No, it was the deep state which should have delivered, and let Mr Sunak and really, all of us, down. <sarcasm>
Oh Jesus don’t tell me that that whole conspiracy thing about the “deep state” is over there now too?
Yes, but it's not clear how much of it is for domestic consumption and how much is simply playing into American far right narratives to get in on the very lucrative grift available in the US.
I get the idea that there's a portion of the Conservative Party (the Instagram Tories like Truss) that are overly online, and end up picking up all sorts of ideas from the online right in the US.
No, it was the deep state which should have delivered, and let Mr Sunak and really, all of us, down. <sarcasm>
Oh Jesus don’t tell me that that whole conspiracy thing about the “deep state” is over there now too?
Yes, but it's not clear how much of it is for domestic consumption and how much is simply playing into American far right narratives to get in on the very lucrative grift available in the US.
I get the idea that there's a portion of the Conservative Party (the Instagram Tories like Truss) that are overly online, and end up picking up all sorts of ideas from the online right in the US.
I don't wish to be complacent but I'm not sure the 'deep state' paranoia is particularly widespread here in the UK given the size of our public sector. Strident voices like those of Truss aren't reaching my ears. But then, I'm not big on social media so I might be missing something.
The 1922 committee is a part of the structure of the Conservative Party, it has no constitutional role in the running of government or Parliament. My understanding is there's an executive comprised of Conservative backbenchers, but with 120 MPs there will be enough backbenchers to form that executive, albeit elected from a much smaller pool than in recent years. I don't expect there will be anything significant for the committee to discuss in the next few weeks, we usually only hear from them when the backbenchers are disgruntled with the front bench, and the party leader in particular. It would seem churlish for someone to trigger a vote of no-confidence in Sunak when he's already resigned.
I don't expect there will be anything significant for the committee to discuss in the next few weeks, we usually only hear from them when the backbenchers are disgruntled with the front bench, and the party leader in particular. It would seem churlish for someone to trigger a vote of no-confidence in Sunak when he's already resigned.
Um, the 1922 Committee committee (and it's going to need a new one) works with the chairman to set the overall rules for, and administer the parliamentary end of, a leadership contest.
I admit they're in opposition, so it might not come under 'anything significant' but I think they're going to be quite busy...
Yes, they set the rules for leadership contest ... though, why those aren't set in the constitution of the Conservative Party is something that probably says a lot about the Tories. Are those rules going to be significantly different from previous leader contests?
Yes, they set the rules for leadership contest ... though, why those aren't set in the constitution of the Conservative Party is something that probably says a lot about the Tories. Are those rules going to be significantly different from previous leader contests?
Well large parties tend to need to be a bit more fluid (as they get much bigger and smaller)… take for example the 15% of MPs threshold to trigger Tory leadership race - that’s now 18 MPs, so probably needs to change…
The intriguing part for me is that the 1922 committee is Conservative back benchers. As has been pointed out, with so few MPs in the Official Opposition, there won't be many left when they've filled the shadow cabinet. It's going to be a very different dynamic over this parliament than the previous one.
Yes, they set the rules for leadership contest ... though, why those aren't set in the constitution of the Conservative Party is something that probably says a lot about the Tories. Are those rules going to be significantly different from previous leader contests?
Well large parties tend to need to be a bit more fluid (as they get much bigger and smaller)… take for example the 15% of MPs threshold to trigger Tory leadership race - that’s now 18 MPs, so probably needs to change…
To your question, who knows. Could be.
Yes, I accept that changes in party size would often need revision to thresholds for certain actions - that doesn't mean those thresholds can't be put into the constitution. As a member of a party that recently called an EGM based on a number of members threshold set when membership was much smaller I'm not going to be surprised to find a Conference motion to change that threshold (either to a new fixed number, or to a means of calculating that as a fraction of membership), which would be a constitutional (or at least Standing Orders) change.
Speaking as one who has a purely academic interest in the question, what do people think about the timing of the election for a new Conservative Party leader?
I know that there are quite radically different opinions among the Tories about this, which basically break down into two options:
Go for a speedy election of leader of the party now, so that the newly elected leader can be paraded 'in triumph' at the party conference in October.
This would also mean (it is claimed) that there would be an effective leader and shadow cabinet challenging the Labour Government now - rather than leave this to Farage. One downside of this approach, though, is that it would probably mean a rather hasty election process, where the voice of party members could get ignored in favour of a speedy acclamation of someone favourable to the MPs.
