... The point was “no deal” does not mean “no deal ever”. It really just means no transition. ..
That is exactly why it is so completely lunatic. We get 100% of the upfront disaster, and then after an indeterminate period of chaos and huge damage to business, we'll then have to attempt from a very weak position to scrabble back some of the lost ground. To do that we'll be back to what May's deal would have set up in an orderly fashion.
But you've missed out the "worse than slavery" bit...
So a few weeks ago Boris Bros were desperate to have four finalists going to the membership for a vote. Now their gelatinous hero is gaming the same system to favour him.
It's all a game to them, isn't it?
Or the rumour originated with Gove or Raab or Rory to discredit both Hunt and Boris. Or even that it was picked up from this very pb where we speculated this would happen just like it did in previous Conservative leadership contests.
So a few weeks ago Boris Bros were desperate to have four finalists going to the membership for a vote. Now their gelatinous hero is gaming the same system to favour him.
It's all a game to them, isn't it?
Or the rumour originated with Gove or Raab or Rory to discredit both Hunt and Boris. Or even that it was picked up from this very pb where we speculated this would happen just like it did in previous Conservative leadership contests.
This is a weird thing about politics, the base love their losers. Hillary Clinton is a possible exception, but only because you can never be quite sure she's given up.
Andrea Leadsom has come out for Boris. This is all so reminiscent of when Theresa May was the Messiah
That is a good point. In addition, there was a period, not long before the 2017 election, when Theresa May was getting lots of support from Labour voters. Anyone who thinks the popularity of Boris, such as it is, would survive more than a few weeks is living in la-la land.
Indeed. People we know want different things, unrealistic things, will inevitably be disappointed. People are ignoring by hoping his charisma carries them through it
MP's getting a vote denied democracy. The demos are the people not the gilded elite.
If remain had won, it was clear what would have to be done. Cameron had negotiated a deal and that was what was put to the GBP in the referendum. It was agreed with the EU and implementable.
However leave made muddled and contradictory promises during the campaign - which is precisely why leavers are split over May's deal, with some saying they support it and others decrying it as betrayal.
Given that, you're saying that the government had the right to wade through that morass and decide what 'leave' meant (when leave couldn't even be arsed to do it for themselves), and inflict that on the public without democratic checks and balances.
IMV, it was fully correct - and democratic - for MPs to get a vote. If you didn't want one to happen, then perhaps leave should have been clear about what leave meant before the referendum. But they weren't, because they wanted to win.
"Awarding ferry contracts to a company with no ferries has the sort of media cut-through that a thousand successful complex tender deals never will." (Telegraph)
MP's getting a vote denied democracy. The demos are the people not the gilded elite.
If remain had won, it was clear what would have to be done. Cameron had negotiated a deal and that was what was put to the GBP in the referendum. It was agreed with the EU and implementable.
However leave made muddled and contradictory promises during the campaign - which is precisely why leavers are split over May's deal, with some saying they support it and others decrying it as betrayal.
Given that, you're saying that the government had the right to wade through that morass and decide what 'leave' meant (when leave couldn't even be arsed to do it for themselves), and inflict that on the public without democratic checks and balances.
IMV, it was fully correct - and democratic - for MPs to get a vote. If you didn't want one to happen, then perhaps leave should have been clear about what leave meant before the referendum. But they weren't, because they wanted to win.
The problem with this system of voting. They could solve it by having one ballot with preferences and transfers.
It's also basic politics, which is at heart a game of numbers.
Turning it on its head: it's just as odd for Stewart to slip through the middle by chance to the final two on account of having all the cabinet rivals still in the race and the remaining votes split evenly between them.
rumours that Javid, Hunt and Stewart all confident they have got 33 required votes, but also that these numbers don't stack up?
The already-eliminated candidates got 50 votes between them so it is entirely plausible that the remaining candidates pick up enough votes to get all of them past 33.
rumours that Javid, Hunt and Stewart all confident they have got 33 required votes, but also that these numbers don't stack up?
The already-eliminated candidates got 50 votes between them so it is entirely plausible that the remaining candidates pick up enough votes to get all of them past 33.
