Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Apparently tonight's Cheltenham hustings had its start delayed by 15 minutes to accommodate the large number of people attending, so I'll presume these things are still popular with Conservative party members.
They wanted to put out as many deckchairs as possible and then see which of the two candidates was better at re-arranging them prior to appointing a Captain of the S.S. Great Britain 2 to take charge and crash us into the submerged icy housing estate full of bodies of those who couldn't afford their heating bills.
Actually, what it does show imo is that Truss is by no means home and dry as the 'natural heiress to Johnson's legacy' that the Express, Mail and Sun have been so busy to mythologise about. Even the BBC, on which Evan Davis gave an opinion that Truss appeared almost certain to be the new leader before a single ballot paper had gone out, have been reporting so many 'don't knows' from Tory members attending the hustings, both before and after, and others seemingly changing their minds in both directions. It could be a case of Sunak getting support from some who prefer not to advertise the fact. Don't forget either that males outnumber females by two to one in the membership.
One thing membership votes add is givine people across the entire country a say in the process. If you had the leader chosen only by the Parliamentary Party then all the parts of the country that have few or no MPs for that party would have no say at all. Would you want - say - a Labour leader elected only by London and the inner cities? And imagine how that would work for LibDem leadership elections! Or Green party leadership elections with their one MP! (although I realise you were possibly excluding smaller parties from your suggestion).
I agree, I am troubled with the argument that Labour or Tory members should have no say whatsoever which seems to becoming mainly from certain elitist journalists plus various twitter obsessives.
I do think think Conservative leadership elections could be easily reformed to get down to two candidates straight away by using Single Transferable Vote though which would make a lot more sense as well as speeding things up plus stopping MPs gaming the different rounds.
I agree, I am troubled with the argument that Labour or Tory members should have no say whatsoever which seems to becoming mainly from certain elitist journalists plus various twitter obsessives.
I do think think Conservative leadership elections could be easily reformed to get down to two candidates straight away by using Single Transferable Vote though which would make a lot more sense as well as speeding things up plus stopping MPs gaming the different rounds.
I think if you had the MPs voting in a single round you’d want to have some length of time before that vote for the candidates to make their pitch. Although there was a bit of manoeuvring before nominations opened, some of the candidates were developing their positions during the voting. So I don’t think that would save time if you still wanted a decent contest.
Maybe it would have been better to extend the MP section but then shorten the wider party part as members should have seen the campaigns earlier?
Why would you expect a say at this stage? I wouldn't feel at all put out if Labour had a leadership election and, as a non-member, I had no say in their choice. It seems to me that's broadly how our democracy works: Each party works out for itself what it will offer you (policies, philosophy, leader, etc.) and then come the next general election you decide which offering you like the most - which is when you get your say.
(Image says: Rick Astley for Prime Minister. He will NEVER
Give you up
Let you down
Run around
Desert you
Make you cry
Say goodbye
Tell a lie
Hurt you)
The Tory party does have the look of being asleep at the wheel at the moment.
Poor old Jim Callaghan was only away at a summit when he got saddled with the "crisis what crisis" tag. Spending weeks on end on a contest during a major crisis doesn't look good.
The Tory party does have the look of being asleep at the wheel at the moment.
Poor old Jim Callaghan was only away at a summit when he got saddled with the "crisis what crisis" tag. Spending weeks on end on a contest during a major crisis doesn't look good.
Why would you expect a say at this stage? I wouldn't feel at all put out if Labour had a leadership election and, as a non-member, I had no say in their choice. It seems to me that's broadly how our democracy works: Each party works out for itself what it will offer you (policies, philosophy, leader, etc.) and then come the next general election you decide which offering you like the most - which is when you get your say.
As what it actually does is give a narrow subset of people a say in the process. For the Tories it tends to be older, whiter and wealthier people often living in more rural areas or smaller towns whilst for Labour it's typically younger, more ethnically diverse and poorer people typically living in more urban areas. It certainly isn't people across the entire country.
And for the avoidance of doubt I feel as fed up of Tory leadership campaigns as I have done and will do of future Labour leadership campaigns. A pox on both their houses!
