View previous topic | View next topic

The race for Number 10

Page 1 of 27
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27  Next

barbados
1323892.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:15 pm Reply with quote

The race is on - and it looks as though there is going to be a proper fight this time, but who do we think is going to win....
This morning we had
Michael Gove, Matt Hancock, Mark Harper, Jeremy Hunt, Sajid Javid, Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey, Dominic Raab, Rory Stewart, and Sam Gyimah.
By this evening, we'd lost Sam Gyimah from the race, and of the remaining, a couple are on the edge,
Harper only has 7 nominations, McVey and Stewart only have 6, and Leadsom only has 5 so we can expect those three to fall by the wayside by the morning because they don't have the requisite number of nominations.
So who do we think will win?

 
Alexander Howard
1323896.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:27 pm Reply with quote

Isn't this how it usually works? -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEBq-gsdI58

 
barbados
1323897.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:31 pm Reply with quote

Why would it end in a Russian Tsar's coronation?

 
GuyBarry
1323898.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:32 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:

Harper only has 7 nominations, McVey and Stewart only have 6, and Leadsom only has 5 so we can expect those three to fall by the wayside by the morning because they don't have the requisite number of nominations.


The deadline was 5pm today, and at 6pm the 1922 Committee confirmed that ten candidates will go through to the first round of voting on Thursday - everyone in your list except Sam Gyimah.

Quote:
So who do we think will win?


Not the British public, that's for certain.

 
suze
1323899.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:55 pm Reply with quote

The 1922 Committee has now announced that ten candidates have been proposed, seconded, and had the further six signatures required, and so those ten will go forward to the first ballot on Thursday. The ten are as named by barbados above - all of the eleven names he gives minus Sam Gyimah.

While the proposer and seconder can be taken as supporting "their" candidate, the other six signatories can't necessarily. It's a bit of a convention that MPs who are not committed to any candidate will sign the form of a candidate who is struggling for signatures; some may recall that Jeremy Corbyn had to resort to MPs who didn't really support him to get enough names to stand for Labour leader.

Another convention is that the outgoing leader does not vote in the election of her successor. Mrs May would break no rule if she did vote, but she has let it be known that she won't.


I don't feel able to pick a favourite yet. Maybe I'll be able to when the field has thinned out a bit. FWIW, the betting markets currently have Boris Johnson as an odds-on favourite, although if we look at today alone there has been more money staked on Jeremy Streynsham-Hunt than on anyone else.

Boris is apparently giving no interviews during the campaign, but he has announced a policy proposal, that the higher rate tax threshold be raised from £50,000 to £80,000. My salary is between those two figures and so from a selfish point of view I ought to approve of that, while it's no surprise that Labour really doesn't. How will it play with the party membership though, given that most of them are retired and hence will have an income rather less than that?

After the admissions of historical use of banned substances by a number of the candidates, Mr Streynsham-Hunt was claiming earlier today that he had never broken the law. This evening he is admitting that that's not true - he failed to register the fact that he was a "person with significant control" in a property company that he set up. The error was actually made by an accountant rather than by Mr S-H himself, but it's on his head all the same.

Is there actually anyone who can in all honesty claim never to have broken the law? Just to eliminate 99% of us before we even start, please raise your hand now if you never drank on licensed premises before you were old enough to, and you have never driven your car in excess of the speed limit.

 
GuyBarry
1323901.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:06 pm Reply with quote

I really couldn't care less who wins this leadership election. I think it's an insult to the British people. This country was given an extension to October 31st so that we could come up with a resolution to Brexit. Instead we've had several weeks of Tory-Labour talks that have got nowhere, a European election that has been disastrous for both parties, and now an utterly pointless Tory leadership election where virtually all the candidates are advancing fantasy policies that they know they'll never be in a position to carry out, because the whole process will inevitably end up with a no-confidence vote and a general election.