MP's getting a vote denied democracy. The demos are the people not the gilded elite.
If remain had won, it was clear what would have to be done. Cameron had negotiated a deal and that was what was put to the GBP in the referendum. It was agreed with the EU and implementable.
However leave made muddled and contradictory promises during the campaign - which is precisely why leavers are split over May's deal, with some saying they support it and others decrying it as betrayal.
Given that, you're saying that the government had the right to wade through that morass and decide what 'leave' meant (when leave couldn't even be arsed to do it for themselves), and inflict that on the public without democratic checks and balances.
IMV, it was fully correct - and democratic - for MPs to get a vote. If you didn't want one to happen, then perhaps leave should have been clear about what leave meant before the referendum. But they weren't, because they wanted to win.
Actually it's a theory that is currently untested. I don't think anyone including Labour MPs know the views of the people who vote for them. It's highly likely that the vocal No-Deal constituents are Brexit voters but only an election will reveal the actual truth..
I think one could say with some confidence that 95%+ of people who voted Labour in Hornsey & Wood Green or Bristol West in 2017 opposed Brexit.
OTOH, I would not be surprised if a majority of 2017 Labour voters in places like Bolsover or Rother Valley supported Brexit.
Overall, the polling is clear. Most people who voted Labour in 2017 opposed Brexit, but the numbers will vary considerably by constituency.
And it's the Northern Constituencies that matter here. For Labour it's essential to know the impact Revoke or a second referendum policy will have in what was historically Labour's core vote...
And, within the North, it's the urban centres of up to about 200,000 people, rather than the bigger cities, where the Labour vote more closely resembles its counterpart in London and university constituencies.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Which ones? Which laws and regulations make it like slavery? Surely you're not going hyperbolic over following product standards and monitoring methods from the EU, right?
Because that would be bizarre - "Let people die; we have to have the right to call 'jam' whatever we want!"
And, of course, as has been pointed out loads of times - if the EU act in bad faith, we always have the inalienable right to unilateral revocation. Unless you posit actual armed conflict to make them comply with labelling strategies?
Near the end of the previous thread, the excellent @AndyJS gave the following estimates for how the votes from eliminated candidates might be distributed:
Johnson +19 Stewart +15 Raab + 5 Javid +5 Gove +4 Hunt +2
That would give:
Johnson 133 Hunt 45 Gove 41 Stewart 34 Raab 32 Javid 28
So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess.
Two thirds of Northern Ireland's electorate want it.
So democracy means that we should pay attention to them. But democracy also means respecting the will of the UK people. And there's a conflict there. Which means... democracy doesn't respect democracy.
Of course, all this would just go away if we discovered that... the people of the UK have actually changed their minds... So a democratic vote could realign democracy with democracy. But, according to Phil "H-Block" Thompson, that wouldn't be democratic.
Democracy has always involved ignoring the views of large numbers of people. For example about 90% of voters were in favour of capital punishment when it was first abolished in 1965. 56% didn't vote for Labour in 1997 when Tony Blair won a 179 seat majority. 57% didn't vote for the Conservatives in 1983.
Up to 2016, the powers that be tended to ignore the views of people who didn't like European integration, although that eventually came back to bite them on the backside.
Why don't we save time: Forget Boris, put Farage in charge of Tories and then organize the massive split of half the party's MPs into the LibDems or new Progressive Conservatives or whatever.
If Rod Stewart gets the gig, its quite possible we will have PM Farage
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Two thirds of Northern Ireland's electorate want it.
So democracy means that we should pay attention to them. But democracy also means respecting the will of the UK people. And there's a conflict there. Which means... democracy doesn't respect democracy.
Of course, all this would just go away if we discovered that... the people of the UK have actually changed their minds... So a democratic vote could realign democracy with democracy. But, according to Phil "H-Block" Thompson, that wouldn't be democratic.
Democracy has always involved ignoring the views of large numbers of people. For example about 90% of voters were in favour of capital punishment when it was first abolished in 1965. 56% didn't vote for Labour in 1997 when Tony Blair won a 179 seat majority. 57% didn't vote for the Conservatives in 1983.
