Britain's next leader

[SteveH]

I'd vote Rory if I was Tory, but I'm Green, so I vote Caroleen.

[Gordon]

I'd vote Rory if I was Tory, but I'm Green, so I vote Caroleen.

I say to the Tories 'I'm sick of ya', so I vote Nicola.

[jeremyp]

I always vote when I am able. There's no-one better than Vince Cable.

[jeremyp]

A lot of people voted for Cameron, and now we have Götterdämmerung.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd vote Rory if I was Tory, but I'm Green, so I vote Caroleen.

I think a lot of non tories would vote for Rory, which is exactly why he hasn't a hope in hell's chance of winning. What matters is how tory MPs vote and then tory members. I suspect Rory may have reasonable support amongst the former, but the latter are never going to support him and that will ultimately limit his support amongst moderate MPs. They know putting Rory up against an uber tub thumping brexiteers to the membership will result in a right wing equivalent of Corbyn being elected leader, but not just of the opposition but PM too.

[SteveH]

I think a lot of non tories would vote for Rory, which is exactly why he hasn't a hope in hell's chance of winning. What matters is how tory MPs vote and then tory members. I suspect Rory may have reasonable support amongst the former, but the latter are never going to support him and that will ultimately limit his support amongst moderate MPs. They know putting Rory up against an uber tub thumping brexiteers to the membership will result in a right wing equivalent of Corbyn being elected leader, but not just of the opposition but PM too.

Someone said much the same on facebook: he's too popular (or not unpopular enough) with non-tories for tories to vote for him in any numbers.

[Nearly Sane]

Mark Harper is like The Silence in Doctor Who. If I am not looking at a picture of him, I forget he is in the race.

[Dicky Underpants]

Someone said much the same on facebook: he's too popular (or not unpopular enough) with non-tories for tories to vote for him in any numbers.

I think all it would take is for him to develop some baritonal resonance in his light tenor tones. People are prepared to listen to Boris, not because he's got a consistent political message, or because he's intent on working for the good of the country, but simply because his voice can sound authoritative (that's when he's not sounding like Frankie Howerd on speed).

[Robbie]

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rumours this morning that Hancock could pull out. If he does, as the other candidate on at least nodding terms with sanity I wonder whether his backers would move disproportionately toward Rory Stewart. Just a thought. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Rumours this morning that Hancock could pull out. If he does, as the other candidate on at least nodding terms with sanity I wonder whether his backers would move disproportionately toward Rory Stewart. Just a thought.

Hancock has pulled out.

Don't think Rory Stewart has any hope of coming close to being in the final 2. He is the candidate that most non-tories like best, which is because he is the least tory of the candidates - and that is why most tories (MPs and members) wont support him ... unfortunately.

[Nearly Sane]

The numbers are such that unless Johnson bleeds support there aren't enough votes to have 2 candidates defeat him. And if it goes to the members he will win unless he does something so extraordinarily idiotic, then he is pretty well certain to win.

[ProfessorDavey]

... he will win unless he does something so extraordinarily idiotic, then he is pretty well certain to win.

Agree, but then if there is one person who you'd bank on to do something extraordinarily idiotic, it has to be Boris.

[SusanDoris]

Agree, but then if there is one person who you'd bank on to do something extraordinarily idiotic, it has to be Boris.

Well, as always I find Boris Johnson's  voice and manner totally unconvincing. I shall get to whichever meeting is held nearest to me (in fact the local Association are going to organise a coach if necessary) and I'll be voting for the second candidate,even if it's Michael Gove! The only way that would change would be if said second candidate made a complete idiot of himself on the occasion, in which case I might have to spoil the ballot paper or something.

[SteveH]

Well, as always I find Boris Johnson's  voice and manner totally unconvincing. I shall get to whichever meeting is held nearest to me (in fact the local Association are going to organise a coach if necessary) and I'll be voting for the second candidate,even if it's Michael Gove! The only way that would change would be if said second candidate made a complete idiot of himself on the occasion, in which case I might have to spoil the ballot paper or something.

You're a Tory? I've sudden;y gone right off you.

[SusanDoris]

You're a Tory? I've sudden;y gone right off you.

I am of course shaking in my shoes!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Johnathan Pye on the tory leadership race. Brilliant stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hrTK-OWYIs

Warning: contains language that those of a sensitive disposition may find challenging. Strap in!

[ProfessorDavey]

I am of course shaking in my shoes!!

Been thinking about why the notion that party membership selection the next PM is such a problem - I think it is because it runs counter to the convention of selection of a PM, who is effectively the lead of the group of elected MPs who are in a position to form a government.

So, of course, the best situation is that a PM is elected as the result of a general election.

But if not (as in this case where the PM is changed mid-term) then I think it is better that the PM is selected by the parliamentary party, in other words the MPs, who have a democratic mandate. To allow members (who have no democratic mandate) to make that selection seems to run against democratic principles.

So I'm more comfortable with the approach that resulted in May, Brown or Major (chosen by MPs without resorting to the membership) rather than the current approach, where the choice (unless everyone but Boris pulls out) will be in the hands of the membership.

I have no issue with the leader of a party not in power being selected by party membership because they will only end up as PM if they gain a democratic mandate, but not for selecting the leader of a party already in government.

[SusanDoris]

Been thinking about why the notion that party membership selection the next PM is such a problem - I think it is because it runs counter to the convention of selection of a PM, who is effectively the lead of the group of elected MPs who are in a position to form a government.

So, of course, the best situation is that a PM is elected as the result of a general election.

But if not (as in this case where the PM is changed mid-term) then I think it is better that the PM is selected by the parliamentary party, in other words the MPs, who have a democratic mandate. To allow members (who have no democratic mandate) to make that selection seems to run against democratic principles.

So I'm more comfortable with the approach that resulted in May, Brown or Major (chosen by MPs without resorting to the membership) rather than the current approach, where the choice (unless everyone but Boris pulls out) will be in the hands of the membership.

I have no issue with the leader of a party not in power being selected by party membership because they will only end up as PM if they gain a democratic mandate, but not for selecting the leader of a party already in government.

But the Party have done the choosing anyway by whittling it down to two, so I don't think there is much controversy there.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the Party have done the choosing anyway by whittling it down to two, so I don't think there is much controversy there.

But the final choice rests with the members (who have no democratic mandate nor accountability) not the MPs (who do).

[Nearly Sane]

But the final choice rests with the members (who have no democratic mandate nor accountability) not the MPs (who do).

  Not convinced that the first choice of MPs and membership won't be the same here. In that instance your issue becomes moot surely?

[ProfessorDavey]

  Not convinced that the first choice of MPs and membership won't be the same here. In that instance your issue becomes moot surely?

They might but they might not.

And importantly MPs may well vote in a different manner knowing that they are only selecting the final 2 who will go to the members, than if they were making the final selection themselves.

And the main point remains that the PM will be selected by unelected and unaccountable members of the tory party, not by MPs who themselves have a democratic mandate.

[Nearly Sane]

They might but they might not.

And importantly MPs may well vote in a different manner knowing that they are only selecting the final 2 who will go to the members, than if they were making the final selection themselves.

And the main point remains that the PM will be selected by unelected and unaccountable members of the tory party, not by MPs who themselves have a democratic mandate.

Yes, they might not. But if they are then so what.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, they might not. But if they are then so what.

So what? Our PM will be selected by a group of individuals who are neither representative nor in any way have a democratic mandate.

[Nearly Sane]

So what? Our PM will be selected by a group of individuals who are neither representative nor in any way have a democratic mandate.

But if the choice would have been the same, your point is specious.