The only candidate talking any sense is Rory Stewart, but he'll never get anywhere. Otherwise the rest of them can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. (I may make a partial exception for Mark Harper, who hasn't been associated with this incompetent administration. I genuinely don't know what he wants.)

 
crissdee
1323906.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:01 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Is there actually anyone who can in all honesty claim never to have broken the law? Just to eliminate 99% of us before we even start, please raise your hand now if you never drank on licensed premises before you were old enough to, and you have never driven your car in excess of the speed limit.


I was doing ok until that last line! Raising my hand after that would have been a gross misrepresentation of the actuality!

 
GuyBarry
1323907.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:22 pm Reply with quote

Do we actually know for certain that the next leader of the Conservative Party will become Prime Minister? The Cabinet Manual says:

Quote:
If the Prime Minister resigns on behalf the Government, the Sovereign will invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House to serve as Prime Minister and to form a government.


It also says:

Quote:
As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.


Now suppose the Conservative Party elects a new leader and its becomes abundantly clear that the new leader can't command the confidence of the House of Commons. Could Theresa May end up staying on indefinitely?

I know it goes against all precedents, but the current circumstances are so weird that I can actually see Theresa May staying in office because Parliament can't agree on a new Prime Minister.

 
barbados
1323918.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:04 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:


Boris is apparently giving no interviews during the campaign, but he has announced a policy proposal, that the higher rate tax threshold be raised from £50,000 to £80,000. My salary is between those two figures and so from a selfish point of view I ought to approve of that, while it's no surprise that Labour really doesn't. How will it play with the party membership though, given that most of them are retired and hence will have an income rather less than that?


Listening to Lord Young this morning, I would think that is a policy that will come back to bite him firmly on the bum.

His suggestion was that if there were a proper husting then Theresa May would never have become PM, and the feeling among the party is that they don't want to go down that route again, because the main thing that the party are looking for is someone who will be able to stand up to the tough questions - something that Hunt and Gove have shown they can do with some ease

 
suze
1323919.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:21 pm Reply with quote

In theory, Guy's scenario is possible. But remember that once a new leader has been elected, Mrs May will no longer speak for the Conservative Party.

Mrs May is no longer Leader of the Conservative Party, and that position is currently vacant. But she is for the time being still Prime Minister, and will be so until she goes to the Queen and recommends that the Queen appoint [whoever wins the leadership contest, and for the remainder of this post the word "Boris" will be used as a shorthand for the contents of this bracket] to be Prime Minister instead.

Now, Mrs May could indeed in theory decide that she can't be doing with Boris as PM, and thus "forget" to recommend to the Queen that he be appointed PM.

At this point, the Queen could exercise a reserve power and fire Mrs May as PM. It happened in Australia in 1975, but not in Britain since 1834.

If the Queen decides that is a step too far, Boris will invite Jeremy Corbyn around for breakfast. He will inform Mr Corbyn that Mrs May has had the Conservative whip removed, and reassert that he now controls the Connservative whips. He will then suggest that Mr Corbyn bring a motion of no confidence, which Conservative MPs will be whipped to support.

MPs do not vote against the whip on matters of confidence, so Mr Corbyn's motion would pass. The Queen would then invite Boris to form a government.

So while Guy's scenario might work as the plot for a novel, in practice it is preposterous. Once the Conservative Party has elected a new leader, Mrs May will recommend to the Queen that he be appointed Prime Minister.

For sure, it's fairly likely that the new PM's administration will fall on a confidence vote within months. But precisely because MPs do not vote against the whip on matters of confidence, it will not fall immediately.

 
suze
1323922.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:40 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Listening to Lord Young this morning, I would think that is a policy that will come back to bite him firmly on the bum.


This seems likely. At the time of the EU referendum, Boris said that he wanted to take all that money we'd save from leaving the EU, and give it to the NHS. There was an announcement to that effect on the side of a bus, and Boris - although pretty much no one else - still claims that it was true.