Up to 2016, the powers that be tended to ignore the views of people who didn't like European integration, although that eventually came back to bite them on the backside.
But there were also many who quite liked the EU, and they weren't 'ignoring' them. It took the referendum to sort out where opinion lies - or at least it would have done, if leave had done their job properly. Instead we got an unholy mess.
Near the end of the previous thread, the excellent @AndyJS gave the following estimates for how the votes from eliminated candidates might be distributed:
Johnson +19 Stewart +15 Raab + 5 Javid +5 Gove +4 Hunt +2
That would give:
Johnson 133 Hunt 45 Gove 41 Stewart 34 Raab 32 Javid 28
So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess.
That's a really useful benchmark for, among other things, checking what chicanery the Johnson camp is getting up to.
MP's getting a vote denied democracy. The demos are the people not the gilded elite.
If remain had won, it was clear what would have to be done. Cameron had negotiated a deal and that was what was put to the GBP in the referendum. It was agreed with the EU and implementable.
However leave made muddled and contradictory promises during the campaign - which is precisely why leavers are split over May's deal, with some saying they support it and others decrying it as betrayal.
Given that, you're saying that the government had the right to wade through that morass and decide what 'leave' meant (when leave couldn't even be arsed to do it for themselves), and inflict that on the public without democratic checks and balances.
IMV, it was fully correct - and democratic - for MPs to get a vote. If you didn't want one to happen, then perhaps leave should have been clear about what leave meant before the referendum. But they weren't, because they wanted to win.
Well we completely disagree, never mind.
... but Mr Jessop is right and you're wrong ;-)
Don't panic: normal service will soon be resumed and I'll be wrong again. As usual.
Near the end of the previous thread, the excellent @AndyJS gave the following estimates for how the votes from eliminated candidates might be distributed:
Johnson +19 Stewart +15 Raab + 5 Javid +5 Gove +4 Hunt +2
That would give:
Johnson 133 Hunt 45 Gove 41 Stewart 34 Raab 32 Javid 28
So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess.
I'm looking forward to the hustings for members. Johnson v Stewart would be a genuinely interesting contest.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
And yet in an Orwellian contortion Leavers argue that enabling the people to vote on that option is somehow undemocratic.
War is peace Voting is undemocratic Brexit means Brexit
Rewarding bad behaviour encourages it
So you propose punishing the country for the bad behaviour of a handful of MPs?
The country voted to leave. They get what they asked for
"So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess."
If all but Boris get under 33 will they all be eliminated, thus crowning Boris? I`ve heard this said but believe it to be wrong. The rules say that a candidate needs 33 to enter next ballot. If there is no next ballot then the most popular two candidates rule will take priority I think.
Near the end of the previous thread, the excellent @AndyJS gave the following estimates for how the votes from eliminated candidates might be distributed:
Johnson +19 Stewart +15 Raab + 5 Javid +5 Gove +4 Hunt +2
That would give:
Johnson 133 Hunt 45 Gove 41 Stewart 34 Raab 32 Javid 28
So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess.
I might change those figures before 6pm tonight. I wasn't expecting Andrea Leadsom to endorse Boris Johnson which might have a negative effect on Dominic Raab's potential showing.
Up to 2016, the powers that be tended to ignore the views of people who didn't like European integration, although that eventually came back to bite them on the backside.
All those speculating that Johnson could "lend" MPs to Hunt to rig the final run-off pairing have forgotten that this only helps him once we're down to 3 candidates. Stewart finishing fourth or even fifth today won't eliminate him as long as he gets over the threshold, and if he gets to 33 it's pretty unlikely he'll finish last (and even if he does it won't be because Hunt got an external boost to strengthen his grip on second place).
Johnson would be mad to deny himself momentum right now, so any nonsense like this will almost certainly not appear until Thursday's ballot at the earliest.
"So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess."
If all but Boris get under 33 will they all be eliminated, thus crowning Boris? I`ve heard this said but believe it to be wrong. The rules say that a candidate needs 33 to enter next ballot. If there is no next ballot then the most popular two candidates rule will take priority I think.
