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.
Not sure. Yes they need to deliver a negotiated Brexit but possibly before or soon after that they may need to win an election. No-one comes close to Boris as the person who, on current evidence, could deliver 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
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Not sure what happens with a result like this:
Boris 150+ Hunt 32 everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
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.
Stewart +15 suggests to me a fairly wholesale shunt of Hancock supporters to him. If he does that or better, then my hat is in the air... he'll have done well.
But despite the hype (as others have said, much of it from people not involved in this contest), I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall short.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Not sure what happens with a result like this:
Boris 150+ Hunt 32 everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
Boris wins by default, as there has at no point been just two candidates left.
The real question is what do you do if 15 candidates ran and all came below 33?
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.
Stewart +15 suggests to me a fairly wholesale shunt of Hancock supporters to him. If he does that or better, then my hat is in the air... he'll have done well.
But despite the hype (as others have said, much of it from people not involved in this contest), I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall short.
I'd expect most of Hancock's supporters to move to Rory.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Not sure what happens with a result like this:
Boris 150+ Hunt 32 everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
Boris wins by default, as there has at no point been just two candidates left.
The real question is what do you do if 15 candidates ran and all came below 33?
But the purpose of the 33 threshold wasn't to narrow the number of candidates down to just one and avoid a membership ballot, it was to quickly get the number down to 2, 3 or 4.
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.
Stewart +15 suggests to me a fairly wholesale shunt of Hancock supporters to him. If he does that or better, then my hat is in the air... he'll have done well.
But despite the hype (as others have said, much of it from people not involved in this contest), I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall short.
I am starting to think Stewart has been overhyped and will fall short. I doubt he'll come last, though we should recall that Raab was 8 MPs ahead of him in round 1.
I'm on Raab or Javid to come last and Hunt or Gove to be in the top 2. If Stewart gets 40+ MPs this time I'll be a bit worried, but otherwise I'm feeling good about it.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Not sure what happens with a result like this:
Boris 150+ Hunt 32 everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
Boris wins by default, as there has at no point been just two candidates left.
The real question is what do you do if 15 candidates ran and all came below 33?
But the purpose of the 33 threshold wasn't to narrow the number of candidates down to just one and avoid a membership ballot, it was to quickly get the number down to 2, 3 or 4.
Absolutely, but the purpose of a rule and the operation of it aren't the same thing. Look at Labour's rule to allow £3 members to vote. Designed to allow centrist candidates to recruit supporters and counterbalance the unions' influence which might drag the party left.
I wouldn't be surprised if the result is delayed at 6pm due to so many candidates being on about 32 or 33 votes. A full recount of all 313 votes may be necessary.
Rory Stewart surprised a lot of us first time around with how many votes he gained from declared backers, I worry we are now all assuming he'll do it again. In fairness, he's had as good a few days in between as he can have hoped for. Hancock dropping out, Lidington endorsing, strong debate performance, lots of good media coverage. It's both remarkable that he could lose with all that, and remarkable that he could make it to 33 MPs given his approach to Brexit.
Perhaps leave should have been clear about what leave meant before the referendum. But they weren't, because they wanted to win.
This. So much this.
A few things were clear.
We take control of our laws, leave the ECJ, control migration and control our expenditure.
I thought that under the terms of any deal with India sub-continental migration was likely to increase?
You might like to tell @Tykejohnno that, although he's smart enough to have worked it out for himself by now. As I believe I have pointed out previously (and possibly before the referendum?), "control" is not a synonym for "prevent"...
This is the weirdest attack line. For starters, the Tory MPs and membership hardly go in for diversity in recruitment - the obvious comeback of 'We should just have the two best candidates regardless of background' couldn't have a better audience?
But also, it's one thing to criticise the lack of diversity as an outsider. It's another thing to do it when your campaign is half of the lack! If Boris is so worried about the number of Etonians in senior Tory roles he is able to quit.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Not sure what happens with a result like this:
Boris 150+ Hunt 32 everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
Boris wins by default, as there has at no point been just two candidates left.
