Meanwhile the leader is still Mr Sunak, who I thought made a pretty good job of PMQs and a very good job of responding to the PM's statement on the Grenfell Report.
Asking the questions is far easier than answering them. Will Sir Keir be refering to the 'Black hole' in all his answers ?
Probably. It's such a stupid line, too. 22 billion is barely more than a rounding error in government finances. Tuppence on the basic rate of income tax would more than wipe it out, or we could just eat the cost of servicing the extra debt while the economy picks up. It's just not a big deal.
Meanwhile the leader is still Mr Sunak, who I thought made a pretty good job of PMQs and a very good job of responding to the PM's statement on the Grenfell Report.
Asking the questions is far easier than answering them. Will Sir Keir be refering to the 'Black hole' in all his answers ?
Probably. It's such a stupid line, too. 22 billion is barely more than a rounding error in government finances. Tuppence on the basic rate of income tax would more than wipe it out, or we could just eat the cost of servicing the extra debt while the economy picks up. It's just not a big deal.
£22Bn constitutes 1.8% of public spending. Arguably that's a rounding error.
£22Bn also constitutes (if not funded elsewhere) a 28% increase in the deficit for this year which was predicted to be ~£79Bn for FY 24-25. That feels more notable.
Part of this is a tyranny of big numbers. It all feels huge to us because we do not live our lives in millions of pounds. So a thousand million is an unimaginably huge number. We live our lives in tens and hundreds for our weekly shopping; we live in the hundreds and maybe a thousand or two for big one-off purchases and in tens of thousands for cars and hundreds of thousands for houses. Hence for most of us a million is a number we never deal in and a billion must be a VERY big number.
But it's not. It's a matter of simple multiplication. We have a population of 69,210,418 people (Worldometer). Hence a billion is simply £14.45 per person. That's probably the right perspective on any government numbers. How much is it per person in the country? There is a £22Bn hole in the budget for this financial year or perhaps there's a £318 hole in our finances. Maybe that's a more helpful way to think about it?
Is it just me looking at the list of Tory leadership candidates and thinking Patel was one of the saner ones? Priti (independent foreign policy) Patel?
@Telford I suspect so. The questions RS asked yesterday were pertinent and the PM had no answers that stand close scrutiny.
As for the Winter Fuel Payment, how long do we have to wait before someone - anyone - does the maths and points out that loss of WFP + Miliband's green levy = £350pa?
Meanwhile the leader is still Mr Sunak, who I thought made a pretty good job of PMQs and a very good job of responding to the PM's statement on the Grenfell Report.
I watched PMQs and before Sir Keir commenced his statement there was a large movement from both sides of the house towards the exits. It was not a good look.
I see that the next round of the Tory leadership election takes place on the 10th September. The votes are pretty close among the remaining candidates, so who is the favourite to be eliminated next?
(It feels pretty weird that the process drags out until 2nd November).
Meanwhile the leader is still Mr Sunak, who I thought made a pretty good job of PMQs and a very good job of responding to the PM's statement on the Grenfell Report.
I watched PMQs and before Sir Keir commenced his statement there was a large movement from both sides of the house towards the exits. It was not a good look.
@Telford I think shameful is the word you're looking for.
It also displayed a staggering ignorance. The installation of the type of cladding responsible for the London conflagration wasn't restricted to high-rise blocks - it was marketed aggressively to providers of social housing seeking a cheap, quick-fix solution for refurbishment programmes. You'll also find it on the outside of some shopping complexes.
Some accurate figures might be helpful here. How many tory MPs left the House? And how many Labour MPs?
I can understand why lots of tories might have left - it mostly happened on their watch - but I agree that Labour MPs leaving (unless for urgent and pressing reasons which we don't know about) was unacceptable.
Some accurate figures might be helpful here. How many tory MPs left the House? And how many Labour MPs?
I can understand why lots of tories might have left - it mostly happened on their watch - but I agree that Labour MPs leaving (unless for urgent and pressing reasons which we don't know about) was unacceptable.
Feels like typical behaviour tbh - both sides have an interest in making the place look packed for PMQs, after which there’s almost always an unseemly rush for the exits.
