Looks Like The Tories Are Finished

[youngmafbog]

Well certainly from the MP's voting.

Tugendhat out, Clevery(or not as the case is) wins the most and Badenoch last.

Given that Badenoch appears to be the member favourite if the MP's dont put her forward then I think they may well be toast.

If Cleverly wins thye are finished.  He is not a Tory.

[sp1814]

YMB

 

Going back to your original question - Cleverly all the way.

Jenrick is compromised by his obvious swing to the right (trying to mop up favours from the ERG and squeeze himself into Suella'a Manolos).

Kemi wants to be the new Mrs T, but on current form we can't tell if that's going to be Thatcher or Truss...that just leaves Jimmy.

I'd vote for him, if only for his surname's comedy potential.

[sp1814]

Well said Ellipsis @ 17.21

[Canary42]

I don't see why not being a Tory should hamper Cleverly, after all Starmer's not a Socialist 😀

[Khandro]

The fact that Kemi Badenoch has worked at McDonald's is perhaps her prime qualification for leadership,

(dreadlocks not withstanding.)

 

[Hopkirk]

Is the country ready to vote in a black woman prime minister?

 

(I am)

[Bazile]

''Is the country ready to vote in a black woman prime minister''

Is Michelle Obama standing for leadership of the party ?

 

[Old_Geezer]

MPs can only vote on others' behalf if they know what it is that, those on whose behave they're voting, wants on a particular issue. Otherwise there is very little of democracy left.  Even then any major change should be put to a vote of the people and the result be obligatory. But in this case the issue is a party leader selection so isn't really related to normal governance but is something for all the party members.

[Old_Geezer]

The members don't select MPs, they select candidates from the shower offered them. The constituents select an MP from the shower offered them.

[gulliver1]

I agree with YMB and his OP "The Tories Are Finished"

[New Judge]

"The whole point of the process is that the MPs have to be able to support their leader."

You missed a bit out:  MPs have to be able to support their leader,..... who was chosen by the party members.

MPs are but  small in number. I believe the Conservative Party does not publish its membership numbers, but  I imagine it is considerably more than 121.

The MPs and their leader should consider the views of the membership and the wider electorate. If 90% of the members (and possibly a similar proporton of the electorate who might vote Conservative) want to leave the ECHR then that is what should drive the leader's and MPs' efforts.

It is no use running a party that is in tune with the views of only 121 people. Democracy works from the bottom up, not the top down.  The members' view should drive the party's  MPs and leader, not the other way round.

It was Mr Blair who famously began his time in office by announcing that he believed it was his MPs' job to convince the electorate of the righteousness of his government's policies. 

He was wrong then and you are wrong now. The Conservative party's election process is flawed. The choice of leader -however unpallatable that choice may seem to some - should rest solely with the party members. It should not be in the gift of a small number of MPs to whittle the list down to the two whom they consider most suitable. MPs - especially the longer standing ones - are notoriously poor at judging the views of their party members and the wider electorate and if democracy is to succeed such an important decision should not be left to them.

[Ellipsis]

Essentially, NJ, you are saying you don't like Representative Democracy ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

If that's the case, and you are a Conservative Party Member, then you should lobby to change things.

Or maybe, since Cleverly has been dropped and it's now Badenoch versus Jenrick, you'll keep things as they are for now ...

[New Judge]

"Essentially, NJ, you are saying you don't like Representative Democracy ."

The very opposite. But the representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, not their party or its leaders.

But this is not about that. This is about the principles adopted to elect the leader of a political party.

The members of any organisation should be entitled to vote for anybody who stands in its election for Chairman/Secretary/Leader or whatever. They should not be restricted only to the candidates approved by, say, the committee or, in this case, the party's MPs.

"Or maybe, since Cleverly has been dropped and it's now Badenoch versus Jenrick, you'll keep things as they are for now ..."

I have never been a member of any poltical party. I try not to encourage them too much. If I had been a Conservative Party member I would probably have relinquished my membership when Mrs May became leader and if I hadn't done so then I certainly would have by now.

It matters not a jot to me who leads the Conservative Party. They will have to change much more than their leader before they are granted the privilege of my vote again. But had I been a member I should like to have made my choice for the leader from the five who threw their hats into the ring, not just from the two whom the MPs kindly allowed me to.

[Canary42]

I agree NJ, because it's still quite close to Macmillan's day when it was done by "taking the soundings".

[New Judge]

"I agree NJ..."

Pass the smelling salts"!!!   😀😂🤣  

[Canary42]

Ouch 😊

[THECORBYLOON]

I hadn't known until just reading this, the final four candidates had to have raised at least a specific amount and the final two, a higher amount, to be included in the ballots.

"Candidates have been told they will each need to raise £50,000 for the party to progress to the final four and then an additional £150,000 to make the final ballot." 

Too bad if you would have made a good leader but hadn't been able to raise at least £190,000 toward party funds.

[THECORBYLOON]

The link would help...

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01366/SN01366.pdf

 

[New Judge]

"Too bad if you would have made a good leader but hadn't been able to raise at least £190,000 toward party funds."

Good grief! another reason I'm pleased I'm not  member!

[jourdain2]

Me too, N.J.  I joined on the back of May's 'Mansion House ' speech. I soon realised that it was just words.  Not a member any more and can't see any reasonfor rejoining.  Toying with the idea of joining 'Reform'.  We'll see what happens.