Tory Leader - Who's your preference?

[SydneyRover]

It's like voting for which disease you'd prefer or if selecting Boris more like having to explain to your partner how you gave them the clap.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Or, in Johnson's case, having to explain to your wife how another woman was carrying your child.

Twice with two different wives.

Whatever happened to Back to Basics, eh?

[SydneyRover]

And here is some of what this shower have not been taking care of while searching for their own immortality.

Taken from a Guardian readers comment today.

Put in simple terms the government has stopped governing. The government has not legislated since April. We are a nation decapitated. Concerned only with their own future they've simply stopped even bothering with today.

A few statistics.

Violent crime has increased by 19% in the last year.
Life expectancy has decreased by 13 months for men and 14 months for women.
Five million people in insecure and low paid work.
The number of children in absolute poverty increased by 200,000 in 17/18.
The number of pensioners in relative poverty increased in the same period from 17% to 18%.
Literacy is falling to. Projected rates of literacy are falling to such an extent it's predicted that by 2030 we will have dropped 4 place on the oecd index.
Health. 44% of nhs hospitals are in deficit. This rises to 90% of acute treatment centres.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46984559
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/07/life-expectancy-slumps-by-five-months
https://www.tes.com/news/uk-will-drop-world-literacy-and-numeracy-table
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/trusts-deficit

[SydneyRover]

Maybe this is the one fact over hundreds as to why it should not be boris ever

because in a crisis this is his response.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1138754388368007168

[Glyn_Wigley]

Maybe this is the one fact over hundreds as to why it should not be boris ever

because in a crisis this is his response.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1138754388368007168

Don't forget that he couldn't wait to run away on an unnecessary foreign trip instead of voting on the Heathrow runway, in order to avoid having to lie in front of a bulldozer as he promised he would.

[SydneyRover]

And yet Alison Pearson in the Tele:

''Tories would be mad not to choose Boris for leader – no one else comes close''

Close to what, being the most dishonest in parliament, being the most self serving or the .............................................................

I think it would be safer to tell my partner I had the clap rather than saying I voted for boris

[drfchound]

It's like voting for which disease you'd prefer or if selecting Boris more like having to explain to your partner how you gave them the clap.

Genuine question here, if the same thing happens if ever Labour get back into power, would their election of a leader method be any different?

[SydneyRover]

It's like voting for which disease you'd prefer or if selecting Boris more like having to explain to your partner how you gave them the clap.

Genuine question here, if the same thing happens if ever Labour get back into power, would their election of a leader method be any different?

I hope not DH as i would not want to see a repeat of this mess where two leaders have resigned where one fell on his plastic sword and the other driven to it by a bunch of self serving ego maniacs that don't give a shit about anything but themselves. There has been no effective government since the referendum and we are unlikely to see any change for a goodly while. If labor had created this amount of chaos and wasted a similar amount of money most of the media, industry and commerce would have been on their case 24/7. So in answer to your question no, I don't think it could possibly ever be anywhere near as disastrous and stupid as this is.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

This though with all the usual flaws of polling is why he will win it.  MP's and Tory party members will see this and be encouraged by it.  We can of course question the numbers and the reason the poll was published.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/11/boris-johnson-course-140-seat-majority-general-election-becomes/

Personally, it's wait and see what policies etc he enacts before a general election before we vote.  I cannot see anyone beating him.

[SydneyRover]

This though with all the usual flaws of polling is why he will win it.  MP's and Tory party members will see this and be encouraged by it.  We can of course question the numbers and the reason the poll was published.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/11/boris-johnson-course-140-seat-majority-general-election-becomes/

Personally, it's wait and see what policies etc he enacts before a general election before we vote.  I cannot see anyone beating him.

We can't of course see the data surrounding the poll so we don't know what was asked nor how many were polled but yes you're correct to question the numbers, the motives I would think are to get blunderbus across the line at all costs to try and save the tories.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

It says 2000, which usually is a large enough sample to be representative.

[SydneyRover]

It says 2000, which usually is a large enough sample to be representative.
[/quote

Not sure that's enough to convince the Europeans though.

''European newspapers have expressed horror at the prospect of Boris Johnson becoming the UK’s next prime minister, describing him as a scandal-proof, serial promise-breaker whose arrival at No 10 would be “a calamity for his country and for Europe”.

Le Monde, in a coruscating editorial, said Johnson had shown himself to be “a stranger to logic and convictions” in a career rich in “deceits, blunders and failures”. In the run-up to the 2016 referendum, he “told lies on the side of a bus, promised the UK could have its cake and eat it, and compared the EU to the Third Reich”.