I don't particularly but then forgive me but I don't think it's quite accurate to suggest that leadership elections give:
As what it actually does is give a narrow subset of people a say in the process. For the Tories it tends to be older, whiter and wealthier people often living in more rural areas or smaller towns whilst for Labour it's typically younger, more ethnically diverse and poorer people typically living in more urban areas. It certainly isn't people across the entire country.
And for the avoidance of doubt I feel as fed up of Tory leadership campaigns as I have done and will do of future Labour leadership campaigns. A pox on both their houses!
Another problem with allowing members to decide a new party leader is it allows unwanted interference without stringent rules. There is common belief/acceptance that a number of Tories joined the Labour membership just to get Corbyn in, seeing him as an easy opponent. There have also been reports that a group called "Conservatives Abroad" are allowed to vote in the leadership election, despite not consisting of UK voters, which makes that election susceptible to foreign interference, something that surprisingly was reported in the Express:
CONSERVATIVE Party Co-Chairman Andrew Stevenson has been grilled over a leadership election loophole that allows Tory members not registered as UK citizens to vote for Britain's next Prime Minister
www.express.co.uk
Members of the "Conservatives Abroad" party membership group are entitled to vote under the Tory party rules in the incoming leadership contest between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. According to the Conservative party rulebook, anyone signed up as a "Conservative Abroad" do not have to be a registered voter or even a UK citizen.
Another problem with allowing members to decide a new party leader is it allows unwanted interference without stringent rules. There is common belief/acceptance that a number of Tories joined the Labour membership just to get Corbyn in, seeing him as an easy opponent. There have also been reports that a group called "Conservatives Abroad" are allowed to vote in the leadership election, despite not consisting of UK voters, which makes that election susceptible to foreign interference, something that surprisingly was reported in the Express:
CONSERVATIVE Party Co-Chairman Andrew Stevenson has been grilled over a leadership election loophole that allows Tory members not registered as UK citizens to vote for Britain's next Prime Minister
As what it actually does is give a narrow subset of people a say in the process. For the Tories it tends to be older, whiter and wealthier people often living in more rural areas or smaller towns whilst for Labour it's typically younger, more ethnically diverse and poorer people typically living in more urban areas. It certainly isn't people across the entire country.
When I said, across the entire country, I meant geographically. Of course, no Labour supporters get to vote in Tory leadership elections and vice versa. But what having the entire membership vote means is that you are getting voters in all geographical areas. Taking Labour as an example (because their vote tends to more geographically concentrated so I think it gives a better illustration): If you had only Labour MPs voting, then there would be almost no voices from rural areas, from medium-sized towns, from the South of England outside London, or from Scotland, having a say in the process, so you could end up with the leadership election taking place in any absence of consideration of the needs of those areas (You can imagine the reaction of Scotland to an election with almost no Scottish votes!). By allowing all members a say, it means that there are votes coming from geographical parts of the country (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland). Sure, they are likely to be demographically skewed towards the kinds of people who support each party, but it will probably be less skewed than if you only allow MPs to vote.
Though in practice there is a need for the leader to be acceptable to MPs too. Both Labour and the Conservatives address this to some extent, by having MPs whittle down the choice of candidates before the members vote (in Labour's case, by requiring nominations by a certain number of MPs).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Another problem with allowing members to decide a new party leader is it allows unwanted interference without stringent rules. There is common belief/acceptance that a number of Tories joined the Labour membership just to get Corbyn in, seeing him as an easy opponent.
That's not a problem with allowing members to vote. It was a problem for Labour because they decided to allow non-members to vote, by paying a small fee to register temporarily as a supporter. (and to be fair to Labour, it was a well-meaning attempt to broaden the franchise) More awkwardly, if I recall correctly, when Corbyn first became leader, they allowed people to register to do so after it became known that a leadership election was happening.
Liz Truss is now going on about the civil service being "beset by creeping antisemitism" and things with the word "woke" in them, the latter I don't have a clue what she's trying to say unless it's that civil servants have to go on diversity courses.
I was a civil servant for 7 years and I don't recognise this; the part of the civil service I was in was ineptly managed, went out of its way to avoid public scrutiny and wasted taxpayers' money, but it wasn't anti-semitic or "woke".