The real question is what do you do if 15 candidates ran and all came below 33?
You start again.
That could only happen if the party divided almost perfectly into fifteen equal parts at the first round too, so none were eliminated then.
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
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.
Stewart +15 suggests to me a fairly wholesale shunt of Hancock supporters to him. If he does that or better, then my hat is in the air... he'll have done well.
But despite the hype (as others have said, much of it from people not involved in this contest), I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall short.
Didn't Rory say that he was confident he had enough to get over the threshold?
I agree. If Gove gets knocked out today and Rory goes through, Gove would indeed endorse Rory IMO.
I guess it would depend on which is his stronger desire - to damage Johnson or to have a big job in cabinet.
Personally I am hoping that he makes the run off. Why? Because I am looking for somebody to possibly upset the odds and beat Johnson (rather than simply giving him a hard time in the hustings).
In this regard Michael Gove (IMO) is the only one with a sniff.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Not sure what happens with a result like this:
Boris 150+ Hunt 32 everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
Boris wins by default, as there has at no point been just two candidates left.
The real question is what do you do if 15 candidates ran and all came below 33?
You start again.
That could only happen if the party divided almost perfectly into fifteen equal parts at the first round too, so none were eliminated then.
True, and it would be hilarious to see who stood again. Presumably there would be pressure on some of the 15 to not stand so the split couldn't be repeated - but who would stand down when everyone had been so close?
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
It was not inevitable had leavers got behind the government from the beginning, their deal would have been accepted by parliament and people generally. Back then I was prepared to accept it myself, with a bit of grumbling, as my posts at the time will show. But in trashing their own side's deal and inflicting upon us a year of political chaos, they have turned the centre ground against them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the result is delayed at 6pm due to so many candidates being on about 32 or 33 votes. A full recount of all 313 votes may be necessary.
Even a full recount of 313 votes will not take long. And with this electorate you dont expect many ballot papers to be spoilt with penis doodles. Although, ... , maybe one of the front running candidates might!
... 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.
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
It was not inevitable had leavers got behind the government from the beginning, their deal would have been accepted by parliament and people generally. Back then I was prepared to accept it myself, with a bit of grumbling, as my posts at the time will show. But in trashing their own side's deal and inflicting upon us a year of political chaos, they have turned the centre ground against them.
The centre ground voted for the Brexit Party first in the European Parliament elections and give a the Brexit Party the lead in the latest Yougov.
It was mainly Remain MPs who voted against May's Deal, most Leave MPs voted for it
Afghanistan were 20/1 at the start of play today which was silly. They're now 170/1 which is closer to what it should have been to begin with in my opinion.
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.
And hence the mess we're in.
No. The voters voted to leave the EU.
By that I mean "no longer be a member of the European Union".
Everything else is up for grabs - or, more properly, should be up to the executive to negotiate. We have no other indication from the voters.
So his father wants Boris to drop out. How noble ....
He probably does. Stanley doesn't believe Boris is sincere in his views on Europe, that much is obvious. Amazes me that so many Brexit supporting Boris followers are so gullible that they don't question it. Actually thinking about it, Brexit supporters...gullibility....mmm...maybe not amazing after all.
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
The referendum was won by whipping up untrue fears that large numbers of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Remainers rightly had no part of any post-referendum settlement that sought to sidestep that.
The manner of victory was as important as the fact of victory, the point that the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers still have not grasped.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Not sure what happens with a result like this:
Boris 150+ Hunt 32 everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
Boris wins by default, as there has at no point been just two candidates left.
The real question is what do you do if 15 candidates ran and all came below 33?
You start again.
That could only happen if the party divided almost perfectly into fifteen equal parts at the first round too, so none were eliminated then.
True, and it would be hilarious to see who stood again. Presumably there would be pressure on some of the 15 to not stand so the split couldn't be repeated - but who would stand down when everyone had been so close?