By the way, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the view that - especially now people are allowed to read their speeches and they’re playing to the broadcast gallery - most of the real work of Parliament (and parliamentarians) is done outside the chamber, and sitting there on the benches is mostly an active waste of their time (and our money).
But too many of the public don’t get that, and on occasions such as this the ‘optics’ aren’t great.
When there was no social media, and parliamentarians needed to spend time in the chamber to learn what people thought and what ministers were going to say, the chamber was far more important than it is now. And the more so when people got up and spoke without notes. Now everyone basically knows in advance most of what’s coming and backbenchers (on either side) seem to have lost the ability to think on their feet, so they’re just standing up and reading what they wrote earlier.
The real work of Parliament was always done in Committees, and in the backroom dealings between members. There always was an element of theatre in the chamber, an opportunity for MPs to be seen doing their job but also to bring those backroom conversations into the open and onto the record. The form of debate is seen to happen with speeches for and against a bill and/or amendments to it, even though the hard work of getting a bill into a form that it can pass has been done elsewhere. The record of what's said is vital to scrutinise how a bill has passed (or not).
Ideally if the questions a Minister (or the PM) is going to be asked are known in advance then there's time for them to prepare a proper answer to them, rather than PMQs being an exercise of the opposition trying to catch the PM out (or, similarly for other ministerial questions). Of course, we're not in an ideal world and we have a pantomime performance for PMQs, and learn very little from the exercise.
Yes, it was remarked during the tenure of the previous government that PMQs was serving no useful purpose, apart from being an excruciatingly awful form of *entertainment*.
But too many of the public don’t get that, and on occasions such as this the ‘optics’ aren’t great.
Especially when a series of MPs have already made it clear by their actions that they didn't take the issue particularly seriously (May, Rees-Mogg, Pickles).
Yes, it was remarked during the tenure of the previous government that PMQs was serving no useful purpose, apart from being an excruciatingly awful form of *entertainment*.
I’m old fashioned enough to think one of Tony Blair’s worse innovations (in a crowded field) was the consolidation of PMQs into one session - prior to 1997 it was twice weekly. Fewer questions, but the opposition could really build a narrative and pressure.
Sort of. There's also a big productively price to pay when staff retention goes down. That's a major factor in the NHS at the moment. I cannot speak as accurately about the railways but train drivers take time to train. If they leave and you have to train more, that is a cost.
Yes, that's a factor as well.
Apparently it takes a year or so to qualify as a train driver - perhaps as long as two years in some cases. I don't know what drives the variability. Train Driver job postings are notoriously oversubscribed, although I don't know what fraction of the typical applicants would be viable candidates.
It's not a world I know much about but this Twitter thread provides meaningful context:
Hi, I’m a #TrainDriver. I take your children to school, your loved ones to work, your family & friends on their way to their holiday destinations or nights out. Sometimes hundreds at a time. There’s quite a lot else to know though…
Some accurate figures might be helpful here. How many tory MPs left the House? And how many Labour MPs?
I can understand why lots of tories might have left - it mostly happened on their watch - but I agree that Labour MPs leaving (unless for urgent and pressing reasons which we don't know about) was unacceptable.
I heard Angela Rayner asked about this yesterday. FWIW, I agree with her answer that she gave. She said that most MPs have not had any time to read a multivolume report and it's reasonable to expect them to do so before the upcoming debate.
I would also argue that for the Conservative Party, especially, they should have been seen to be in the chamber... because if nothing else they need to show that they care.
Yes, it was remarked during the tenure of the previous government that PMQs was serving no useful purpose, apart from being an excruciatingly awful form of *entertainment*.
I’m old fashioned enough to think one of Tony Blair’s worse innovations (in a crowded field) was the consolidation of PMQs into one session - prior to 1997 it was twice weekly. Fewer questions, but the opposition could really build a narrative and pressure.
Oh, that would be why it was changed…
The justification is not ridiculous. It takes a lot of time for the PM to prepare. Consolidation into one 30min session, instead two fifteen minute ones is more efficient. Bercow was especially agreesive in making sure back benchers got to ask questions which I think was a good thing. Whilst the pantomime of PMQs can be problematic, it is a really good thing to have in my view. It is good to hold the executive to account.
Yes, it was remarked during the tenure of the previous government that PMQs was serving no useful purpose, apart from being an excruciatingly awful form of *entertainment*.
