Scrutable

plodder wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:26 pm Looks like it. Pretty amazing really.

I’m loving this idea that Tory party members don’t know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

They've only had a membership vote since 2001. So you only need to go back 20 years.

monkey wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:56 pm

plodder wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:26 pm Looks like it. Pretty amazing really.

I’m loving this idea that Tory party members don’t know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

They've only had a membership vote since 2001. So you only need to go back 20 years.

I Don't See that that gives the same results.

dyqik wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:59 am

monkey wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:56 pm

plodder wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:26 pm Looks like it. Pretty amazing really.

I’m loving this idea that Tory party members don’t know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

They've only had a membership vote since 2001. So you only need to go back 20 years.

I Don't See that that gives the same results.

I read "past century" as "past 100 years", because a century is 100 years. There's quite a difference in my head.

Yeah, I meant that the Tories have been dominant since forever, so their approach tends to be pretty effective.

monkey wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:25 am

dyqik wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:59 am

monkey wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:56 pm

They've only had a membership vote since 2001. So you only need to go back 20 years.

I Don't See that that gives the same results.

I read "past century" as "past 100 years", because a century is 100 years. There's quite a difference in my head.

I was capitalizing I and D and S for a reason. Sorry, lame joke...

plodder wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:26 pm I’m loving this idea that Tory party members don’t know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

plodder wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:34 am Yeah, I meant that the Tories have been dominant since forever, so their approach tends to be pretty effective.

Mostly their approach has not been to trust it to the Tory party members.

I don't think even MPs got a vote until the 1960s. Before then, a leader "emerged" after informal chats over brandy and cigars or on the grouse moors.

TimW wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:21 am

plodder wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:26 pm I’m loving this idea that Tory party members don’t know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

plodder wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:34 am Yeah, I meant that the Tories have been dominant since forever, so their approach tends to be pretty effective.

Mostly their approach has not been to trust it to the Tory party members.

OK pedants. I'm loving this idea that the Tory party don't know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

Well, just because they've been good at something in the past doesn't mean they can't lose the ability, like Superman in that episode of Superman that time.

plodder wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 1:51 pm

TimW wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:21 am

plodder wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:26 pm I’m loving this idea that Tory party members don’t know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

plodder wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:34 am Yeah, I meant that the Tories have been dominant since forever, so their approach tends to be pretty effective.

Mostly their approach has not been to trust it to the Tory party members.

OK pedants. I'm loving this idea that the Tory party don't know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

The best test of how electorally good a leader is probably by how much they exceed expectations of election results looking at the scenario from a couple of years out (to eliminate the immediate swing narrative) rather than by how often they win. Winning against Corbyn's Labour, on the back of the Brexit Ref, for example, isn't necessarily exceeding expectations. Likewise, Major winning in 92 was a surprise, but maybe not if you were looking for a couple of years before the election.

plodder wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 1:51 pm

TimW wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:21 am

plodder wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:26 pm I’m loving this idea that Tory party members don’t know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

plodder wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:34 am Yeah, I meant that the Tories have been dominant since forever, so their approach tends to be pretty effective.

Mostly their approach has not been to trust it to the Tory party members.

OK pedants. I'm loving this idea that the Tory party don't know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

Hmm, but if the picking method has changed then most of the last century isn't super relevant.

Seems like the Tory party (the lizards in the shadows part) is better at picking winners than its membership. Which is also arguably true of Labour.

Maybe party members aren't super representative of the broader electorate.

Apparently Braverman has resigned as home secretary (or been sacked? f.ck knows) and Shapps is due to replace her.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -liz-truss



WHAT IS HAPPENING

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:02 pm

plodder wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 1:51 pm

TimW wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:21 am



Mostly their approach has not been to trust it to the Tory party members.

OK pedants. I'm loving this idea that the Tory party don't know how to pick winning leaders. Not exactly backed up by the election results over the past century or so.

Hmm, but if the picking method has changed then most of the last century isn't super relevant.

Seems like the Tory party (the lizards in the shadows part) is better at picking winners than its membership. Which is also arguably true of Labour.

Maybe party members aren't super representative of the broader electorate.

Labour haven't really been in power much in general (~30/120 years), so I'm not sure what you might learn, but:

MPs picked the Labour leader up until 1981, they don't really have a good record up to then, winning only 5/23 elections since forming in 1900. 1981 - 2014 was an electoral college system, giving 3 wins out of 8. After 2014, one member one vote hasn't given them a win yet.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:26 pm Apparently Braverman has resigned as home secretary (or been sacked? f.ck knows) and Shapps is due to replace her.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -liz-truss

WHAT IS HAPPENING

Choked on Tofu?

Deported herself?

Sexually assaulted Fabricant?

The BBC has reported that she broke the ministerial code.

headshot wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:57 pm The BBC has reported that she broke the ministerial code.

Here's the resignation letter. clicky

She sent an email from the wrong account.

She also has a paragraph having a go at Truss.

With the fracking vote being a confidence issue my MP was looking and sounding at his most pompous when explaining that he didn’t want to vote against the government because he wanted to keep his letter of no-confidence in.

Not sure I follow the logic there.

monkey wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:04 pm

headshot wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:57 pm The BBC has reported that she broke the ministerial code.

Here's the resignation letter. clicky

She sent an email from the wrong account.

She also has a paragraph having a go at Truss.

And rather pointedly doesn’t spend any of the letter praising the prime minister, which is the normal thing to do.

Grumble wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:05 pm With the fracking vote being a confidence issue my MP was looking and sounding at his most pompous when explaining that he didn’t want to vote against the government because he wanted to keep his letter of no-confidence in.

Not sure I follow the logic there.

Confidence in different things.

One is confidence in the government and losing might lead to a General Election, the other is confidence in Truss and might lead to a new Truss.

How about:

- she wanted to resign
- she knows of several enemies who've done the same trivial mistake over email settings
- so she resigns over it
- Truss falls
- she reckons she has a shot at Number 10 while her enemies are hobbled

?

headshot wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:57 pm The BBC has reported that she broke the ministerial code.

Thought that didn't matter any more.

lpm wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:15 pm How about:

- she wanted to resign
- she knows of several enemies who've done the same trivial mistake over email settings
- so she resigns over it
- Truss falls
- she reckons she has a shot at Number 10 while her enemies are hobbled

?

It is a bit odd to have a minister having such impeccable morals that they would resign over this, after dobbing themselves in.

headshot wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:57 pm The BBC has reported that she broke the ministerial code.

No that loud cracking noise was the firing of a starting pistol, although Hunt and Sunak already appear to be around the first bend ...

monkey wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:22 pm It is a bit odd to have a minister having such impeccable morals that they would resign over this, after dobbing themselves in.

It may not be the briefest ministerial tenure in history, but it may well be the most tissue-thin excuse for abandoning the sinking ship since the duke of Wellington resigned for turning up at his desk without a protractor in his pencil case. The important point was the coda of "Now why don't you just quit too and let me have another go at being the first to bomb out of a leadership race?".

There's a couple of MPs willing to defy the Tory whip on the fracking vote now.

Not enough to change owt, but a little extra embarrassment for Truss.