Delay the election process until the autumn, AFTER the party conference.
This would then mean that all candidates could be given time at the party conference to push their claim to the party activists. It would also, it is suggested, give the Tories time to properly assess where they want to go next and who would be the best person to get them there. An obvious downside of such a delay is that it would effectively leave a leadership vacuum which would make it easier for Farage to stake his claim to be the 'voice of the popular right'.
I can actually see the downsides of both approaches but can't really see which one has a clear upside. On balance, I would probably go for the first option, provided that it wasn't used as an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership.
If it were me, I would take more time - but delay the conference until after the leader is elected. I mean seriously, can Rishi really headline at the Tory conference ? What would he say, assuming he didn’t get boo’d off stage ? He has just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party.
If it were me, I would take more time - but delay the conference until after the leader is elected.
Unfortunately I don't believe this is an option, partly because it's due to time with the October recess, and in any case I assume all bookings would have been made at this point (and are probably made at least a year in advance)
1. Sunak hasn't "just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party." If the party think that, they're deluding themselves. Sunak isn't problem. They are the problem. The problem is them. And
2. What's wrong with "an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership."? Why should the party membership be regarded as so entitled to be involved in the choice. They fouled up mega last time.
The leader's prime job is to lead a party's MPs in the House of Commons. Unless a party's got hardly any MPs at all, the choice should lie with those members, and them alone, who they want to lead them, there, not with whatever humanoid dross the party wishes to foist upon them whether they like it or not.
That, by the way, applies to other parties as well.
1. Sunak hasn't "just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party." If the party think that, they're deluding themselves. Sunak isn't problem. They are the problem. The problem is them. And
2. What's wrong with "an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership."? Why should the party membership be regarded as so entitled to be involved in the choice. They fouled up mega last time.
The leader's prime job is to lead a party's MPs in the House of Commons. Unless a party's got hardly any MPs at all, the choice should lie with those members, and them alone, who they want to lead them, there, not with whatever humanoid dross the party wishes to foist upon them whether they like it or not.
That, by the way, applies to other parties as well.
Fair points. Sunak was handed a poisoned chalice (though he freely accepted it), but was then driven mad by the gods...
What is the tory party membership these days? AIUI, it has dwindled muchly in recent years.
The 120 or so remaining tory MPs are surely sufficient to elect a leader, without consulting the remaining members in the country at large.
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly, as it says in the Scottish play...
The previous few leadership elections have been organised by the 1922 committee and started with the MPs nominating candidates, with a threshold, and a vote by members to either select leader or pick two to put to the wider membership. I don't think they've even elected a committee for the 1922 committee yet, let alone decided whether they'll fit the process into the Parliamentary timetable (with recess starting 30th July) or interupt MP holiday plans for a summer contest. Though they still have time to start the process after the summer recess and complete that before Conference season - which is what I'd put money on if I was a betting man.
Given the huge majority enjoyed by Labour, along with the gains made by the LibDems and the Greens, the thought *who gives a Fig about the tories?* comes to mind...
1. Sunak hasn't "just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party." If the party think that, they're deluding themselves. Sunak isn't problem. They are the problem. The problem is them. And
2. What's wrong with "an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership."? Why should the party membership be regarded as so entitled to be involved in the choice. They fouled up mega last time.
The leader's prime job is to lead a party's MPs in the House of Commons. Unless a party's got hardly any MPs at all, the choice should lie with those members, and them alone, who they want to lead them, there, not with whatever humanoid dross the party wishes to foist upon them whether they like it or not.
That, by the way, applies to other parties as well.
Fair points. Sunak was handed a poisoned chalice (though he freely accepted it), but was then driven mad by the gods...
No he wasn't, he stood for leadership and canvassed support. He was part of the government for the last 9 years, there was no poisoned chalice, he was an active (very active when he was Chancellor) part of the problem even prior to his premiership.
I didn't say he didn't deserve the poisoned chalice, or that he didn't deserve to be driven mad by the gods...
He did indeed mix the chalice for himself, and found out how poisonous it was when he became PM.
Indeed. The important point here is the idiots who think it was all Sunak’s fault. The problem is thd whole party. Whether they're ready to accept that yet is the question. All the evidence I've seen so far, suggests that quite clearly, they are not.
