soon. As is is I doubt that either candidate will achieve much as nothing changes the division of voting in parliament, - even May can still vote against him. Roll on the 1st November, we'll still be in the EU, so the Conservatives' squabbling will continue.

 

[DarloRich]

At least one, with his long-term mistress, Frances Stephenson, though she later claimed the father was another man instead.

Via frances Stevenson? It is unclear if Lloyd George was the father although he probably was. He certainly cared for the child as if she was

The difference with Johnson is in the final sentence.

Ps lloyd george married the mother later irc

 

[bramling]

I have a wish that Johnson wins the vote by a small majority, about 52% to 48%. With a mandate like that, there would be an election very soon. As is is I doubt that either candidate will achieve much as nothing changes the division of voting in parliament, - even May can still vote against him. Roll on the 1st November, we'll still be in the EU, so the Conservatives' squabbling will continue.

I don’t really see what difference the mandate makes, even 100% mandate is only from the party membership, which still isn’t a mandate from “the people”, if that’s what matters.

Having said that, I’m fairly relaxed on the issue. It’s how our system works that we don’t directly select a prime minister, and I’m comfortable that there’s an opportunity to vote out at least every 5 years. In an ideal world I’d prefer for the leader to be chosen solely by MPs, but it seems both parties are now set up otherwise.

 

[edwin_m]

I don’t really see what difference the mandate makes, even 100% mandate is only from the party membership, which still isn’t a mandate from “the people”, if that’s what matters.

Having said that, I’m fairly relaxed on the issue. It’s how our system works that we don’t directly select a prime minister, and I’m comfortable that there’s an opportunity to vote out at least every 5 years. In an ideal world I’d prefer for the leader to be chosen solely by MPs, but it seems both parties are now set up otherwise.

It's fundamentally the same system that has given us Corbyn. The leader is chosen by the party membership, who tend to be more extreme than the section of the public that might consider voting for that party. MPs tend to be less extreme, because they are more in touch with what the electorate thinks.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's fundamentally the same system that has given us Corbyn. The leader is chosen by the party membership, who tend to be more extreme than the section of the public that might consider voting for that party. MPs tend to be less extreme, because they are more in touch with what the electorate thinks.

The difference though is that Labour was in opposition, and therefore Corbyn didn't become Prime Minister. I can't see that it really matters in this context how any party in opposition chooses its leader, as whoever gets elected doesn't immediately get to lead anything except his/her own party. They can only lead the Government if their party then wins a subsequent election in which the almost the whole adult population has a vote. It's a bit different if your party is in Government, and then whoever gets elected by the members instantly gets to lead the entire country despite more than 99% of the country having had no say.

 

[edwin_m]

The difference though is that Labour was in opposition, and therefore Corbyn didn't become Prime Minister. I can't see that it really matters in this context how any party in opposition chooses its leader, as whoever gets elected doesn't immediately get to lead anything except his/her own party. They can only lead the Government if their party then wins a subsequent election in which the almost the whole adult population has a vote. It's a bit different if your party is in Government, and then whoever gets elected by the members instantly gets to lead the entire country despite more than 99% of the country having had no say.

However if Labour had provided an effective opposition to our currently disfunctional Conservative party since 2015, I believe we would not have been in the chaotic situation we now are.

 

[AM9]

I don’t really see what difference the mandate makes, even 100% mandate is only from the party membership, which still isn’t a mandate from “the people”, if that’s what matters. ...

I agree that whoever gets the most part member votes won't have a mandate from the country, or parliament, or probably even just the Government's MPs.

... Having said that, I’m fairly relaxed on the issue. It’s how our system works that we don’t directly select a prime minister, and I’m comfortable that there’s an opportunity to vote out at least every 5 years. In an ideal world I’d prefer for the leader to be chosen solely by MPs, but it seems both parties are now set up otherwise.

My wish is that a very narrow majority will clip the wings of whoever wins, and just like May's political suicide in 2017, discourage any move to a leaving the EU on terms that were never even suggested by the most voiciferous of the leave campaigns in the referendum, i.e. acting under false pretenses.

 

[mmh]

To my mind, there is something very disturbing about a process that means the Prime Minister is elected by a tiny minority of voters, who happen to generally have pretty extreme right wing views that are completely unrepresentative of the electorate as a whole - meaning that the two candidates have a strong incentive to make promises that pander to those views. And then the winner almost automatically becomes Prime Minister of the entire country, without anyone else having a say in the matter. The system was in principle just as bad when Gordon Brown became PM

But, as you acknowledge, that's how it works. It's for the Government to decide who will be Prime Minister, and how they want to make the decision.

This is the 4th time in (my, at least) living memory a Prime Minister has resigned during a Government.

Thatcher: replacement chosen by Tory MPs
Blair: replacement was pre-chosen
Cameron: replacement chosen by Tory MPs
May: MPs followed by membership ballot, likely to be a rubber-stamping exercise

Before that you need to go back to Chamberlain I think.