She seems to have it in for the people who have to implement her policies, which seems rather a strange thing to do. The people who have to do the hard work in "delivering" Universal Credit, or whatever the latest government wheeze might be, are often overworked and underpaid, and many of them do as good a job as they can do under difficult circumstances not of their own making. But Liz Truss seems to want to fling opprobrium at them, presumably because it sits well with her current electorate. The civil servants who make up a substantial number of voters in her "red wall" seats aren't going to like it, though. Maybe she's hoping they'll have forgotten by the time of the next election?
Of course, she's already said that they're overpaid, especially those who don't live in London.
Liz Truss is now going on about the civil service being "beset by creeping antisemitism" and things with the word "woke" in them, the latter I don't have a clue what she's trying to say unless it's that civil servants have to go on diversity courses.
I was a civil servant for 7 years and I don't recognise this; the part of the civil service I was in was ineptly managed, went out of its way to avoid public scrutiny and wasted taxpayers' money, but it wasn't anti-semitic or "woke".
Can she provide hard evidence that the civil service has a strong anti-semitic element? Has there been an official investigation?
If not, could the civil service threaten legal action unless she withdraws her allegations or mounts an official investigation? This is a very serious allegation and she needs to substantiate it if she is throwing around extremely strong allegations such as this.
And if she's rabbiting on about "wokeness", quite frankly she can go to hell. People with "woke" views need to be listened to just as much as "her type" of people.
And it's all a bit rich coming from a former Lib Dem who, in 1994, when she was an adult, seemed to want to channel the 1977 edition of John Lydon. I suppose that Lydon, like herself, appears to have drifted significantly rightwards in recent years, if his public support of Trump is anything to go by.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The civil servants who make up a substantial number of voters in her "red wall" seats aren't going to like it, though. Maybe she's hoping they'll have forgotten by the time of the next election?
Of course, she's already said that they're overpaid, especially those who don't live in London.
And "Britannia Unchained" and its "UK workers are lazy" message needs to be brought up again of course by Labour, in addition to the above.
Labour have so much they could use against Truss. Just hope they get their act together. The division in UK society is only going to increase under her right-wing quasi-populist rubbish.
And "Britannia Unchained" and its "UK workers are lazy" message needs to be brought up again of course by Labour, in addition to the above.
Labour have so much they could use against Truss. Just hope they get their act together. The division in UK society is only going to increase under her right-wing quasi-populist rubbish.
It's almost as if Starmer was a stooge placed there by Conservative Central Office. Labour couldn't win a penalty shoot-out even if there was no opposing goalkeeper. It's getting more than frustrating.
Are you seriously suggesting that out of about 160,000 people, the votes might be cast in such a way that both candidates receive an identically equal number of votes?
PS Because if you are, I'd like to know what odds you'll offer me for this not to happen.
Truss has now also been accused of stereotyping Jews, possibly in the same speech as she criticised the civil-servants. She seems to be going for a clean sweep of groups to insult.
Truss has now also been accused of stereotyping Jews, possibly in the same speech as she criticised the civil-servants. She seems to be going for a clean sweep of groups to insult.
She can't open her mouth without insulting someone, but it's insulting our intelligence I can't stomach. No wonder Dorries (shortly to be Baroness Dorries of Nirvana, or something similar) is a cheerleader.
It's almost as if Starmer was a stooge placed there by Conservative Central Office. Labour couldn't win a penalty shoot-out even if there was no opposing goalkeeper. It's getting more than frustrating.
I'm just hoping Starmer and Labour are playing some clever long game.
Don't say anything until the winner is announced, in case they place the bet on the wrong horse, so to speak.
Certainly, the time to "go for" Truss is not now. Even less so given it's summer and many people are on holiday and not paying attention. It's if and when she becomes PM that they need to launch the offensive.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
She can't open her mouth without insulting someone, but it's insulting our intelligence I can't stomach. No wonder Dorries (shortly to be Baroness Dorries of Nirvana, or something similar) is a cheerleader.
Truss has now also been accused of stereotyping Jews, possibly in the same speech as she criticised the civil-servants. She seems to be going for a clean sweep of groups to insult.
Truss has now also been accused of stereotyping Jews, possibly in the same speech as she criticised the civil-servants. She seems to be going for a clean sweep of groups to insult.