If it were me, I would take more time - but delay the conference until after the leader is elected. I mean seriously, can Rishi really headline at the Tory conference ? What would he say, assuming he didn’t get boo’d off stage ? He has just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party.
Failing that I’d go for a quick election.
I suggest that Ian Duncan Smith be appointed as temporary leader.
If it were me, I would take more time - but delay the conference until after the leader is elected. I mean seriously, can Rishi really headline at the Tory conference ? What would he say, assuming he didn’t get boo’d off stage ? He has just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party.
Failing that I’d go for a quick election.
I suggest that Ian Duncan Smith be appointed as temporary leader.
Not necessarily IDS, but I can see some worth in having a temporary leader who will be in post for, say, 12 months. This person would have to be someone who would not be standing for the post on a permanent basis but would seek to achieve two key things:
a) To try and lead an effective official opposition over this period.
b) To prepare for and oversee a carefully organised leadership race in 2025.
Theoretically it's possible as it's governed (I believe) by Parliamentary convention rather than statute but if the Tories are the second biggest party then they will form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
No, this was codified in 1975 - because of the provision of Short Money - the only wriggle room is what constitutes a 'party' - in theory the opposition could consist of a coalition.
Not according to the Short Money wiki. It's a per seat allowance
1. Sunak hasn't "just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party." If the party think that, they're deluding themselves. Sunak isn't problem. They are the problem. The problem is them. And
2. What's wrong with "an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership."? Why should the party membership be regarded as so entitled to be involved in the choice. They fouled up mega last time.
The leader's prime job is to lead a party's MPs in the House of Commons. Unless a party's got hardly any MPs at all, the choice should lie with those members, and them alone, who they want to lead them, there, not with whatever humanoid dross the party wishes to foist upon them whether they like it or not.
That, by the way, applies to other parties as well.
That ship has sailed, friend, and it isn't coming back.
The funny thing is when you recruit a cadre of activists, ask then to volunteer their time and donate their money, to the point of it being a full time job and dare I say call it a movement that said activists will then have the unmitigated gall to think that it is they, the true believers, who should pick the leader they see so often on television.
By comparison, in Canada, an otherwise pure practitioner of Westminster parliamentary democracy, all party leaders are chosen by membership ballot in mail out votes.
Which, as we're talking about the current Conservative Party means it won't happen like that.
I still struggle to see how they can have an October Conference without a new leader elected, and not a caretaker. Given the last full contest started in July and had a new leader in Liz Truss at the start of September, that shouldn't be an impossible aim.
Theoretically it's possible as it's governed (I believe) by Parliamentary convention rather than statute but if the Tories are the second biggest party then they will form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
No, this was codified in 1975 - because of the provision of Short Money - the only wriggle room is what constitutes a 'party' - in theory the opposition could consist of a coalition.
Not according to the Short Money wiki. It's a per seat allowance
You are not quoting Enoch, you are misreading the wiki and you are misunderstanding what I'm referring to (the Official Opposition - which would also receive funding for the LOTO's office - defined in Erskine May here: https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5986/the-official-opposition )
If it were me, I would take more time - but delay the conference until after the leader is elected. I mean seriously, can Rishi really headline at the Tory conference ? What would he say, assuming he didn’t get boo’d off stage ? He has just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party.
Failing that I’d go for a quick election.
I suggest that Ian Duncan Smith be appointed as temporary leader.
Theoretically it's possible as it's governed (I believe) by Parliamentary convention rather than statute but if the Tories are the second biggest party then they will form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
No, this was codified in 1975 - because of the provision of Short Money - the only wriggle room is what constitutes a 'party' - in theory the opposition could consist of a coalition.
Not according to the Short Money wiki. It's a per seat allowance
You are not quoting Enoch, you are misreading the wiki and you are misunderstanding what I'm referring to (the Official Opposition - which would also receive funding for the LOTO's office - defined in Erskine May here: https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5986/the-official-opposition )
I was commenting on Enoch's take of the role of political party membership in party leader selection. I was not commenting on Short Money. The quote got malformed and didn't format correctly.
I still struggle to see how they can have an October Conference without a new leader elected, and not a caretaker. Given the last full contest started in July and had a new leader in Liz Truss at the start of September, that shouldn't be an impossible aim.
An immediate response to this is 'Look how well THAT turned out.'
But the circumstances were different in that it wasn't about appointing a new party leader but about appointing a new PM. There simply wasn't time to faff about. The process had to pushed through as quickly as possible.