As foreign secretary, he had “made his country an object of ridicule around the world with his amateurism, flippancy and ignorance”. Rivalling Nigel Farage for populism, France’s newspaper of record continued, Johnson’s “jingoistic rhetoric” promised Britons an unrealistic “glorious global future”.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

His threat to withhold the €39bn Brexit divorce settlement would have “incalculable consequences”, damaging the international credibility of a country priding itself on being a champion of the rule of law. And, for the EU, a Johnson premiership would mean “a mini-Trump across the Channel, dedicated to its sabotage”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/mini-trump-across-the-channel-european-media-on-boris-johnson-as-british-pm

[drfchound]

It's like voting for which disease you'd prefer or if selecting Boris more like having to explain to your partner how you gave them the clap.

Genuine question here, if the same thing happens if ever Labour get back into power, would their election of a leader method be any different?

I hope not DH as i would not want to see a repeat of this mess where two leaders have resigned where one fell on his plastic sword and the other driven to it by a bunch of self serving ego maniacs that don't give a shit about anything but themselves. There has been no effective government since the referendum and we are unlikely to see any change for a goodly while. If labor had created this amount of chaos and wasted a similar amount of money most of the media, industry and commerce would have been on their case 24/7. So in answer to your question no, I don't think it could possibly ever be anywhere near as disastrous and stupid as this is.

So you don’t really know then.
Maybe one of our political experts could shed some light on it.
As for the media, they have been on the case of the government 24/7.

[SydneyRover]

It's like voting for which disease you'd prefer or if selecting Boris more like having to explain to your partner how you gave them the clap.

Genuine question here, if the same thing happens if ever Labour get back into power, would their election of a leader method be any different?

I hope not DH as i would not want to see a repeat of this mess where two leaders have resigned where one fell on his plastic sword and the other driven to it by a bunch of self serving ego maniacs that don't give a shit about anything but themselves. There has been no effective government since the referendum and we are unlikely to see any change for a goodly while. If labor had created this amount of chaos and wasted a similar amount of money most of the media, industry and commerce would have been on their case 24/7. So in answer to your question no, I don't think it could possibly ever be anywhere near as disastrous and stupid as this is.

So you don’t really know then.
Maybe one of our political experts could shed some light on it.
As for the media, they have been on the case of the government 24/7.

Depends whether there is a resignation or a coup I would think. Nothing to stop you having a google yourself DH.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

If I understand your question correctly, the Labour method is slightly different.

For the Tories, MPs vote in a series of elections with the candidates with the lowest votes eliminated until only two are left. Then the party members vote between those two.

For Lab, candidates are put forward by sponsoring MPs. I think a candidate needs 10 or 12 sponsors to make the cut. After that, ALL the MPs go to a transferrable vote election by the party members. All the first preferences are counted. The candidate who comes last is eliminated and their second preferences redistributed. And so on u til one candidate has 50.1% of the vote.

The Tory method gives a lot of power to the MPs in being able to filter out candidates who the MPs don't like. You need 100+ MPs supporting you in practice to make the final 2. The Labour method gives much more power to members because a candidate only needs a handful of supporting MPs.

That's why Corbyn is Labour leader. He would never have made the final 2 under the Tory method. Equally, I suspect Raab or Leadsom would be in the top 2 among Tory members but they won't make the top 2 among Tory MPs.

Interestingly, Corbyn was so unpopular among Lab MPs that he almost didn't get the handful of sponsors he needed to make the membership vote in 2015. He only made it because Sadiq Khan sponsored him saying that he didn't want him as leader, but that it was important for the debate to have a Left wing candidate. Wonder what Khan thinks of that now?

[drfchound]

Thanks for that explanation BST.
Although the voting methods are different it still is a drawn out process.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound. Yeah. But it has to be really.

[DonnyOsmond]

McVey, Leadsom and Harper out. Thank f*ck.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah but Johnson already has enough votes to make the final 2. Assuming they stick with him in later rounds. And we know the Tory membership will vote for him. So welcome to your new PM.

[drfchound]

Hound. Yeah. But it has to be really.

Agreed, which I why I thought it was unfair of Sydney to have a go at the Tory method of voting for a new leader when all parties (I would imagine) have a long drawn out system.
I have no political allegiance by the way before anyone has a go at me.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Hound. Yeah. But it has to be really.

Agreed, which I why I thought it was unfair of Sydney to have a go at the Tory method of voting for a new leader when all parties (I would imagine) have a long drawn out system.
I have no political allegiance by the way before anyone has a go at me.

