There is a lot of talk about Jacob Rees Mogg becoming prime minister after Theresa May.
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
I'm not convinced. The pressure to put JRM in the final two may be too much.
I think Tory MPs won’t put him on the ballot - there are other leavers like Gove or Boris who would be preferred.
But JRM is going to find the Brexit transition intolerable. He can’t keep blaming faceless civil servants. At some point he will have to either call for May to go, leave the Tory party or just be a big hypocrite.
Unless I’ve missed something.
Next week could be interesting. Crucial 2 hour Cabinet on EU trade terms iirc.
I think that is the point I am making, there is an age at which old people become incapable in the same way we consider children to be incapable. Obviously we can all point to exclusions at either end of the age spectrum but if we are saying, as seems to be the case with jury service, that ones judgement starts to be impaired beyond the age of 75 them restricting the right to be involved in certain professions or making judgemental decisions such as voting would appear to be reasonable. The company I worked for told me at the age of 59 that they were making me redundant because "I was blocking the promotion path for younger people" (I was an engineer). Clearly a 75 year old MP is doing likewise and is beyond their "shelf life".
Well, I'm 68 on Monday and doing two jobs that most people would think full-time, so I have a dog in the fight. I think that age is a very rough approximation of capability, and barriers based on age are lazy thinking. Companies nowadays can't say "You're 65 so we have to lose you, sorry about that", they have to say "We feel you're no longer as good as you were", which is more hurtful but also fairer.
I don't personally favour age limits on voting either way. I doubt if many 12 year old or 110 year olds want to vote, but if they do, I don't see solid evidence that they're necessarily less competent than the average 50 year old, or some ethical reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a say. A minimum test (e.g. "Can you name two political parties?") might be more appropriate.
@NickPalmer 's comment was made at 0928 this morning, so I'm well behind in reading the thread.
I hope somebody at some time has already pointed out that there are no qualifications needed to achieve a vote?
I have many friends with severe learning disabilities and those aged 18 or over are all eligible to vote. Whether they do so or not I have never enquired.
The hard left hve long made common cause with various communist and Islamist dictatorships around the world, from Corbyn on down. I don't see why anyone should be surprised that they are already purging those that are insufficiently loyal to the cause.
What is surprising how most of the centre left hve gone along with it. Apparently, it's more outrageous to want the UK to set its own tariff regime than to have been paid by the regime of the Ayatollahs. The average Labour supporter has shown themselves to be as partisan and venal as the average Republican under Trump.
I think that is the point I am making, there is an age at which old people become incapable in the same way we consider children to be incapable. Obviously we can all point to exclusions at either end of the age spectrum but if we are saying, as seems to be the case with jury service, that ones judgement starts to be impaired beyond the age of 75 them restricting the right to be involved in certain professions or making judgemental decisions such as voting would appear to be reasonable. The company I worked for told me at the age of 59 that they were making me redundant because "I was blocking the promotion path for younger people" (I was an engineer). Clearly a 75 year old MP is doing likewise and is beyond their "shelf life".
Well, I'm 68 on Monday and doing two jobs that most people would think full-time, so I have a dog in the fight. I think that age is a very rough approximation of capability, and barriers based on age are lazy thinking. Companies nowadays can't say "You're 65 so we have to lose you, sorry about that", they have to say "We feel you're no longer as good as you were", which is more hurtful but also fairer.
I don't personally favour age limits on voting either way. I doubt if many 12 year old or 110 year olds want to vote, but if they do, I don't see solid evidence that they're necessarily less competent than the average 50 year old, or some ethical reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a say. A minimum test (e.g. "Can you name two political parties?") might be more appropriate.
@NickPalmer 's comment was made at 0928 this morning, so I'm well behind in reading the thread.
I hope somebody at some time has already pointed out that there are no qualifications needed to achieve a vote?
I have many friends with severe learning disabilities and those aged 18 or over are all eligible to vote. Whether they do so or not I have never enquired.
