She’s gone ?

[Nick]

Playing with semantics Nick not long you said of him and his wife that who in their right minds pays tax they don't have to.
Now you suggest evasion

I'm merely countering PP's premise that it was his skin colour that lost him the gig, but you know that and are playing games. 

[cromwell]

I'm suggesting a reason why Tory members might not like him that's not due to skin colour. Have I ever stated people should evade tax?

Playing with semantics Nick not long you said of him and his wife that who in their right minds pays tax they don't have to.
Now you suggest evasion

[Nick]

Oh so you now think people should pay their dues

I'm suggesting a reason why Tory members might not like him that's not due to skin colour. Have I ever stated people should evade tax?

[cromwell]

Once again you pull out the race card!! Ever thought people just don't like him because he is associated with his wife who has blatantly dodged tax? No, it must be the colour of his skin.

Oh so you now think people should pay their dues

[T00ts]

In what perverse world would Truss ever be favoured over Sunak?

Even the most indoctrinated bigot and racist would be forced to admit the enormous gulf between their intelligence and understanding of economics puts Sunak way above Truss in suitability for being the first lord of the treasury...

I know you are absolutely dying to get the colour of his skin involved but he was disloyal, he knifed Boris in the back for his own advancement. Sunak also had cake in shutdown and was fined but somehow that doesn't matter. Sunak is dishonest. Truss offered an economic strategy for growth that this country badly needs but sadly she misjudged it. Sunak won't go for growth. Sunak will continue as he was and we will stay bouncing around at floor level. He was never going to carry the Conservative party with him. He also won't win an election.

[Nick]

In what perverse world would Truss ever be favoured over Sunak?

Even the most indoctrinated bigot and racist would be forced to admit the enormous gulf between their intelligence and understanding of economics puts Sunak way above Truss in suitability for being the first lord of the treasury...

Once again you pull out the race card!! Ever thought people just don't like him because he is associated with his wife who has blatantly dodged tax? No, it must be the colour of his skin. 

[cromwell]

The most amusing thing of this shambolic episode if it hadn't caused so much mayhem is the thread title

She's gone

She was never there intellectually or otherwise.
That after this episode of Tory insanity we are expected to accept another candidate being the inept elected by the inane shows how far this all has fallen.

A general election now.

[patman post]

Gosh how many times do I have to repeat myself? The choice was Sunak and Truss - no choice! Even after that they are still trying to foist Sunak on them.

In what perverse world would Truss ever be favoured over Sunak?

Even the most indoctrinated bigot and racist would be forced to admit the enormous gulf between their intelligence and understanding of economics puts Sunak way above Truss in suitability for being the first lord of the treasury...

[T00ts]

Their support for Truss clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Gosh how many times do I have to repeat myself? The choice was Sunak and Truss - no choice! Even after that they are still trying to foist Sunak on them.

[srb7677]

The members (do stop your plaintive refs to blue rinses etc it's so passe) are the activists who do a lot of the work. They need to support the leader and policies. They are also the ones most in touch with the electorate

Their support for Truss clearly demonstrates otherwise.

[T00ts]

I think what you believe is wrong.

My comment:

If you believe that the choice of the country's leader should be left to 180,000 mainly elderly blue rinses and Col Blimps in the shires then, by your interpretation, I probably don't...

referred to how democratic the choosing of a new Tory leader was. This is currently done according to Tory Party rules, which have just been tweaked again for this selection process.

My observation is that the choice should never have been put out to the membership — a process I think that came in post Thatcher — and which has recently proved dangerously flawed.

So any change I want there, is a change back.

However, I admit I think both the Commons and Lords have too many members — 650 in one 700+ in the other — ridiculous, when the US has a total of less than 550 in the Senate and Congress.

But I don't want to change to PR, or direct voting for a PM.

So you are correct on one point (if I may speak for us all**), I do not campaign to change things I consider effective and that work...

The members (do stop your plaintive refs to blue rinses etc it's so passe) are the activists who do a lot of the work. They need to support the leader and policies. They are also the ones most in touch with the electorate. So it is a very good plan to involve them in the decision. The let down was the MPs who have been led by the nose by those with an agenda of their own re Brexit. They saw Boris as a danger - he might now be an even worse one and I hope he scuppers them.

[patman post]

i suspect the incredibly high threshold to be nominated compared to last time is probably a deliberate attempt to have just two names in the hat with all to play for.

Neither the Tory Party nor the country would feel good if they were put through another eight-week circus, with no guarantee they wouldn't end up with a second disaster.

Personally, I hope it's all down to the MPs final choice. But, whatever, it will be over quickly...

[patman post]

I believe the choice of the country is what is set out in the rules and only you remoaners want to change that, hence the fact you are all** undemocratic. It's amazing you only ever complain about the rules when you see them going against you, you never campaign to get them changed.

I think what you believe is wrong.

My comment:

If you believe that the choice of the country's leader should be left to 180,000 mainly elderly blue rinses and Col Blimps in the shires then, by your interpretation, I probably don't...

referred to how democratic the choosing of a new Tory leader was. This is currently done according to Tory Party rules, which have just been tweaked again for this selection process.

My observation is that the choice should never have been put out to the membership — a process I think that came in post Thatcher — and which has recently proved dangerously flawed.

So any change I want there, is a change back.

However, I admit I think both the Commons and Lords have too many members — 650 in one 700+ in the other — ridiculous, when the US has a total of less than 550 in the Senate and Congress.

But I don't want to change to PR, or direct voting for a PM.

So you are correct on one point (if I may speak for us all**), I do not campaign to change things I consider effective and that work...

[johnofgwent]

The plan is applications in by 2.30pm and each candidate must have 100MPs supporting them. They suspect that there will be a maximum of 3 standing.
Husting and ballot will follow on Monday afternoon
If 3 stand this will reduce the number to 2 and it must go to the Members.
If only 2 stand then the first ballot will be the deciding vote and members will not be involved.

If a member ballot is required then it will be electronic to end by Friday. As it stands the new leader could be in place by Monday evening.

In reality the only possible way they could have a new PM by Friday is for, as has been suggested on the BBC News and elsewhere, the MOs vote overwhelmingly in favour of one candidate, leaving the party members excluded.

i suspect the incredibly high threshold to be nominated compared to last time is probably a deliberate attempt to have just two names in the hat with all to play for.

[johnofgwent]

I can't wait for hignfy after all it's been a comedy so far.

No chance they could get Boris to chair an upcoming episode ?