Isn't it like giving way to your right on roundabouts where there are cars at every juncture?
Doesn't work in theory but in practice it does. Unless it's very very busy and then you need traffic lights.
Afghanistan were 20/1 at the start of play today which was silly. They're now 170/1 which is closer to what it should have been to begin with in my opinion.
The number of empty seats is appalling. Was talking to someone (at Essex ground) on Sunday who said he'd applied for several tickets very early and everywhere was sold out!
Most EU "laws" relate to trade. If we have a FTA (remember that thing that Brexiteers said was going to be easy?) "we" (really meaning business) will need to abide by pretty much all of them. We just won't have any say in them. Brexit is moronic and pointless. Period.
Afghanistan were 20/1 at the start of play today which was silly. They're now 170/1 which is closer to what it should have been to begin with in my opinion.
The number of empty seats is appalling. Was talking to someone (at Essex ground) on Sunday who said he'd applied for several tickets very early and everywhere was sold out!
Yesterday we booked tickets for West Indies v New Zealand at Old Trafford on Saturday. There weren't many tickets available on the website but I suspect when we actually get there it'll be half empty. I'm not sure if agencies are buying up the tickets for some reason.
Anecdote time. I only know one Tory party member well enough to ask his take on the leadership. He's a pretty hardline remainer so I was assuming he'd be backing Stewart but he's going for Johnson. "With all the other candidates you are voting to lose then next election badly. With Johnson he'll probably lose the next election disasterously. But you never know. There's a slim chance he'll do something unexpected that turns the tables. And I quite like bridges - he must be able to get at least one built."
Thanx. I am just genuinely intrigued , and that is interesting. Does anyone know whether there were any surveys of members in advance of Cameron's victory? I may be clutching at straws but I seem to remember everyone thought old lazyboy Davis was going to walk 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.
I think the Tory membership will like what they see when they get to know him
Head to head polling will be materially different to what we have at the moment with (IIRC) >60% DK
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.
And hence the mess we're in.
No. The voters voted to leave the EU.
By that I mean "no longer be a member of the European Union".
Everything else is up for grabs - or, more properly, should be up to the executive to negotiate. We have no other indication from the voters.
Anecdote time. I only know one Tory party member well enough to ask his take on the leadership. He's a pretty hardline remainer so I was assuming he'd be backing Stewart but he's going for Johnson. "With all the other candidates you are voting to lose then next election badly. With Johnson he'll probably lose the next election disasterously. But you never know. There's a slim chance he'll do something unexpected that turns the tables. And I quite like bridges - he must be able to get at least one built."
Interesting anecdote. I am a Tory party member (still) and I will vote for any of the existing candidates that are against Johnson other than Raab. If it were a choice between those two I will spoil the ballot paper.
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
It was not inevitable had leavers got behind the government from the beginning, their deal would have been accepted by parliament and people generally. Back then I was prepared to accept it myself, with a bit of grumbling, as my posts at the time will show. But in trashing their own side's deal and inflicting upon us a year of political chaos, they have turned the centre ground against them.
ERG =/= Leavers.
But if you limit your point to Baker's Merrie Men then you are quite right.
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
It was not inevitable had leavers got behind the government from the beginning, their deal would have been accepted by parliament and people generally. Back then I was prepared to accept it myself, with a bit of grumbling, as my posts at the time will show. But in trashing their own side's deal and inflicting upon us a year of political chaos, they have turned the centre ground against them.
The centre ground voted for the Brexit Party first in the European Parliament elections and give a the Brexit Party the lead in the latest Yougov.
It was mainly Remain MPs who voted against May's Deal, most Leave MPs voted for it
Not even up to your usual half-baked standard, Mr HY.
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.
I think the Tory membership will like what they see when they get to know him
Head to head polling will be materially different to what we have at the moment with (IIRC) >60% DK
Agreed. There is a large part of the membership that are dogmatic, but also a large part that are not. A hard fought campaign that exposes Johnson's many flaws, lies and contradictions may make it a bit closer than many think.