Good evening, everybody.
Given that we allow people who are gaga to vote - Gyles Brandreth said so, anyway - I think at least some 14 year olds would be more competent. We allow random adults to sit on juries after all which is a pretty responsible job.
Incidentally, I'm surprised there's not more discussion here of Northants County Council becoming insolvent.
Why not allow counties to run their own budgets, issue bonds and raise a local income tax if they don't like raising it all from council tax (regressive) and business rates? Other countries do.
You distinguish between a re-run of 2016 and 'a ratification of the A50 deal'. I doubt anyone wants the former (re-run). (a) in the current climate, such a referendum seems bound to inspire renewed hostility. Leave “won”. So Leave voters might think that a second referendum was being held by powers gunning against them to try to ensure that their will should not prevail. (b) One doesn't want people to consider whether they've changed their mind, but to find out what, in their opinion now that he nature of Brexit has become clearer, the right answer has come to be. As for the latter (ratification). This rules it out that people should have changed their view of whether we should leave the EU. Such a referendum is a Brexiteer's dream. If there were to be a point in holding another referendum, it would have to proceed from where the government had then got to. And many would think that the options should be: (a) Accept the deal. (b) Reject the deal. (c) Remain in the EU. (Maybe S.T.V. would be needed.) The Briefing paper for the EU Ref Bill speaks of that referendum as a type which "enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions". (I take it that that's what's meant when it was said in debate that the referendum was "advisory only'".) It may well be that opinion polling would suggest that option (c) ought to be included. (It can't be the intention that the Government be influenced by 2+-year-old opinion.)
I think that your remarks on timing serve to show that it is URGENT for those who've advocated a second referendum should be clear WHAT IS MEANT by "another / second referendum" AND GET ON WITH IT. (I've suggested that it would be better if they didn't mean either of the things you distinguish.)
Comments
https://twitter.com/MaryRiddell/status/959730957745090560
I hope somebody at some time has already pointed out that there are no qualifications needed to achieve a vote?
I have many friends with severe learning disabilities and those aged 18 or over are all eligible to vote. Whether they do so or not I have never enquired.
Good evening, everybody.
What is surprising how most of the centre left hve gone along with it. Apparently, it's more outrageous to want the UK to set its own tariff regime than to have been paid by the regime of the Ayatollahs. The average Labour supporter has shown themselves to be as partisan and venal as the average Republican under Trump.
Incidentally, I'm surprised there's not more discussion here of Northants County Council becoming insolvent.
Why not allow counties to run their own budgets, issue bonds and raise a local income tax if they don't like raising it all from council tax (regressive) and business rates? Other countries do.
I doubt anyone wants the former (re-run). (a) in the current climate, such a referendum seems bound to inspire renewed hostility. Leave “won”. So Leave voters might think that a second referendum was being held by powers gunning against them to try to ensure that their will should not prevail. (b) One doesn't want people to consider whether they've changed their mind, but to find out what, in their opinion now that he nature of Brexit has become clearer, the right answer has come to be.
As for the latter (ratification). This rules it out that people should have changed their view of whether we should leave the EU. Such a referendum is a Brexiteer's dream.
If there were to be a point in holding another referendum, it would have to proceed from where the government had then got to. And many would think that the options should be:
(a) Accept the deal. (b) Reject the deal. (c) Remain in the EU. (Maybe S.T.V. would be needed.)
The Briefing paper for the EU Ref Bill speaks of that referendum as a type which "enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions". (I take it that that's what's meant when it was said in debate that the referendum was "advisory only'".) It may well be that opinion polling would suggest that option (c) ought to be included. (It can't be the intention that the Government be influenced by 2+-year-old opinion.)
I think that your remarks on timing serve to show that it is URGENT for those who've advocated a second referendum should be clear WHAT IS MEANT by "another / second referendum" AND GET ON WITH IT. (I've suggested that it would be better if they didn't mean either of the things you distinguish.)