Agree?
I'm not sure, but I think you are right on a strict interpretation of the rules, However, in that scenario the political pressure for a coronation would be very strong.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
And yet in an Orwellian contortion Leavers argue that enabling the people to vote on that option is somehow undemocratic.
War is peace Voting is undemocratic Brexit means Brexit
Rewarding bad behaviour encourages it
So you propose punishing the country for the bad behaviour of a handful of MPs?
The country voted to leave. They get what they asked for
The fact that Brexiteers argue about what 'leave' means shows that no-one's clear quite what the GBP asked for.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
If you believe Boris is inevitable isn’t it better to try to create an heir apparent?
Near the end of the previous thread, the excellent @AndyJS gave the following estimates for how the votes from eliminated candidates might be distributed:
Johnson +19 Stewart +15 Raab + 5 Javid +5 Gove +4 Hunt +2
That would give:
Johnson 133 Hunt 45 Gove 41 Stewart 34 Raab 32 Javid 28
So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess.
I'm looking forward to the hustings for members. Johnson v Stewart would be a genuinely interesting contest.
Boris would have to drop his buffoon act if Rory gets through to the members' ballot.
"So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess."
If all but Boris get under 33 will they all be eliminated, thus crowning Boris? I`ve heard this said but believe it to be wrong. The rules say that a candidate needs 33 to enter next ballot. If there is no next ballot then the most popular two candidates rule will take priority I think.
Agree?
It would be really funny if Boris's backers got their sums wrong and everyone backed other candidates to game the system - and he got less than 33.
"So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess."
If all but Boris get under 33 will they all be eliminated, thus crowning Boris? I`ve heard this said but believe it to be wrong. The rules say that a candidate needs 33 to enter next ballot. If there is no next ballot then the most popular two candidates rule will take priority I think.
Agree?
I'm not sure, but I think you are right on a strict interpretation of the rules, However, in that scenario the political pressure for a coronation would be very strong.
also chances of it are highly unlikely , more likely I will be pope.
"So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess."
If all but Boris get under 33 will they all be eliminated, thus crowning Boris? I`ve heard this said but believe it to be wrong. The rules say that a candidate needs 33 to enter next ballot. If there is no next ballot then the most popular two candidates rule will take priority I think.
Agree?
I'm not sure, but I think you are right on a strict interpretation of the rules, However, in that scenario the political pressure for a coronation would be very strong.
I think their will be a desperate attempt to force a postal ballot.
All those speculating that Johnson could "lend" MPs to Hunt to rig the final run-off pairing have forgotten that this only helps him once we're down to 3 candidates. Stewart finishing fourth or even fifth today won't eliminate him as long as he gets over the threshold, and if he gets to 33 it's pretty unlikely he'll finish last (and even if he does it won't be because Hunt got an external boost to strengthen his grip on second place).
Johnson would be mad to deny himself momentum right now, so any nonsense like this will almost certainly not appear until Thursday's ballot at the earliest.
I think it more likely that votes will loaned to other candidates today in the hope of ensuring Rory finishes bottom and is eliminated. Whether that can be managed is another matter
"So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess."
If all but Boris get under 33 will they all be eliminated, thus crowning Boris? I`ve heard this said but believe it to be wrong. The rules say that a candidate needs 33 to enter next ballot. If there is no next ballot then the most popular two candidates rule will take priority I think.
Agree?
Agreed. Would love to see joint 2nd place both on 32, just to see the 1922 thickies try and work out what happens next
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
61% must be a sympathy vote for IDS.
I'm struggling to think of anything about IDS that warrants much sympathy. The abysmal reviews his conference speeches kept getting?
Iain Duncan Smith delivered a speech to the 2003 Tory party conference in Blackpool yesterday that was nasty, brutish and long. Inevitably, it went down well with the party faithful in the Winter Gardens. Looked at from almost every other perspective, however, it was a disgrace. With his critics closing in on him, the Conservative leader threw good judgment to the winds. It is hard to remember a conference speech by a major party leader which did less for public debate and which reflects so discreditably on the person who gave it.