I’m old fashioned enough to think one of Tony Blair’s worse innovations (in a crowded field) was the consolidation of PMQs into one session - prior to 1997 it was twice weekly. Fewer questions, but the opposition could really build a narrative and pressure.
Oh, that would be why it was changed…
The justification is not ridiculous. It takes a lot of time for the PM to prepare. Consolidation into one 30min session, instead two fifteen minute ones is more efficient. Bercow was especially agreesive in making sure back benchers got to ask questions which I think was a good thing. Whilst the pantomime of PMQs can be problematic, it is a really good thing to have in my view. It is good to hold the executive to account.
AFZ
Well the time and the pressure was sort of the point - doing it twice a week was more of a crucible for the PM to have to walk into, and until Blair they did. Difficult to remember now but in the 80s and 90s (especially the latter) it was really possible to have a PM on the ropes for most of a week.
For full pressure, and potential comedy value, before Churchill in the 1950s IIRC PMQs were fair game, on any subject, any day the PM was in the chamber!
I see that the next round of the Tory leadership election takes place on the 10th September. The votes are pretty close among the remaining candidates, so who is the favourite to be eliminated next?
(It feels pretty weird that the process drags out until 2nd November).
In a multi-stage election, you need to have a few days for horse-trading between rounds, otherwise the multi-stage process makes no sense. There's a long gap between round 2 and round 3 because they put the party conference in there, and then the final round takes a while because it's a postal ballot of party members.
The timescale seems reasonable enough to me. (It's just a shame about the candidates...)
As regards the next round, one might guess that Patel's votes would go to Badenoch or Jenrick. I suspect that Mel Stride will be the next to go - he was only one vote behind Tugendhat in the first round, but he seems like a complete nothing of a candidate, so I find it hard to imagine any additional people getting excited about voting for him. Perhaps he's hoping to hang on and end up as the compromise candidate, but I think his days are numbered.
I suspect that the final three will be Jenrick, Badenoch, and whichever of Tugendhat and Cleverly ends up as standard bearer for the slightly more moderate end of the Tory party. I think Cleverly is more likely, although Tugendhat is a much better candidate.
I suspect that who the membership votes for will depend on their performance at the party conference. Badenoch has had better name recognition amongst Tory voters than Jenrick, so Jenrick would need to take this opportunity to stand out.
Well the time and the pressure was sort of the point - doing it twice a week was more of a crucible for the PM to have to walk into, and until Blair they did. Difficult to remember now but in the 80s and 90s (especially the latter) it was really possible to have a PM on the ropes for most of a week.
Which was probably healthy.
For all its limitations which are many, it's a lot better than the certain other much wanted Constitution which so far as I'm aware contains no ingredient remotely describable as 'Presidents Question Time'.
But too many of the public don’t get that, and on occasions such as this the ‘optics’ aren’t great.
Especially when a series of MPs have already made it clear by their actions that they didn't take the issue particularly seriously (May, Rees-Mogg, Pickles).
I reckon it was clear years ago what would be the outcome......Everyone would be at at fault especially the cladding people
The real work of Parliament was always done in Committees, and in the backroom dealings between members. There always was an element of theatre in the chamber, an opportunity for MPs to be seen doing their job but also to bring those backroom conversations into the open and onto the record. The form of debate is seen to happen with speeches for and against a bill and/or amendments to it, even though the hard work of getting a bill into a form that it can pass has been done elsewhere. The record of what's said is vital to scrutinise how a bill has passed (or not).
Ideally if the questions a Minister (or the PM) is going to be asked are known in advance then there's time for them to prepare a proper answer to them, rather than PMQs being an exercise of the opposition trying to catch the PM out (or, similarly for other ministerial questions). Of course, we're not in an ideal world and we have a pantomime performance for PMQs, and learn very little from the exercise.
Tis a pity that not all parties are represented on committees
AIUI, every MP will have a place on at least one committee, with chairs from all major parties. And, committees will take evidence from a wide range of sources, including representation of other MPs where that would be relevant (eg: an MP representing a location where committee business would have direct impact).
I see that the next round of the Tory leadership election takes place on the 10th September. The votes are pretty close among the remaining candidates, so who is the favourite to be eliminated next?