Now it's different. The summer period is not good for this process. MPs (& party members) are about to go off on holiday. There will be endless grumbling if a leadership campaign starts.
I think the point is moot, though. With every day that passes, the likelihood of a quick campaign lessens dramatically. If there were going to be a quick campaign, they would need to start it ASAP
Theoretically it's possible as it's governed (I believe) by Parliamentary convention rather than statute but if the Tories are the second biggest party then they will form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
No, this was codified in 1975 - because of the provision of Short Money - the only wriggle room is what constitutes a 'party' - in theory the opposition could consist of a coalition.
Not according to the Short Money wiki. It's a per seat allowance
You are not quoting Enoch, you are misreading the wiki and you are misunderstanding what I'm referring to (the Official Opposition - which would also receive funding for the LOTO's office - defined in Erskine May here: https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5986/the-official-opposition )
I was commenting on Enoch's take of the role of political party membership in party leader selection. I was not commenting on Short Money. The quote got malformed and didn't format correctly.
Well that comment originated in your post - I suspect you had an incomplete draft you forgot about and then quoting Enochs post added that at the end of the draft.
I still struggle to see how they can have an October Conference without a new leader elected, and not a caretaker. Given the last full contest started in July and had a new leader in Liz Truss at the start of September, that shouldn't be an impossible aim.
An immediate response to this is 'Look how well THAT turned out.'
But the circumstances were different in that it wasn't about appointing a new party leader but about appointing a new PM. There simply wasn't time to faff about. The process had to pushed through as quickly as possible.
Now it's different. The summer period is not good for this process. MPs (& party members) are about to go off on holiday. There will be endless grumbling if a leadership campaign starts.
I think the point is moot, though. With every day that passes, the likelihood of a quick campaign lessens dramatically. If there were going to be a quick campaign, they would need to start it ASAP
It is, of course, up to the Conservative Party whether they want to come across as a rudderless rabble by having a Conference without a leader in place. I've no skin in the game, as I wouldn't be voting Conservative even if they had a leader in place, but the longer that situation lasts the worse it is for their electoral chances - and it's not great for democracy when the PM is questioned by someone who had resigned months before and no replacement is in place, should he be required to answer questions from someone with no mandate to stand opposite him (leaving aside the question of whether PMQs actually involves answering questions)?
As for party members going away for their holidays. Well, my heart bleeds for them (cue the tiny violin). That didn't seem to be an issue for Sunak when he called a General Election for a time when many people would be off on their holidays (and/or in Germany to watch football).
As an MP, I doubt there's a problem (though I'm not sure how many "regular MPs" get to ask questions at PMQs). But, as Leader of the Opposition when he's already said he's quitting Sunak doesn't hold a lot of credibility in that forum.
1. Sunak hasn't "just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party." If the party think that, they're deluding themselves. Sunak isn't problem. They are the problem. The problem is them. And
2. What's wrong with "an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership."? Why should the party membership be regarded as so entitled to be involved in the choice. They fouled up mega last time.
The leader's prime job is to lead a party's MPs in the House of Commons. Unless a party's got hardly any MPs at all, the choice should lie with those members, and them alone, who they want to lead them, there, not with whatever humanoid dross the party wishes to foist upon them whether they like it or not.
That, by the way, applies to other parties as well.
That ship has sailed, friend, and it isn't coming back.
The funny thing is when you recruit a cadre of activists, ask then to volunteer their time and donate their money, to the point of it being a full time job and dare I say call it a movement that said activists will then have the unmitigated gall to think that it is they, the true believers, who should pick the leader they see so often on television.
By comparison, in Canada, an otherwise pure practitioner of Westminster parliamentary democracy, all party leaders are chosen by membership ballot in mail out votes.
@Sober Preacher's Kid you and I have disagreed with each other before on this. You think I'm wrong, and I think you are. You say, "That ship has sailed". Perhaps you are right on that. If so, that would be a pity. Even if it has sailed, that doesn't mean that the consequences are and will be anything other than seriously unfortunate and detrimental.
This is quite long, and as far as the rest of the ship's crew is concerned, probably a tangent, but I think it has to be said.
You and I are looking at this from two different and probably incompatible standpoints. You're a political enthusiast and a member of a political party. You see this as a party member who thinks he or she is entitled to get as much control over the state and the public good for your programme as you can get away with. I'm not a member of a party. I spent a large part of my working life in posts that were what is known here as "politically restricted", precluded from taking sides. I look at this as an informed citizen who would like to be properly represented and to receive good government.