You don't suppose the 'Boris lending supporters' story is being spread around because his acolytes suspect he's not going to do 'that' well? Expectation management?
Stephen Bush's take on that YouGov Tory member polling - though FWIW I do think the instinctive Unionism in the English party is fading, replaced by a belief in self-determination (i.e. Scotland and NI should remain part of the Union as long as they want to).
Near the end of the previous thread, the excellent @AndyJS gave the following estimates for how the votes from eliminated candidates might be distributed:
Johnson +19 Stewart +15 Raab + 5 Javid +5 Gove +4 Hunt +2
That would give:
Johnson 133 Hunt 45 Gove 41 Stewart 34 Raab 32 Javid 28
So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess.
I'm looking forward to the hustings for members. Johnson v Stewart would be a genuinely interesting contest.
Boris would have to drop his buffoon act if Rory gets through to the members' ballot.
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
61% must be a sympathy vote for IDS.
I'm struggling to think of anything about IDS that warrants much sympathy. The abysmal reviews his conference speeches kept getting?
Iain Duncan Smith delivered a speech to the 2003 Tory party conference in Blackpool yesterday that was nasty, brutish and long. Inevitably, it went down well with the party faithful in the Winter Gardens. Looked at from almost every other perspective, however, it was a disgrace. With his critics closing in on him, the Conservative leader threw good judgment to the winds. It is hard to remember a conference speech by a major party leader which did less for public debate and which reflects so discreditably on the person who gave it.
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
Doubtful many of them have any memory pre Thatcher, a few may remember Heath by revile him.
Churchill just from the history books.
Dave and John too euro friendly.
A 50 year old could probably remember Ted Heath, a 55 yr old certainly could and the average age of a Tory party member is 57. 40% of them are over 65 which takes their birth back to at least 1955. So well over a third of the membership will remember Harold MacMillan and Alex Douglas-Home. Many will remember Anthony Eden.
A 69 year old would have been 5 when Churchill stepped down.
This is all more to do with the current obsession with Brexit. They're hell bent on wanting to see it 'delivered' (think tractor-load of manure rather than pizza express) at all costs. So the perceived tough leaders will be raised aloft like the blessed monstrance during Solemn Benediction.
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
61% must be a sympathy vote for IDS.
I'm struggling to think of anything about IDS that warrants much sympathy. The abysmal reviews his conference speeches kept getting?
Iain Duncan Smith delivered a speech to the 2003 Tory party conference in Blackpool yesterday that was nasty, brutish and long. Inevitably, it went down well with the party faithful in the Winter Gardens. Looked at from almost every other perspective, however, it was a disgrace. With his critics closing in on him, the Conservative leader threw good judgment to the winds. It is hard to remember a conference speech by a major party leader which did less for public debate and which reflects so discreditably on the person who gave it.
As even the Guardian concedes in your excerpt: nasty, brutish and long "went down well with the party faithful".
This poll maybe highlights the disconnect between Tory members from the liberal commentariat (not such a problem) and/or from the wider electorate (huge problem).
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
61% must be a sympathy vote for IDS.
I'm struggling to think of anything about IDS that warrants much sympathy. The abysmal reviews his conference speeches kept getting?
Iain Duncan Smith delivered a speech to the 2003 Tory party conference in Blackpool yesterday that was nasty, brutish and long. Inevitably, it went down well with the party faithful in the Winter Gardens. Looked at from almost every other perspective, however, it was a disgrace. With his critics closing in on him, the Conservative leader threw good judgment to the winds. It is hard to remember a conference speech by a major party leader which did less for public debate and which reflects so discreditably on the person who gave it.
As even the Guardian concedes in your excerpt: nasty, brutish and long "went down well with the party faithful".
This poll maybe highlights the disconnect between Tory members from the liberal commentariat (not such a problem) and/or from the wider electorate (huge problem).
May was highly disconnected from them, as long as she was delivering brexit they loved her.
Interesting how the Stewart momentum story has er.. momentum given that no one can really know what's going on.