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
It was not inevitable had leavers got behind the government from the beginning, their deal would have been accepted by parliament and people generally. Back then I was prepared to accept it myself, with a bit of grumbling, as my posts at the time will show. But in trashing their own side's deal and inflicting upon us a year of political chaos, they have turned the centre ground against them.
ERG =/= Leavers.
But if you limit your point to Baker's Merrie Men then you are quite right.
"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.
It's always someone else's fault.
If I understand @Charles ' post this morning we wouldn't be in this mess if Remainers had not conspired to prevent leaving. "Failing and blaming" is a ready-made alibi: we've been hearing little else for the past three years and we will be hearing more of it in years to come.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Not quite. I argued:
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
The referendum was won by whipping up untrue fears that large numbers of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Remainers rightly had no part of any post-referendum settlement that sought to sidestep that.
The manner of victory was as important as the fact of victory, the point that the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers still have not grasped.
I refer you to my footnote when I posted this argument originally.
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.
And hence the mess we're in.
No. The voters voted to leave the EU.
By that I mean "no longer be a member of the European Union".
Everything else is up for grabs - or, more properly, should be up to the executive to negotiate. We have no other indication from the voters.
Tell that to the ERG.
They're not talking to me. Ever since I explained that even Hunt would be a better choice for PM than Raab or Johnson.
Thinking that where people live doesn't mean anything is a new way of looking at things ?
But is there no construction boom between Newcastle and Berwick ?
There's certainly one in the equivalent areas in Yorkshire - perhaps it will reach the North-East in a year or two.
Still it might be interesting to compare the proportionate sizes of a city, its surrounding conurbation and the surrounding industrial / rural / commuter belt.
I suspect that Newcastle / Tyneside might be more population concentrated than the equivalent areas in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands.
My whole argument is about investment in local areas. Plenty of very wealthy people who work and benefit from investment in London live in Essex, Surrey, Kent, etc. Same in the North East.
There's thousands of homes being built in North Tyneside, Newcastle, Cramlington etc, yes but in terms of infrastructure, the construction boom is really in Newcastle City Centre only. Offices, technology centres, high-end residential skyscrapers, new sport facilities, new bars and restaurants...
And that's my point. The London resentment happens on a small scale too, between outlying towns and regional capitals. How do you solve that?
There's always been a concentration of construction in the big cities and you can trace that back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
I'm not sure people resent that as long as they receive the infrastructure investment which helps them also in local schools and other public services and transport routes which are useful to them.
I appreciate that, but isn't the problem for those who live in towns that are too far away from these 'regional capitals' to really benefit? Where the transport links, compared to Greater London, are god awful? Where the wages are pathetic, and jobs poor.
For example, where I live in Newcastle, a 3 bedroom semi will go for around 200k. Less than 15 miles away the same house might cost half as much.
But wages 15 miles away are a lot more than half as much.
And while some people might not like living in small towns or remote rural areas other people do and one of the advantage of this country is that there is a variety of locations to suit your own lifestyle preferences without needing to go multi hundreds of miles in relocation.
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Question: if one and only one MP gets fewer than 33 votes, do ALL of others progress? In other words, last place is absolute, not last-place-above-33, right?
Yes, all MPs on under 33 get knocked out. IF, and only if, all get 33 or more then last place gets knocked out. From the next ballot onwards it is simply last place who goes. So if one MP gets under 33 then they get knocked out and everyone else is fine.
Anecdote time. I only know one Tory party member well enough to ask his take on the leadership. He's a pretty hardline remainer so I was assuming he'd be backing Stewart but he's going for Johnson. "With all the other candidates you are voting to lose then next election badly. With Johnson he'll probably lose the next election disasterously. But you never know. There's a slim chance he'll do something unexpected that turns the tables. And I quite like bridges - he must be able to get at least one built."