(It feels pretty weird that the process drags out until 2nd November).
In a multi-stage election, you need to have a few days for horse-trading between rounds, otherwise the multi-stage process makes no sense. There's a long gap between round 2 and round 3 because they put the party conference in there, and then the final round takes a while because it's a postal ballot of party members.
It also gives them time to get their fund raising in order, as to qualify as one of the final four they have to donate £50K to the party, and put up a further £150K should they end up as one of the finalists.
It also gives them time to get their fund raising in order, as to qualify as one of the final four they have to donate £50K to the party, and put up a further £150K should they end up as one of the finalists.
@chrisstiles Are you sure of that? Or is it just a dodgy rumour circulating on the web?
I've never heard that before. If it's true, it's sufficiently juicy that I'd expect to have done. Have you any authority for it?
It also gives them time to get their fund raising in order, as to qualify as one of the final four they have to donate £50K to the party, and put up a further £150K should they end up as one of the finalists.
@chrisstiles Are you sure of that? Or is it just a dodgy rumour circulating on the web?
I've never heard that before. If it's true, it's sufficiently juicy that I'd expect to have done. Have you any authority for it?
They talk about it in terms of covering the costs of an election rather than as a pay to play style fee. You may of course decide that there isn't much difference between the two in practice.
£200k seems a lot of money to pay for a poisoned chalice...but not to the tories, I guess.
In most cases they'll have a donor pay it, I would think. Of course how many of those donors turn out to be Putin if you follow the money trail is anyone's guess.
It also gives them time to get their fund raising in order, as to qualify as one of the final four they have to donate £50K to the party, and put up a further £150K should they end up as one of the finalists.
@chrisstiles Are you sure of that? Or is it just a dodgy rumour circulating on the web?
I've never heard that before. If it's true, it's sufficiently juicy that I'd expect to have done. Have you any authority for it?
They talk about it in terms of covering the costs of an election rather than as a pay to play style fee. You may of course decide that there isn't much difference between the two in practice.
Wow! Thank you @chrisstiles. I've not looked at the Sun link as it wanted me to pay money or let it sneak all over my computer's OS, but the Guardian ones are clear enough in demonstrating quite how dire their practices are.
Did the Tories not understand why the army stopped selling commissions ?
To consolidate the power of the War Office?
My experience of the army is that they would happily sell infantry and cavalry commissions now (not commissions for the grubby non-U technical corps and services officered by grammar and comprehensive school boys obviously), but Parliament stopped it and bought them all out in 186-whatever.
Did the Tories not understand why the army stopped selling commissions ?
To consolidate the power of the War Office?
My experience of the army is that they would happily sell infantry and cavalry commissions now (not commissions for the grubby non-U technical corps and services officered by grammar and comprehensive school boys obviously), but Parliament stopped it and bought them all out in 186-whatever.
One would have thought it ought to have been obvious that the way to recruit the best officers for the job was not according to who could afford to pay their predecessor for his job. It is amazing that with such a system, the British army won any battles at all in the Napoleonic wars. If it still applied for the Crimea, then that explains a great deal.
Damn your eyes, sir. You're a blaguard and a cad. What else am I to do with my idiot sons, Boris and Sunak? And then thee's my wastrel daughter ... the nunnery won't have her ... wonder if the Tories might ....?
Damn your eyes, sir. You're a blaguard and a cad. What else am I to do with my idiot sons, Boris and Sunak? And then thee's my wastrel daughter ... the nunnery won't have her ... wonder if the Tories might ....?
I think those two will go to the membership and Jenrick will win, as long as there are no skeletons in his cupboard that emerge over the next few weeks.
Once you get down to the last 3 you only need to get 41 votes ( just over a third of the votes to get into the final 2) Bobby already has 33 votes assuming that nobody changes their vote.
I think those two will go to the membership and Jenrick will win, as long as there are no skeletons in his cupboard that emerge over the next few weeks.
I think Kemi Badenoch is more popular with the membership, so if she's in the final two, I think she'll win. Unless Robert Jenrick knocks it out of the park at the party conference.
The question is whether she'll make it to the final two. Of the remaining candidates, one of Cleverly and Tugendhat is going home next, and I'm tempted to say it will be James Cleverly, because he has traditionally not impressed me as a speaker, and I can see him looking bad at conference.