The problem has been too many candidates making it drawn out. They could easily have made it that someone wanting to stand has to have a certain number of sponsors to make it on to the ballot paper in the first place. Only needing two names has led to the bloated field and extended whittling down that has to be done.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Looking at the numbers, it looks very hard for Raab to make the final 2. And he's the only one left I could imagine pushing Johnson close with the Tory members.

Be thankful for tiny mercies I suppose. I'd marginally prefer to have Johnson running the country than Raab.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Always the possibility of surprises I guess but it looks to me like Johnson and Hunt as the final 2.

What a choice. Two privileged men who haven't an ounce of political philosophy between them, but are both driven by out and out ambition.

[Pancho Regan]

Yeah but Johnson already has enough votes to make the final 2. Assuming they stick with him in later rounds. And we know the Tory membership will vote for him. So welcome to your new PM.

If someone had told me a few years ago that Boris Johnson would become PM I would have laughed.
How could such a lying, scheming, bungling, embarrassing, selfish person ever be allowed to be PM?

It's enough to make you want to emigrate to the USA.

Oh wait........

 

[drfchound]

Hound. Yeah. But it has to be really.

The problem has been too many candidates making it drawn out. They could easily have made it that someone wanting to stand has to have a certain number of sponsors to make it on to the ballot paper in the first place. Only needing two names has led to the bloated field and extended whittling down that has to be done.




Agreed, which I why I thought it was unfair of Sydney to have a go at the Tory method of voting for a new leader when all parties (I would imagine) have a long drawn out system.
I have no political allegiance by the way before anyone has a go at me.

But wouldn’t that mean that they had to change their rules before they could commence their voting.
Even more delays?

[albie]

Always the possibility of surprises I guess but it looks to me like Johnson and Hunt as the final 2.

What a choice. Two privileged men who haven't an ounce of political philosophy between them, but are both driven by out and out ambition.

Agree with that.

More importantly, so does the money:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-climate-change-denier-makes-big-donation-boris-johnson-and-jeremy-hunt/

Mitigate the business risk by investing in both candidates, sound thinking there.
So there goes Democracy, and now a word from our sponsors!

[Glyn_Wigley]

Hound. Yeah. But it has to be really.

The problem has been too many candidates making it drawn out. They could easily have made it that someone wanting to stand has to have a certain number of sponsors to make it on to the ballot paper in the first place. Only needing two names has led to the bloated field and extended whittling down that has to be done.




Agreed, which I why I thought it was unfair of Sydney to have a go at the Tory method of voting for a new leader when all parties (I would imagine) have a long drawn out system.
I have no political allegiance by the way before anyone has a go at me.

But wouldn’t that mean that they had to change their rules before they could commence their voting.
Even more delays?

They can do that any time, they don't have to do it just when there's a leadership election. The real point is, of course, that they should never have changed the rules to what they are now in the first place.

[drfchound]

Hound. Yeah. But it has to be really.

The problem has been too many candidates making it drawn out. They could easily have made it that someone wanting to stand has to have a certain number of sponsors to make it on to the ballot paper in the first place. Only needing two names has led to the bloated field and extended whittling down that has to be done.




Agreed, which I why I thought it was unfair of Sydney to have a go at the Tory method of voting for a new leader when all parties (I would imagine) have a long drawn out system.
I have no political allegiance by the way before anyone has a go at me.

But wouldn’t that mean that they had to change their rules before they could commence their voting.
Even more delays?

They can do that any time, they don't have to do it just when there's a leadership election. The real point is, of course, that they should never have changed the rules to what they are now in the first place.

Maybe, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[wilts rover]

This is such a strange, and controversial, election because it is the first time a party has forced a leadership contest because they were unable to deliver their own policies.

Traditionally the government would have had to fall and call an election, so the electorate got a say if they agreed with the new leader's policies. But now they are kept in place by the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Let's hope this left over abomination from Cameron's reign goes they way of him and May sooner rather than later.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Hound. Yeah. But it has to be really.

The problem has been too many candidates making it drawn out. They could easily have made it that someone wanting to stand has to have a certain number of sponsors to make it on to the ballot paper in the first place. Only needing two names has led to the bloated field and extended whittling down that has to be done.




Agreed, which I why I thought it was unfair of Sydney to have a go at the Tory method of voting for a new leader when all parties (I would imagine) have a long drawn out system.
I have no political allegiance by the way before anyone has a go at me.

But wouldn’t that mean that they had to change their rules before they could commence their voting.
Even more delays?

They can do that any time, they don't have to do it just when there's a leadership election. The real point is, of course, that they should never have changed the rules to what they are now in the first place.

Maybe, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Not in a party wanting to run a country. That needs foresight.