Interesting anecdote. I am a Tory party member (still) and I will vote for any of the existing candidates that are against Johnson other than Raab. If it were a choice between those two I will spoil the ballot paper.
I'm reminded that this is the same party that selected Jeffrey Archer for the Mayor of London ... they are totally doomed
Comments
Both will be stopped of course, so maybe the difference doesn't matter.
In the referendum there were two fates I wished to avoid: the Irish fate, where independence was followed by years of internecine conflict and pointless hatred of Britain, and the Singapore fate, which is geared towards servicing international business instead of the needs of its people. But it seems I will be disappointed in at least one case.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Boris 150+
Hunt 32
everyone else below 32
Do we still have a members ballot between Boris and Hunt, or is Boris declared the overall winner?
But despite the hype (as others have said, much of it from people not involved in this contest), I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall short.
Boris also beats Hunt 72% to 26% while Boris beats Gove 69% to 26%.
Boris beats Javid 69% to 27% and he beats Raab 69% to 19%
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/next-tory-leader-run-offs-johnson-tops-them-javid-improves-his-position-and-stewart-is-bottom.html
The real question is what do you do if 15 candidates ran and all came below 33?
I'm on Raab or Javid to come last and Hunt or Gove to be in the top 2. If Stewart gets 40+ MPs this time I'll be a bit worried, but otherwise I'm feeling good about it.
We take control of our laws, leave the ECJ, control migration and control our expenditure.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1140933244256509952?s=20
He'd just give an an address to Darius Guppy along with an :innocentface:
You can get 4.1 on England reaching 380 runs.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.159349840
Certainly is if Boris lends him a bundle of votes.
But also, it's one thing to criticise the lack of diversity as an outsider. It's another thing to do it when your campaign is half of the lack! If Boris is so worried about the number of Etonians in senior Tory roles he is able to quit.
That could only happen if the party divided almost perfectly into fifteen equal parts at the first round too, so none were eliminated then.
(a) if Remainers had swung behind a "damage limitation strategy" for Brexit then we would likely have ended up in a better place - probably EFTA or Norway+ - as they would have been able to team up with the moderate Leavers. Instead they took a firm position, lost the moderate leavers, etc etc
(b) If they had teamed up and we had ended up in exactly the same place as we have today, they would have a better argument that "we tried really hard and it's awful, do you want to think again?". At the moment all they have is "we dug our heels in and did our best to screw the whole thing up and we've succeeded. Do you want to think again?".
It's not trying to blame anyone specifically - it was part of a debate as to whether the current situation was inevitable or not.
He was right the last time he said that.
Personally I am hoping that he makes the run off. Why? Because I am looking for somebody to possibly upset the odds and beat Johnson (rather than simply giving him a hard time in the hustings).
In this regard Michael Gove (IMO) is the only one with a sniff.
It was mainly Remain MPs who voted against May's Deal, most Leave MPs voted for it
By that I mean "no longer be a member of the European Union".
Everything else is up for grabs - or, more properly, should be up to the executive to negotiate. We have no other indication from the voters.
I suggest you look up the difference between an EU Directive and an EU Regulation.
The manner of victory was as important as the fact of victory, the point that the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers still have not grasped.
Doesn't work in theory but in practice it does. Unless it's very very busy and then you need traffic lights.
As it stands, it is nonsense.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead
For something quite well informed, this article is good:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105
Most EU "laws" relate to trade. If we have a FTA (remember that thing that Brexiteers said was going to be easy?) "we" (really meaning business) will need to abide by pretty much all of them. We just won't have any say in them. Brexit is moronic and pointless. Period.
Head to head polling will be materially different to what we have at the moment with (IIRC) >60% DK
But if you limit your point to Baker's Merrie Men then you are quite right.
new thread
(sadly after Hunt had left!)
And while some people might not like living in small towns or remote rural areas other people do and one of the advantage of this country is that there is a variety of locations to suit your own lifestyle preferences without needing to go multi hundreds of miles in relocation.
Good