Rather like football transfer rumours where everyone knows there's a huge amount of bullshit going round, but still thinks they personally can separate truth from fiction.
It would be really funny if Boris's backers got their sums wrong and everyone backed other candidates to game the system - and he got less than 33.
You understate a little. That would be the funniest thing that has ever happened in recorded history. I've tried to think of something funnier that is factual and have drawn a blank.
I wonder if Michael Gove will pull out after this one if it looks like he can't catch Hunt. Would seem little point carrying on. Stewart is a different matter. Can't see him quitting unless eliminated.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
If you believe Boris is inevitable isn’t it better to try to create an heir apparent?
If Stewart gets beaten 85% -> 15% in the membership vote he won't be an heir apparent.
Which candidate is most likely to go backwards from last week's numbers?
Gove?
I wouldn't have thought so, Gove was at a low point then and arguably exceeded expectations. Hunt fell short of what was expected and might be going backwards, unless of course he gets lent support from Boris. I also wonder whether some of Raab's backers might think the game is up and prefer to have him out of the contest to boost Boris's final number in the three-way.
Tory MPs should really be looking at this round in terms not of who they want to win, or who they want to be in the final two, but who they want to take on Boris in tonight's debate, which is the most direct effect of today's eliminations. If they are thinking like that, it might favour Javid and Stewart a little.
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
61% must be a sympathy vote for IDS.
I'm struggling to think of anything about IDS that warrants much sympathy. The abysmal reviews his conference speeches kept getting?
Iain Duncan Smith delivered a speech to the 2003 Tory party conference in Blackpool yesterday that was nasty, brutish and long. Inevitably, it went down well with the party faithful in the Winter Gardens. Looked at from almost every other perspective, however, it was a disgrace. With his critics closing in on him, the Conservative leader threw good judgment to the winds. It is hard to remember a conference speech by a major party leader which did less for public debate and which reflects so discreditably on the person who gave it.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
If you believe Boris is inevitable isn’t it better to try to create an heir apparent?
If Stewart gets beaten 85% -> 15% in the membership vote he won't be an heir apparent.
It depends if Stewarts warning of what happens with Brexit, er..happen. If he's provded right, then he'll be vindicated.
It would be really funny if Boris's backers got their sums wrong and everyone backed other candidates to game the system - and he got less than 33.
You understate a little. That would be the funniest thing that has ever happened in recorded history. I've tried to think of something funnier that is factual and have drawn a blank.
I wonder if Michael Gove will pull out after this one if it looks like he can't catch Hunt. Would seem little point carrying on. Stewart is a different matter. Can't see him quitting unless eliminated.
One problem for Gove is the imminent publication of the biography that caused the cocaine storm -- perhaps unfairly given that other candidates were not damaged by similar admissions or allegations of drug adjacency. What else is in the book that might be used against him? I'd imagine his team (and all the rival teams) have purloined review copies by now.
It is a shame in a way because Gove was the most paradoxical candidate. He'd fronted the Leave campaign yet his declared supporters were from the Remain wing of the party.
Second referendum - referendum -referendum -referendum...
I agree with you. The most probable outcome at the moment is that Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister, we leave the EU on October 31st, if there are any deleterious effects he will blame them on the EU, and that Tory voters will believe him and vote for him. And at some point somebody will say that Remainers were lost in Rorymania and didn't see this coming. And when that happens I will politely remind you of this post and link back to it.
I may be wrong. Maybe the Conservative members will consider Boris' record and refuse to vote for him. But as @HYUFD correctly points out, the polls say otherwise so I have to go with that.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
If you believe Boris is inevitable isn’t it better to try to create an heir apparent?
If Stewart gets beaten 85% -> 15% in the membership vote he won't be an heir apparent.
That would depend if Boris was a disaster. You get sea changes in such a situation. After all, most tory members probably voted BXP most recently and so are not even loyalists. If no deal was not the glorious end they thought who knows what they'll do.
But I'd agree its unlikely. Not like leadsom was their apparent
Mr. Gate, Leeds was about 50.2% Remain, which is about as close to a tie as you can get.