You talk about cadres devoted to party activism as though that gives them an extra right, entitlement and credibility to meddle in the affairs of the state and their fellow citizens, a prospect which gives me the screaming abdabs.
We also live in different countries, with related but different traditions and experience, which will have gone in different directions since the 1860s at least. I know very little about how government actually works in Canada, and unless you're a very nerdy student of politics in other countries, I suspect you won't have the awareness of how government works in the UK that I have.
I've seen the consequences of your view, and you possibly haven't.
The event which has crystallised what was already my view on this was in 2023 when Johnson, a controversial Prime Minister here, was eventually was forced to resign in disgrace. The Conservative Party's process for selecting a new leader, whether in office or not, involves a reductive series of votes among MPs until that leaves a choice of two, which is then put to the party membership, less than 150,000 in a population of c.67,000,000. They then chose Ms Truss, the candidate who was not the first choice of the party's actual MPs. That is to say, a rag-tag collection of people, unelected by anyone, whose only qualification to be involved was that they'd paid their subscriptions. The MPs then had to respect that choice.
Her premiership lasted a mere 49 days, for 10 of which government was suspended because it coincided with the death of the Queen. In that time, she introduced a swathe of dogmatic financial lunacies and crashed the economy before losing the confidence of her own MPs and being forced to resign.
The effect of your, and the Conservative Party's take on the constitution would be that it is a legitimate constitutional practice to hand over the choice of who leads the government of country and what free reign they get over its fate, to a cluster of people, randomly self-selected, who have no formal constitutional status at all.
It also encourages the impression that MPs are primarily accountable to their party membership and its fads, rather than the electorate and the country's interests.
If that ship really has sailed, it should not have been allowed to clear port.
If you still believe that it is constitutionally legitimate and a good practice to countenance this, then we will continue to disagree with each other, and we will both have to accept that. I will continue to regard your view as not just different, but wrong.
You talk about cadres devoted to party activism as though that gives them an extra right, entitlement and credibility to meddle in the affairs of the state and their fellow citizens, a prospect which gives me the screaming abdabs.
It also encourages the impression that MPs are primarily accountable to their party membership and its fads, rather than the electorate and the country's interests.
If that ship really has sailed, it should not have been allowed to clear port.
On the other hand; you haven't really put forward how you would envisage this alternative to mass politics would actually work - other than perhaps that MPs would choose the leaders and leaders would in turn anoint MPs in a kind of glorious circularity.
The constitutional problem is that the electorate don't elect the Prime Minister, but their own MP. The PM is then the person appointed by the party with the largest number of MPs, and the methods for each party to select their leader (or Parliamentary group leader - who, in theory, could be different) are left up to each party to determine.
The constitutional changes that could be considered include setting out how a party leader is selected in law, so that all parties follow the same procedure, but who gets to say whether that should be a vote of MPs, of all elected members (so, include councillors, mayors, MSPs, MSs. MEPs), of party members or of the wider public? Or some hybrid combination?
Or, you could put the appointment of a PM in the hands of Parliament as a whole - which is what happens for appointment of FM in Scotland. A party leader without the support of the overwhelming majority of their own MPs could face the prospect of not being appointed PM if too many of their own MPs rebel (or, simply abstain).
Or, we could force any change in leader of the party of government requires the triggering of a general election within 3 months (probably with the old PM hanging in there for that period - because Truss didn't last that long and showed how much damage someone can do in that period). Or, maybe we have a more presidential system where a general election has two votes - one for your MP and the other for the PM and if that PM resigns then there's just the 'presidential' election of the PM.
Historically this was done by the monarch after taking soundings as to who could form a government. The parties don't regard that as acceptable these days. They haven't done so since at least the 1950s.
As the prime function of the party's leader, especially when the party is in government, is to form a government and lead their party in the House of Commons, his or her choice should belong just to the party's MPs in the House. I suppose thee'a an argument for including the party's signed up peers in the Lords. I'd prefer just the MPs as they have been elected by the public and the party's tame peers haven't been.
As the prime function of the party's leader, especially when the party is in government, is to form a government and lead their party in the House of Commons, his or her choice should belong just to the party's MPs in the House.