I realise to some extent this is the inevitable result of our system in which the Prime Minister is not directly elected, and would be quite hard to change while keeping the essentials of our Parliamentary system, but the current contest does seem to show up a big problem.

What would an alternative look like though? An automatic general election? Feels likely to mean unpopular PMs have to cling on even if their own party no longer wants them.
A presidential system? That'd be a massive upheaval, and in many presidential systems you'd have even less involvement - the deputy would just take over. Who would May's deputy president have been? Hmm!

 

[takno]

But, as you acknowledge, that's how it works. It's for the Government to decide who will be Prime Minister, and how they want to make the decision.

This is the 4th time in (my, at least) living memory a Prime Minister has resigned during a Government.

Thatcher: replacement chosen by Tory MPs
Blair: replacement was pre-chosen
Cameron: replacement chosen by Tory MPs
May: MPs followed by membership ballot, likely to be a rubber-stamping exercise

Before that you need to go back to Chamberlain I think.



What would an alternative look like though? An automatic general election? Feels likely to mean unpopular PMs have to cling on even if their own party no longer wants them.
A presidential system? That'd be a massive upheaval, and in many presidential systems you'd have even less involvement - the deputy would just take over. Who would May's deputy president have been? Hmm!

Didn't Churchill, Eden and Wilson do the same. Broadly more of them have done it since the war than haven't. The queen used to pick the replacements, and then the MPs. Both of those make more sense than opening it to party members, particularly both historically large parties have such unrepresentative memberships right now.

 

[edwin_m]

Every time the governing party changes leader so the PM changes, the opposition will have a go at them. That's just politics, and it's hard to see how it could work differently without major changes such as going to a presidential system.

The difference this time is that the leadership candidates are throwing out new policy pledges* that weren't in the manifesto - I was going to say left right and centre but the left and the centre are conspicuously absent. So we end up not even with the tail wagging the dog, just the few hairs at the end of the tail that is the Tory membership. Short of bringing down the government there's little that can be done about it.

*With any luck whoever wins will just decide they were aspirations rather than commitments. It's come to a pretty pass when the best hope for the rest of us is that the leadership candidates are lying.

 

[Typhoon]

The difference this time is that the leadership candidates are throwing out new policy pledges* that weren't in the manifesto

The manifesto they stood on just two years ago. The new pledges appear to be 'spend more' and 'cut taxes'. If only there were a magic money tree!

*With any luck whoever wins will just decide they were aspirations rather than commitments. It's come to a pretty pass when the best hope for the rest of us is that the leadership candidates are lying.

Sadly, I think there is a good chance some at least will be implemented (especially by Mr Johnson) so that he can hold an early election, barnstorm the country and get a majority before we find he is just as clueless as the present incumbent.​

 

[edwin_m]

Sadly, I think there is a good chance some at least will be implemented (especially by Mr Johnson) so that he can hold an early election, barnstorm the country and get a majority before we find he is even more clueless than the present incumbent.

Fixed that for you...

He could only do that if they got some sort of Brexit, otherwise they know Farage will split the vote and probably let Corbyn in. All the more reason for a referendum on the Brexit deal.

 

[DerekC]

I am afraid Johnson is going to be elected by a big majority of Tory members. The majority is important, because it will give him confidence to fill the cabinet with Brexiteers, which he has already said he is going to do. The key thing after that is - what does he really, really want?

The answer is obvious - to continue in power through the next election - and Brexit (although I doubt he cares about it all that much in itself) is a means to that end. So he must deliver Brexit. He is likely to get some minor concessions from the EU, and he could then try to wrap up the May deal in brand new glittery paper and try to bamboozle his way through the House of Commons.

He will only do that if he thinks he can win - i.e. if he can take the Brexiteers with him. Otherwise he will declare that the EU is being totally unreasonable and go for "no deal" - at which point it will get very nasty, because he will mobilise the Tory press against the House of Commons, and the Speaker in particular. Who will win that battle, I don't know - but I doubt very much that Tory MPs will support a motion of "no confidence" in sufficient numbers to trigger the formation of a new government or a general election. I hope it will come to a new Referendum - but I fear that a 100% Brexiteer government will find some way to frustrate that.

 

[Typhoon]

Sadly, I think there is a good chance some at least will be implemented (especially by Mr Johnson) so that he can hold an early election, barnstorm the country and get a majority before we find he is even more clueless than the present incumbent.

Fixed that for you...

I'm not going to disagree. You are even more pessimistic than I am.

 

[Typhoon]

I am afraid Johnson is going to be elected by a big majority of Tory members. The majority is important, because it will give him confidence to fill the cabinet with Brexiteers, which he has already said he is going to do.

So we are likely to see the return of McVey, Baker, Raab, Patel, & Heaton Harris; the retention of Leadsom, Fox and Grayling; and the inclusion of Francois, Fysh, even Dorries. Worrying indeed!