That leaves Jenrick, Badenoch, and either Cleverhat or Tugendly in the final 3. If one assumes that the majority of Tugendly supporters transfer to Cleverhat, then it would be Jenrick vs Cleverhat in the final two, and Jenrick wins the membership vote.
I think those two will go to the membership and Jenrick will win, as long as there are no skeletons in his cupboard that emerge over the next few weeks.
I think Kemi Badenoch is more popular with the membership, so if she's in the final two, I think she'll win. Unless Robert Jenrick knocks it out of the park at the party conference.
The question is whether she'll make it to the final two. Of the remaining candidates, one of Cleverly and Tugendhat is going home next, and I'm tempted to say it will be James Cleverly, because he has traditionally not impressed me as a speaker, and I can see him looking bad at conference.
That leaves Jenrick, Badenoch, and either Cleverhat or Tugendly in the final 3. If one assumes that the majority of Tugendly supporters transfer to Cleverhat, then it would be Jenrick vs Cleverhat in the final two, and Jenrick wins the membership vote.
If your analysis is correct, they may be some hasty calculations and possibly change of votes by Jenrick supporters.
None of Jenrick, Badenoch or Cleverly are capable of leading the Tories anywhere.
I think those two will go to the membership and Jenrick will win, as long as there are no skeletons in his cupboard that emerge over the next few weeks.
I think Kemi Badenoch is more popular with the membership, so if she's in the final two, I think she'll win. Unless Robert Jenrick knocks it out of the park at the party conference.
The question is whether she'll make it to the final two. Of the remaining candidates, one of Cleverly and Tugendhat is going home next, and I'm tempted to say it will be James Cleverly, because he has traditionally not impressed me as a speaker, and I can see him looking bad at conference.
That leaves Jenrick, Badenoch, and either Cleverhat or Tugendly in the final 3. If one assumes that the majority of Tugendly supporters transfer to Cleverhat, then it would be Jenrick vs Cleverhat in the final two, and Jenrick wins the membership vote.
If your analysis is correct, they may be some hasty calculations and possibly change of votes by Jenrick supporters.
None of Jenrick, Badenoch or Cleverly are capable of leading the Tories anywhere.
In my opinion, the Conservatives will gain seats at the next council elections
I think those two will go to the membership and Jenrick will win, as long as there are no skeletons in his cupboard that emerge over the next few weeks.
I think Kemi Badenoch is more popular with the membership, so if she's in the final two, I think she'll win. Unless Robert Jenrick knocks it out of the park at the party conference.
The question is whether she'll make it to the final two. Of the remaining candidates, one of Cleverly and Tugendhat is going home next, and I'm tempted to say it will be James Cleverly, because he has traditionally not impressed me as a speaker, and I can see him looking bad at conference.
That leaves Jenrick, Badenoch, and either Cleverhat or Tugendly in the final 3. If one assumes that the majority of Tugendly supporters transfer to Cleverhat, then it would be Jenrick vs Cleverhat in the final two, and Jenrick wins the membership vote.
If your analysis is correct, they may be some hasty calculations and possibly change of votes by Jenrick supporters.
None of Jenrick, Badenoch or Cleverly are capable of leading the Tories anywhere.
In my opinion, the Conservatives will gain seats at the next council elections
I think a lot will depend on Reform Ltd and those who support them. If they split the tory vote to the degree seen at the GE the tories may well lose more seats. I would expect a strong Green showing.
Electorally, I think the Conservatives have reached the bottom, at least for the UK, regardless of who is the next leader. The next council elections will see gains compared to the last elections. This has nothing to do with policy or personality of the leader, but simply that the "protest against the government" factor won't be in play - indeed, depending on how Labour are perceived by the next council election, the Tories may gain from a protest vote against the government. There will be local variations on that trend, of course. I'm not entirely sure how the Conservative vote will hold up in Scotland in 2026 (or, Feb 2025 if the Scottish Government fail to get a budget through), I suspect that they'll struggle to maintain the support they had in 2021 (the same would be true of council elections).