I don't think this follows. What you need is not necessarily a leader who is the top choice of the party's MPs, but a leader who is an acceptable choice to the party's MPs. In practice, the involvement of the party's MPs in the generation of a short list of candidates tends to ensure this happens.
Everyone agrees that Liz Truss was a complete disaster; nonetheless she began the leadership election with the support of 50 MPs, and the final round of MPs voting resulted in close to a three-way split between Truss, Sunak, and Mordaunt.
She wasn't a disaster because she lacked support in the parliamentary party. She was a disaster because she was Liz Truss.
She wasn't a disaster because she lacked support in the parliamentary party. She was a disaster because she was Liz Truss.
Indeed.
But:
1. Most of the Tory MPs knew she would be
2. If the Conservative Party members hadn't been asked, then she wouldn't have been a disaster for ALL of us...
The constitutional problem is that the electorate don't elect the Prime Minister, but their own MP. The PM is then the person appointed by the party with the largest number of MPs, and the methods for each party to select their leader (or Parliamentary group leader - who, in theory, could be different) are left up to each party to determine.
The constitutional changes that could be considered include setting out how a party leader is selected in law, so that all parties follow the same procedure, but who gets to say whether that should be a vote of MPs, of all elected members (so, include councillors, mayors, MSPs, MSs. MEPs), of party members or of the wider public? Or some hybrid combination?
Or, you could put the appointment of a PM in the hands of Parliament as a whole - which is what happens for appointment of FM in Scotland. A party leader without the support of the overwhelming majority of their own MPs could face the prospect of not being appointed PM if too many of their own MPs rebel (or, simply abstain).
Or, we could force any change in leader of the party of government requires the triggering of a general election within 3 months (probably with the old PM hanging in there for that period - because Truss didn't last that long and showed how much damage someone can do in that period). Or, maybe we have a more presidential system where a general election has two votes - one for your MP and the other for the PM and if that PM resigns then there's just the 'presidential' election of the PM.
With regards to the process for electing a party leader, I think that this is something that should be left to the party's constitution and not legislated from outside. Perhaps there should be some independent body to oversee this and ensure that the party's procedures are properly followed. For example, I am concerned that Reform is effectively a plaything of Farage. Also, I am not sure that the 1922 Committee should be able to make up the rules with no regard whatsoever for the party members.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that if the party in Government changes its leader (the PM), then it should result in a fresh GE. The absurd situation where the Tories put in Truss AND Sunak without going to the country should never be repeated.
The PM is not a president but there is no doubt that how people vote is affected by who the candidates for PM will be.
Comments
I get the idea that there's a portion of the Conservative Party (the Instagram Tories like Truss) that are overly online, and end up picking up all sorts of ideas from the online right in the US.
😭😭😭😭😭
Argh…
Um, the 1922 Committee committee (and it's going to need a new one) works with the chairman to set the overall rules for, and administer the parliamentary end of, a leadership contest.
I admit they're in opposition, so it might not come under 'anything significant' but I think they're going to be quite busy...
Well large parties tend to need to be a bit more fluid (as they get much bigger and smaller)… take for example the 15% of MPs threshold to trigger Tory leadership race - that’s now 18 MPs, so probably needs to change…
To your question, who knows. Could be.
A large number of whom just lost their seats, so it will be - in effect - an entirely new committee anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-dRiM0W81s
Priceless!!!
I know that there are quite radically different opinions among the Tories about this, which basically break down into two options:
This would also mean (it is claimed) that there would be an effective leader and shadow cabinet challenging the Labour Government now - rather than leave this to Farage. One downside of this approach, though, is that it would probably mean a rather hasty election process, where the voice of party members could get ignored in favour of a speedy acclamation of someone favourable to the MPs.
This would then mean that all candidates could be given time at the party conference to push their claim to the party activists. It would also, it is suggested, give the Tories time to properly assess where they want to go next and who would be the best person to get them there. An obvious downside of such a delay is that it would effectively leave a leadership vacuum which would make it easier for Farage to stake his claim to be the 'voice of the popular right'.
I can actually see the downsides of both approaches but can't really see which one has a clear upside. On balance, I would probably go for the first option, provided that it wasn't used as an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership.
Failing that I’d go for a quick election.
Unfortunately I don't believe this is an option, partly because it's due to time with the October recess, and in any case I assume all bookings would have been made at this point (and are probably made at least a year in advance)
This. Get the misery over with as soon as possible, if only for Sunak's sake.