Worth noting that the counting area was very large, I think the third largest in the country, so (if usual trends apply) one might expect the city proper to be pro-EU and the outlying areas sceptical, to an almost perfect balance.
What time do we discover the results from today's vote?
I appreciate that. I just wanted to remind @HYUFD that there are significant blocks of Remain outside of London, Oxford and Cambridge.
More people voted for Remain in Birmingham than in any other city outside of London, for example.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
If you believe Boris is inevitable isn’t it better to try to create an heir apparent?
If Stewart gets beaten 85% -> 15% in the membership vote he won't be an heir apparent.
That would depend if Boris was a disaster. You get sea changes in such a situation. After all, most tory members probably voted BXP most recently and so are not even loyalists. If no deal was not the glorious end they thought who knows what they'll do.
But I'd agree its unlikely. Not like leadsom was their apparent
"If no deal was not the glorious end they thought who knows what they'll do."
I fear I know what they'll do. As we see with leavers on here all the time, the mantra when anything goes wrong with their glorious project is: "It's all someone else's fault!"
For that reason, if Brexit turns out to be a big pile of crud, then it won't be their fault, or the fault of Brexit. It'll be Boris's fault or, more likely, the EU's fault for not doing what we wanted.
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
61% must be a sympathy vote for IDS.
I'm struggling to think of anything about IDS that warrants much sympathy. The abysmal reviews his conference speeches kept getting?
Iain Duncan Smith delivered a speech to the 2003 Tory party conference in Blackpool yesterday that was nasty, brutish and long. Inevitably, it went down well with the party faithful in the Winter Gardens. Looked at from almost every other perspective, however, it was a disgrace. With his critics closing in on him, the Conservative leader threw good judgment to the winds. It is hard to remember a conference speech by a major party leader which did less for public debate and which reflects so discreditably on the person who gave it.
As even the Guardian concedes in your excerpt: nasty, brutish and long "went down well with the party faithful".
This poll maybe highlights the disconnect between Tory members from the liberal commentariat (not such a problem) and/or from the wider electorate (huge problem).
IDS's Conservatives did surprisingly well at the ballot box but owing to his weekly pasting at PMQs there was almost hysteria on the backbenches and plotting on the front benches that had a momentum of its own.
This is a weird thing about politics, the base love their losers. Hillary Clinton is a possible exception, but only because you can never be quite sure she's given up.
Knowing what it sometimes takes to succeed in politics, it's safer to love the loser.
One problem for Gove is the imminent publication of the biography that caused the cocaine storm -- perhaps unfairly given that other candidates were not damaged by similar admissions or allegations of drug adjacency. What else is in the book that might be used against him? I'd imagine his team (and all the rival teams) have purloined review copies by now.
It is a shame in a way because Gove was the most paradoxical candidate. He'd fronted the Leave campaign yet his declared supporters were from the Remain wing of the party.
A minority report, I know, but Gove would be the best choice IMO. And I'm saying that with my Tory member hat on not in mischief as a Labour supporter.
They need to deliver a negotiated Brexit and I think Gove has the most chance (albeit still a slim one) of doing that.
Comments
However leave made muddled and contradictory promises during the campaign - which is precisely why leavers are split over May's deal, with some saying they support it and others decrying it as betrayal.
Given that, you're saying that the government had the right to wade through that morass and decide what 'leave' meant (when leave couldn't even be arsed to do it for themselves), and inflict that on the public without democratic checks and balances.
IMV, it was fully correct - and democratic - for MPs to get a vote. If you didn't want one to happen, then perhaps leave should have been clear about what leave meant before the referendum. But they weren't, because they wanted to win.
"Awarding ferry contracts to a company with no ferries has the sort of media cut-through that a thousand successful complex tender deals never will."
(Telegraph)
Turning it on its head: it's just as odd for Stewart to slip through the middle by chance to the final two on account of having all the cabinet rivals still in the race and the remaining votes split evenly between them.
Personally still savouring the heady atmosphere of Chelmsford yesterday afternoon.
Which laws and regulations make it like slavery?
Surely you're not going hyperbolic over following product standards and monitoring methods from the EU, right?