Electorally, I think the Conservatives have reached the bottom, at least for the UK, regardless of who is the next leader. The next council elections will see gains compared to the last elections. This has nothing to do with policy or personality of the leader, but simply that the "protest against the government" factor won't be in play - indeed, depending on how Labour are perceived by the next council election, the Tories may gain from a protest vote against the government. There will be local variations on that trend, of course. I'm not entirely sure how the Conservative vote will hold up in Scotland in 2026 (or, Feb 2025 if the Scottish Government fail to get a budget through), I suspect that they'll struggle to maintain the support they had in 2021 (the same would be true of council elections).
Comments
Probably. It's such a stupid line, too. 22 billion is barely more than a rounding error in government finances. Tuppence on the basic rate of income tax would more than wipe it out, or we could just eat the cost of servicing the extra debt while the economy picks up. It's just not a big deal.
I kinda agree.
I just had a look at the OBR figures here: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
£22Bn constitutes 1.8% of public spending. Arguably that's a rounding error.
£22Bn also constitutes (if not funded elsewhere) a 28% increase in the deficit for this year which was predicted to be ~£79Bn for FY 24-25. That feels more notable.
Part of this is a tyranny of big numbers. It all feels huge to us because we do not live our lives in millions of pounds. So a thousand million is an unimaginably huge number. We live our lives in tens and hundreds for our weekly shopping; we live in the hundreds and maybe a thousand or two for big one-off purchases and in tens of thousands for cars and hundreds of thousands for houses. Hence for most of us a million is a number we never deal in and a billion must be a VERY big number.
But it's not. It's a matter of simple multiplication. We have a population of 69,210,418 people (Worldometer). Hence a billion is simply £14.45 per person. That's probably the right perspective on any government numbers. How much is it per person in the country? There is a £22Bn hole in the budget for this financial year or perhaps there's a £318 hole in our finances. Maybe that's a more helpful way to think about it?
Yep.
AFZ
As for the Winter Fuel Payment, how long do we have to wait before someone - anyone - does the maths and points out that loss of WFP + Miliband's green levy = £350pa?
I watched PMQs and before Sir Keir commenced his statement there was a large movement from both sides of the house towards the exits. It was not a good look.
(It feels pretty weird that the process drags out until 2nd November).
@Telford I think shameful is the word you're looking for.
It also displayed a staggering ignorance. The installation of the type of cladding responsible for the London conflagration wasn't restricted to high-rise blocks - it was marketed aggressively to providers of social housing seeking a cheap, quick-fix solution for refurbishment programmes. You'll also find it on the outside of some shopping complexes.
I can understand why lots of tories might have left - it mostly happened on their watch - but I agree that Labour MPs leaving (unless for urgent and pressing reasons which we don't know about) was unacceptable.
Feels like typical behaviour tbh - both sides have an interest in making the place look packed for PMQs, after which there’s almost always an unseemly rush for the exits.
But too many of the public don’t get that, and on occasions such as this the ‘optics’ aren’t great.
Ideally if the questions a Minister (or the PM) is going to be asked are known in advance then there's time for them to prepare a proper answer to them, rather than PMQs being an exercise of the opposition trying to catch the PM out (or, similarly for other ministerial questions). Of course, we're not in an ideal world and we have a pantomime performance for PMQs, and learn very little from the exercise.
Especially when a series of MPs have already made it clear by their actions that they didn't take the issue particularly seriously (May, Rees-Mogg, Pickles).
I’m old fashioned enough to think one of Tony Blair’s worse innovations (in a crowded field) was the consolidation of PMQs into one session - prior to 1997 it was twice weekly. Fewer questions, but the opposition could really build a narrative and pressure.
Oh, that would be why it was changed…
It's not a world I know much about but this Twitter thread provides meaningful context:
https://x.com/DriverGeorge32A/status/1831975875115679747?t=faYUuEhnS5L-z4JavZPEug&s=19
It's a good thread about what they actually do.
Coming back to this page:
I heard Angela Rayner asked about this yesterday. FWIW, I agree with her answer that she gave. She said that most MPs have not had any time to read a multivolume report and it's reasonable to expect them to do so before the upcoming debate.
I would also argue that for the Conservative Party, especially, they should have been seen to be in the chamber... because if nothing else they need to show that they care.