Never mind about bookings etc. - there's bound to be a village hall, or church hall, somewhere, which would be large enough.
1. Sunak hasn't "just delivered the worst defeat in the history of the party." If the party think that, they're deluding themselves. Sunak isn't problem. They are the problem. The problem is them. And
2. What's wrong with "an excuse to simply foist a pre-anointed leader on the party without proper recourse to the party membership."? Why should the party membership be regarded as so entitled to be involved in the choice. They fouled up mega last time.
The leader's prime job is to lead a party's MPs in the House of Commons. Unless a party's got hardly any MPs at all, the choice should lie with those members, and them alone, who they want to lead them, there, not with whatever humanoid dross the party wishes to foist upon them whether they like it or not.
That, by the way, applies to other parties as well.
These days they might need an exchange.
Fair points. Sunak was handed a poisoned chalice (though he freely accepted it), but was then driven mad by the gods...
What is the tory party membership these days? AIUI, it has dwindled muchly in recent years.
The 120 or so remaining tory MPs are surely sufficient to elect a leader, without consulting the remaining members in the country at large.
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly, as it says in the Scottish play...
No he wasn't, he stood for leadership and canvassed support. He was part of the government for the last 9 years, there was no poisoned chalice, he was an active (very active when he was Chancellor) part of the problem even prior to his premiership.
And no, none of those were 'fair points'.
He did indeed mix the chalice for himself, and found out how poisonous it was when he became PM.
Indeed. The important point here is the idiots who think it was all Sunak’s fault. The problem is thd whole party. Whether they're ready to accept that yet is the question. All the evidence I've seen so far, suggests that quite clearly, they are not.
That’s not a completely stupid idea actually
a) To try and lead an effective official opposition over this period.
b) To prepare for and oversee a carefully organised leadership race in 2025.
Not according to the Short Money wiki. It's a per seat allowance
That ship has sailed, friend, and it isn't coming back.
The funny thing is when you recruit a cadre of activists, ask then to volunteer their time and donate their money, to the point of it being a full time job and dare I say call it a movement that said activists will then have the unmitigated gall to think that it is they, the true believers, who should pick the leader they see so often on television.
By comparison, in Canada, an otherwise pure practitioner of Westminster parliamentary democracy, all party leaders are chosen by membership ballot in mail out votes.
I still struggle to see how they can have an October Conference without a new leader elected, and not a caretaker. Given the last full contest started in July and had a new leader in Liz Truss at the start of September, that shouldn't be an impossible aim.
You are not quoting Enoch, you are misreading the wiki and you are misunderstanding what I'm referring to (the Official Opposition - which would also receive funding for the LOTO's office - defined in Erskine May here: https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5986/the-official-opposition )
None of my ideas are ever stupid.
I was commenting on Enoch's take of the role of political party membership in party leader selection. I was not commenting on Short Money. The quote got malformed and didn't format correctly.
An immediate response to this is 'Look how well THAT turned out.'
But the circumstances were different in that it wasn't about appointing a new party leader but about appointing a new PM. There simply wasn't time to faff about. The process had to pushed through as quickly as possible.
Now it's different. The summer period is not good for this process. MPs (& party members) are about to go off on holiday. There will be endless grumbling if a leadership campaign starts.
I think the point is moot, though. With every day that passes, the likelihood of a quick campaign lessens dramatically. If there were going to be a quick campaign, they would need to start it ASAP
Well that comment originated in your post - I suspect you had an incomplete draft you forgot about and then quoting Enochs post added that at the end of the draft.
As for party members going away for their holidays. Well, my heart bleeds for them (cue the tiny violin). That didn't seem to be an issue for Sunak when he called a General Election for a time when many people would be off on their holidays (and/or in Germany to watch football).
This is quite long, and as far as the rest of the ship's crew is concerned, probably a tangent, but I think it has to be said.
You and I are looking at this from two different and probably incompatible standpoints. You're a political enthusiast and a member of a political party. You see this as a party member who thinks he or she is entitled to get as much control over the state and the public good for your programme as you can get away with. I'm not a member of a party. I spent a large part of my working life in posts that were what is known here as "politically restricted", precluded from taking sides. I look at this as an informed citizen who would like to be properly represented and to receive good government.
You talk about cadres devoted to party activism as though that gives them an extra right, entitlement and credibility to meddle in the affairs of the state and their fellow citizens, a prospect which gives me the screaming abdabs.