My understanding of why was because they had difficulty in obtaining employment elsewhere because of prejudice (both here, and elsewhere in Europe). I must admit I more readily associate that stereotype with certain other minorities in this country (probably for much the same reason). I also remember the expression that Napoleon I used to refer to the English.
She also went on to:
"So many Jewish values are Conservative values and British values too, for example, seeing the importance of family and always taking steps to protect the family unit; and the value of hard work and self-starting and setting up your own business," she said.
"The British Jewish community is incredibly proud of this country and so are Conservatives."
I spent half my working life working with those from ethnic minorities and can assure Ms Truss that this applies to families across the whole range of ethnicities. She might also want to consider how some of her colleagues are demonstrating their 'British values' by hiving off some of their wealth to tax havens.
She can't open her mouth without insulting someone, but it's insulting our intelligence I can't stomach. No wonder Dorries (shortly to be Baroness Dorries of Nirvana, or something similar) is a cheerleader.
It's almost as if Starmer was a stooge placed there by Conservative Central Office. Labour couldn't win a penalty shoot-out even if there was no opposing goalkeeper. It's getting more than frustrating.
I wonder if Labour are doing the wisest thing by keeping quiet. If your enemy is fighting internally and making blunder after blunder, don’t give them any opportunity to unify by turning on you. If they do nonetheless turn on you, it is likely that the public will think, “Boring! We’ve heard all that before.”
I wonder if Labour are doing the wisest thing by keeping quiet. If your enemy is fighting internally and making blunder after blunder, don’t give them any opportunity to unify by turning on you. If they do nonetheless turn on you, it is likely that the public will think, “Boring! We’ve heard all that before.”
If Labour had a 15-20% lead in the opinion polls, I might think ''ok, so long as you hold onto that lead, it might be prudent to keep a low key'' but, as it not only doesn't but appears to be losing ground, it shows a lack of political intelligence and tone deafness when national economic calamity is almost certain in the coming months. Starmer and Labour need a good shaking metaphorically and literally.
If Labour had a 15-20% lead in the opinion polls, I might think ''ok, so long as you hold onto that lead, it might be prudent to keep a low key'' but, as it not only doesn't but appears to be losing ground, it shows a lack of political intelligence and tone deafness when national economic calamity is almost certain in the coming months. Starmer and Labour need a good shaking metaphorically and literally.
They could be sitting there waiting. The moment the winner is announced and produces the usual vague promises, Labour hits them with concrete policies. Anyway, at the moment most of the press is currently taken up with singing Truss’ praises: the news of proposals by Labour will end up at the bottom of page 19 below an item about a man suing the council after he fell over a dustbin in Northampton.
They could be sitting there waiting. The moment the winner is announced and produces the usual vague promises, Labour hits them with concrete policies. Anyway, at the moment most of the press is currently taken up with singing Truss’ praises: the news of proposals by Labour will end up at the bottom of page 19 below an item about a man suing the council after he fell over a dustbin in Northampton.
This point shows how ridiculously biased the media is in the UK. Indulging in brown-nosing of right-wing politicians. No balance at all. Is it any wonder the Conservative Party dominate UK politics so much?
You don't matter if you're not a Union Jack-waving nationalist, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, pro-tax-cuts, small-c-conservative, anti-woke person.
Only the right-wing and small-c conservatives seem to matter, it seems, in the eyes of much of the media and certainly in the eyes of Truss.
And don't get me started on phrases such as "family values". Not everyone has a family. And if you don't have a family, it doesn't make you a second-class citizen.
If I was Labour, I would wait until this contest is over and then stand on a firmly anti-Truss platform, and puts clear water between themselves and the Tories - but from a centre-left rather than hard-left perspective. A party that fights reactionary right-wing politics. A party that stands up for those who want to see good public services, who prefer public spending to tax cuts, who want to see the unemployed treated with respect and have appropriate benefits, who don't want to demonise the "woke" and immigrants, who support immigration from the EU and better relations with the EU, who believe that family status is irrelevant, and so on. All, in my view, solid centre-left policies.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
(although I realise you were possibly excluding smaller parties from your suggestion).