AFZ
The justification is not ridiculous. It takes a lot of time for the PM to prepare. Consolidation into one 30min session, instead two fifteen minute ones is more efficient. Bercow was especially agreesive in making sure back benchers got to ask questions which I think was a good thing. Whilst the pantomime of PMQs can be problematic, it is a really good thing to have in my view. It is good to hold the executive to account.
AFZ
Well the time and the pressure was sort of the point - doing it twice a week was more of a crucible for the PM to have to walk into, and until Blair they did. Difficult to remember now but in the 80s and 90s (especially the latter) it was really possible to have a PM on the ropes for most of a week.
Which was probably healthy.
In a multi-stage election, you need to have a few days for horse-trading between rounds, otherwise the multi-stage process makes no sense. There's a long gap between round 2 and round 3 because they put the party conference in there, and then the final round takes a while because it's a postal ballot of party members.
The timescale seems reasonable enough to me. (It's just a shame about the candidates...)
As regards the next round, one might guess that Patel's votes would go to Badenoch or Jenrick. I suspect that Mel Stride will be the next to go - he was only one vote behind Tugendhat in the first round, but he seems like a complete nothing of a candidate, so I find it hard to imagine any additional people getting excited about voting for him. Perhaps he's hoping to hang on and end up as the compromise candidate, but I think his days are numbered.
I suspect that the final three will be Jenrick, Badenoch, and whichever of Tugendhat and Cleverly ends up as standard bearer for the slightly more moderate end of the Tory party. I think Cleverly is more likely, although Tugendhat is a much better candidate.
I suspect that who the membership votes for will depend on their performance at the party conference. Badenoch has had better name recognition amongst Tory voters than Jenrick, so Jenrick would need to take this opportunity to stand out.
I reckon it was clear years ago what would be the outcome......Everyone would be at at fault especially the cladding people
Tis a pity that not all parties are represented on committees
@Alan Cresswell did you see my pm ?
[/tangent]
It also gives them time to get their fund raising in order, as to qualify as one of the final four they have to donate £50K to the party, and put up a further £150K should they end up as one of the finalists.
I've never heard that before. If it's true, it's sufficiently juicy that I'd expect to have done. Have you any authority for it?
It's referred to in these two Guardian articles:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/26/conservative-leadership-race-spending-cap-raised-to-400000
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/05/robert-jenrick-frontrunner-tory-leadership
As well as this Sun article:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/29496030/tory-leadership-race-money-contest/
They talk about it in terms of covering the costs of an election rather than as a pay to play style fee. You may of course decide that there isn't much difference between the two in practice.
In most cases they'll have a donor pay it, I would think. Of course how many of those donors turn out to be Putin if you follow the money trail is anyone's guess.
To consolidate the power of the War Office?
My experience of the army is that they would happily sell infantry and cavalry commissions now (not commissions for the grubby non-U technical corps and services officered by grammar and comprehensive school boys obviously), but Parliament stopped it and bought them all out in 186-whatever.
They did.
🥬
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/10/mel-stride-knocked-out-of-tory-leadership-contest
Tugendhat next? Or the egregious Jenrick?
Not that leadership of the rump tories really matters to anybody, except perhaps Farage...
Please God, no pictures!
I suspect it's either Bobby or Kemi for the top job.
I think Kemi Badenoch is more popular with the membership, so if she's in the final two, I think she'll win. Unless Robert Jenrick knocks it out of the park at the party conference.
The question is whether she'll make it to the final two. Of the remaining candidates, one of Cleverly and Tugendhat is going home next, and I'm tempted to say it will be James Cleverly, because he has traditionally not impressed me as a speaker, and I can see him looking bad at conference.
That leaves Jenrick, Badenoch, and either Cleverhat or Tugendly in the final 3. If one assumes that the majority of Tugendly supporters transfer to Cleverhat, then it would be Jenrick vs Cleverhat in the final two, and Jenrick wins the membership vote.
If your analysis is correct, they may be some hasty calculations and possibly change of votes by Jenrick supporters.
None of Jenrick, Badenoch or Cleverly are capable of leading the Tories anywhere.
I think a lot will depend on Reform Ltd and those who support them. If they split the tory vote to the degree seen at the GE the tories may well lose more seats. I would expect a strong Green showing.
A fuller explanation which I agree with.