Because that would be bizarre - "Let people die; we have to have the right to call 'jam' whatever we want!"
And, of course, as has been pointed out loads of times - if the EU act in bad faith, we always have the inalienable right to unilateral revocation. Unless you posit actual armed conflict to make them comply with labelling strategies?
Johnson +19
Stewart +15
Raab + 5
Javid +5
Gove +4
Hunt +2
That would give:
Johnson 133
Hunt 45
Gove 41
Stewart 34
Raab 32
Javid 28
So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess.
The closest thing to free money, betting on England at 1.04 v Afghanistan.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.159349837
IDS 4th? The membership of Cons must be genuinely certifiable.
"So the last three on a knife edge, really. Could be one, two or three eliminated.
My guess is that Rory will do a bit better than that, and that Raab and Javid will do a little worse and be the goners, but it's just a guess."
If all but Boris get under 33 will they all be eliminated, thus crowning Boris? I`ve heard this said but believe it to be wrong. The rules say that a candidate needs 33 to enter next ballot. If there is no next ballot then the most popular two candidates rule will take priority I think.
Agree?
Churchill just from the history books.
Dave and John too euro friendly.
Johnson would be mad to deny himself momentum right now, so any nonsense like this will almost certainly not appear until Thursday's ballot at the earliest.
And hence the mess we're in.
https://order-order.com/2019/06/18/tory-members-rather-see-scotland-leave-party-destroyed-lose-brexit/
Not much time between that and the debate.
Unless you're Putin.
Iain Duncan Smith delivered a speech to the 2003 Tory party conference in Blackpool yesterday that was nasty, brutish and long. Inevitably, it went down well with the party faithful in the Winter Gardens. Looked at from almost every other perspective, however, it was a disgrace. With his critics closing in on him, the Conservative leader threw good judgment to the winds. It is hard to remember a conference speech by a major party leader which did less for public debate and which reflects so discreditably on the person who gave it.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/oct/10/futureforpublicservices.politics
Expectation management?
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1140933696029155328
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/17/boriss-superfast-broadband-promise-myth-reality/
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1140935217823342592
A 69 year old would have been 5 when Churchill stepped down.
This is all more to do with the current obsession with Brexit. They're hell bent on wanting to see it 'delivered' (think tractor-load of manure rather than pizza express) at all costs. So the perceived tough leaders will be raised aloft like the blessed monstrance during Solemn Benediction.
This poll maybe highlights the disconnect between Tory members from the liberal commentariat (not such a problem) and/or from the wider electorate (huge problem).
Gove?
Rather like football transfer rumours where everyone knows there's a huge amount of bullshit going round, but still thinks they personally can separate truth from fiction.
I wonder if Michael Gove will pull out after this one if it looks like he can't catch Hunt. Would seem little point carrying on. Stewart is a different matter. Can't see him quitting unless eliminated.
Stewart may just about double his number
Hunt will stagnate
Gove will stagnate or even slip
Raab will slip
Javid will slip
Boris will increase but in a very slightly disappointing kind of way: 130 or so, maybe just under. His supporters will claim he lent support.
So I think Hunt may just about beat Stewart to 2nd place, but only by about 5 votes
As I say, just for a bit of fun
It is a shame in a way because Gove was the most paradoxical candidate. He'd fronted the Leave campaign yet his declared supporters were from the Remain wing of the party.
I may be wrong. Maybe the Conservative members will consider Boris' record and refuse to vote for him. But as @HYUFD correctly points out, the polls say otherwise so I have to go with that.
But I'd agree its unlikely. Not like leadsom was their apparent
I fear I know what they'll do. As we see with leavers on here all the time, the mantra when anything goes wrong with their glorious project is: "It's all someone else's fault!"
For that reason, if Brexit turns out to be a big pile of crud, then it won't be their fault, or the fault of Brexit. It'll be Boris's fault or, more likely, the EU's fault for not doing what we wanted.
It's always someone else's fault.
Any time you're ready Winnie.
Edit: Boris ≠ Winston
They need to deliver a negotiated Brexit and I think Gove has the most chance (albeit still a slim one) of doing that.