We also live in different countries, with related but different traditions and experience, which will have gone in different directions since the 1860s at least. I know very little about how government actually works in Canada, and unless you're a very nerdy student of politics in other countries, I suspect you won't have the awareness of how government works in the UK that I have.
I've seen the consequences of your view, and you possibly haven't.
The event which has crystallised what was already my view on this was in 2023 when Johnson, a controversial Prime Minister here, was eventually was forced to resign in disgrace. The Conservative Party's process for selecting a new leader, whether in office or not, involves a reductive series of votes among MPs until that leaves a choice of two, which is then put to the party membership, less than 150,000 in a population of c.67,000,000. They then chose Ms Truss, the candidate who was not the first choice of the party's actual MPs. That is to say, a rag-tag collection of people, unelected by anyone, whose only qualification to be involved was that they'd paid their subscriptions. The MPs then had to respect that choice.
Her premiership lasted a mere 49 days, for 10 of which government was suspended because it coincided with the death of the Queen. In that time, she introduced a swathe of dogmatic financial lunacies and crashed the economy before losing the confidence of her own MPs and being forced to resign.
The effect of your, and the Conservative Party's take on the constitution would be that it is a legitimate constitutional practice to hand over the choice of who leads the government of country and what free reign they get over its fate, to a cluster of people, randomly self-selected, who have no formal constitutional status at all.
It also encourages the impression that MPs are primarily accountable to their party membership and its fads, rather than the electorate and the country's interests.
If that ship really has sailed, it should not have been allowed to clear port.
If you still believe that it is constitutionally legitimate and a good practice to countenance this, then we will continue to disagree with each other, and we will both have to accept that. I will continue to regard your view as not just different, but wrong.
On the other hand; you haven't really put forward how you would envisage this alternative to mass politics would actually work - other than perhaps that MPs would choose the leaders and leaders would in turn anoint MPs in a kind of glorious circularity.
The constitutional changes that could be considered include setting out how a party leader is selected in law, so that all parties follow the same procedure, but who gets to say whether that should be a vote of MPs, of all elected members (so, include councillors, mayors, MSPs, MSs. MEPs), of party members or of the wider public? Or some hybrid combination?
Or, you could put the appointment of a PM in the hands of Parliament as a whole - which is what happens for appointment of FM in Scotland. A party leader without the support of the overwhelming majority of their own MPs could face the prospect of not being appointed PM if too many of their own MPs rebel (or, simply abstain).
Or, we could force any change in leader of the party of government requires the triggering of a general election within 3 months (probably with the old PM hanging in there for that period - because Truss didn't last that long and showed how much damage someone can do in that period). Or, maybe we have a more presidential system where a general election has two votes - one for your MP and the other for the PM and if that PM resigns then there's just the 'presidential' election of the PM.
As the prime function of the party's leader, especially when the party is in government, is to form a government and lead their party in the House of Commons, his or her choice should belong just to the party's MPs in the House. I suppose thee'a an argument for including the party's signed up peers in the Lords. I'd prefer just the MPs as they have been elected by the public and the party's tame peers haven't been.
I don't think this follows. What you need is not necessarily a leader who is the top choice of the party's MPs, but a leader who is an acceptable choice to the party's MPs. In practice, the involvement of the party's MPs in the generation of a short list of candidates tends to ensure this happens.
Everyone agrees that Liz Truss was a complete disaster; nonetheless she began the leadership election with the support of 50 MPs, and the final round of MPs voting resulted in close to a three-way split between Truss, Sunak, and Mordaunt.
She wasn't a disaster because she lacked support in the parliamentary party. She was a disaster because she was Liz Truss.
Indeed.
But:
1. Most of the Tory MPs knew she would be
2. If the Conservative Party members hadn't been asked, then she wouldn't have been a disaster for ALL of us...
With regards to the process for electing a party leader, I think that this is something that should be left to the party's constitution and not legislated from outside. Perhaps there should be some independent body to oversee this and ensure that the party's procedures are properly followed. For example, I am concerned that Reform is effectively a plaything of Farage. Also, I am not sure that the 1922 Committee should be able to make up the rules with no regard whatsoever for the party members.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that if the party in Government changes its leader (the PM), then it should result in a fresh GE. The absurd situation where the Tories put in Truss AND Sunak without going to the country should never be repeated.
The PM is not a president but there is no doubt that how people vote is affected by who the candidates for PM will be.