If he decides that actually, he'll just give that money to rich people instead, he's pretty much bitten his own bum off.


barbados wrote:
His suggestion was that if there were a proper husting then Theresa May would never have become PM, and the feeling among the party is that they don't want to go down that route again.


The second part of that sentence is undoubtedly true, but I'm less sure about the first part. I tend to think Mrs May would probably have won anyway, not because Party members were especially enthusiastic about her, but because she was perhaps the least bad of the options.

barbados wrote:
Someone who will be able to stand up to the tough questions - something that Hunt and Gove have shown they can do with some ease


Much as I am no great admiror of either gentleman, I do tend to agree that they are probably the least bad of the options - but both have already run into trouble before the campaign has even officially begun.

As mentioned earlir, Mr Streynsham-Hunt made a statement this morning that had been proved false by teatime. He also made a bizarre comment along the lines that he, just like Amber Rudd, represents a marginal constituency. Ms Rudd really does - her majority in Hastings is 346 - but Mr S-H's majority in Surrey South West is 22,000 and the seat has never been held by a non-Conservative.

As for Mr Gove, the BBC has reported "calls" from "Party activists" for him to withdraw on the grounds that his past drug use makes him unfit to be PM. Quite honestly I don't give a toss about it, and I've been no angel myself in that matter, but those 72 year olds who elect the leader might feel differently.


I can't at once find the statement of who each candidate's proposer and seconder were. If anyone can, did Esther McVey get her boyfriend to propose her?

 
crissdee
1323931.  Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:00 pm Reply with quote

Contestant for the "Missing the Point" trophy in today's paper.

 
barbados
1323936.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:40 am Reply with quote

Quote:
The second part of that sentence is undoubtedly true, but I'm less sure about the first part. I tend to think Mrs May would probably have won anyway, not because Party members were especially enthusiastic about her, but because she was perhaps the least bad of the options.

I think the point Lord Young was trying to make was that had there been a proper contest, she would have fallen quite early on, as it proved she really wasn’t up to the hard bit of the job - coping when things went tits up.
Perhaps that is why Johnson isn’t doing any interviews? He isn’t beyond saying something stupid just to have something to say, and competing on those terms will also find him out. It didn’t take Gove long to call him out to fight on his terms did it? Perhaps we’ll see the other front runners following suit in the next couple of days.

 
GuyBarry
1323951.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:13 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
In theory, Guy's scenario is possible. But remember that once a new leader has been elected, Mrs May will no longer speak for the Conservative Party.


I don't think she has done for some time!

Quote:
Now, Mrs May could indeed in theory decide that she can't be doing with Boris as PM, and thus "forget" to recommend to the Queen that he be appointed PM.


That's not the scenario that I was imagining. At the moment, the Tories have a majority of five with the support of the DUP. If the Tories elect a leader who does not have the support of the DUP, the Tories no longer have a majority. And if three Tory MPs resign the whip, then (at least in theory) the Tories no longer have a majority even with the support of the DUP. It's quite possible that either of these things may happen when a new leader is elected, in which case the new Tory leader will not have the confidence of the House, and so (arguably) should not be appointed as Prime Minister.

Quote:
At this point, the Queen could exercise a reserve power and fire Mrs May as PM. It happened in Australia in 1975, but not in Britain since 1834.


I think that would be seen as unacceptable for an unelected head of state. But what could happen is that Mrs May could recommend someone other than the newly elected Tory leader as the new PM. Would the Queen then be obliged to take her advice?

Quote:
For sure, it's fairly likely that the new PM's administration will fall on a confidence vote within months. But precisely because MPs do not vote against the whip on matters of confidence, it will not fall immediately.


You're probably right. If I were a gambler, I think I'd be more interested in betting on how long the new PM will last than who it's going to be!

 
GuyBarry
1323952.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:15 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Contestant for the "Missing the Point" trophy in today's paper.



Seems an entirely reasonable point to me. Why should the Tories be able to tear up the manifesto they were elected on because they've elected a new leader?

 

Page 1 of 27
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group