Thursday 29 November 2018

On Manoeuvres: Who Succeeds May?

This is an entertaining one.  We know that whenever the leadership of one of the big two parties is on the line, an amazing array of no-hopers thrust themselves forward (Andrea who?):   even a 1-500 shot of becoming PM at a stroke is too much for a mere mortal to resist, still less a venal MP.

But whom do we reckon has a serious chance?

For what it's worth, I'd say Hammond is on maneouvres in a big way.  He never seems to feature on shortlists, so maybe the true insiders know of some absolutely fatal feature in his background.  That apart, surely he's the safe-hands candidate by a country mile.

What do we think?

(Andrea who?)



andrew said...

Only a very special sort of person would want to take over the captaincy of the titanic - after seeing the film.

The sort of person who thinks they can rewrite the ending.

And maybe they can.

Betfair exchange says 4-1 against may's deal. That sounded fair to me.

david morris said...

Hammond ?

Well yes,

If the CP wants to see mass insurrection.

Swiss Bob said...

It used to be said the front runner never won, eg Heseltine lost to Major but then it used to be said the Conservatives were ruthless in changing their leader but here they've indulged May for some time.

I can't see Hammond, he's taunted the Brexiteers too often which shrinks his electorate, plus he's got the charisma of an undertaker.

It's a difficult gig, first the MPs vote to select two candidates who then go to the party... unless they can all agree on a single candidate for a coronation. But they did that with May who was untested and we've subsequently seen the results, this mitigates against Sajid Javid who has the advantage of being a blank canvas but the disadvantage of it too.

The problem is nobody stands out which doesn't bode well. Raab if he can reach out? But admitting to being a wallflower in cabinet is not a good look, ditto Davis. Jeremy Hunt who voted remain but has become a Brexit evangelist? Maybe the Conservatives copy Labour and see their membership pick someone they love, but whom the public things is an extremist?

A final random scenario: a by-election in a safe seat and William Hague comes back.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

They’re all fucking useless. Which shouldn’t be surprising since they have all been playing at politics in a chamber with the status of a county council within a federation where all the really important decisions have been taken elsewhere for 25+ years. We require a system reset.

Raedwald said...

One of the problems is that politics now more than ever is attracting the wrong sort of people. Every minute of everyone's life even back to schooldays (cf. Brett Kavanaugh) can be mined and exploited by enemies - and only the most dreary, mediocre, uninspired, tedious dullards now become MPs.

The same was true at the start of WWII of most of the army's officers of field rank and above. It was only after they were replaced in the heat of urgent necessity by men who were good at war rather than those with decent social skills that we started winning.

One of the reason's I welcome the chaos of this crisis is that out of the mess should come persons of skill and ability who will restore the strength of our effete democracy. When our need is urgent we won't care that the Transport Minister once stole a car, smoked dope and forged a railcard or whatever.

hovis said...

Seb Weetabix +1

Syonist said...

dearieme said...

If we're to get Brexit, then I say with heavy heart it'll have to be Boris. God save us all.

Bill Quango MP said...

dearieme - Churchill was a one term Prime Minister.
The greatest, and most flawed, of them all only lasted one session, we need not fear too long a Boris tenure.
Just long enough to get the job done.

Though with our luck, it will be Hancock.

E-K said...

Where's our Trump ?

E-K said...

I think the Tories are a hopeless case.

Now. If the civil service can subvert a vote like the referendum, and they can bring every other manifesto pledge to nought (law and order, welfare control, immigration) then surely they can rein in a Corbyn government.

How is it only right wing policies seem to get scuppered ?

Anonymous said...

"How is it only right wing policies seem to get scuppered?"

Because the Civil Service is staffed by middle-class public sector types, for whom a leftist bureaucratic mindset comes as standard.

Hence their attempt to undermine or reverse Brexit. May's ensnarement by Olly Robbins and his Civil Service/Remainer clique have trapped her in a position from which there is no escape, other than her resignation.

Whether the country as a whole can escape from them is yet to be seen.

Sackerson said...

Hammond: safe, for whom?

DJK said...

BQ: Churchill had two terms: 1940-45 and 51-55.

E-K: My thoughts exactly. Corbyn & co aren't very bright, so it should be fairly easy for the civil service to thwart the battier ideas. As the Tories clearly don't deserve our votes, it's time to give the other lot a try.

As to who succeeds May, it has to be Boris for my money. Only somebody larger than life and (yes!) flawed, can hope to lead us out of this mess.

andrew said...


now does seem to be the time of liars and fantasists.

Having said that, it probably always was - it is just that we catch them out more easily now.

The Refuser said...

I would be delighted if Boris was her replacement. If Hammond got the nod then I can see the Conservatives splitting. They are haemorrhaging support at the moment with May at the helm. Swiss Bob Billy Hague? Seriously? I would much sooner have Portillo back as an MP than Hague. In any event what are the chances of a safe seat in the current climate?
If the Conservatives want to avoid a wipeout they need someone who the public can get behind and for me that would be Boris, but I would settle for Rabb.

Anonymous said...

Hammond would be a disaster.

Boris has more faces than Bradford Town Hall clock, but maybe an unprincipled chancer is what we need. And maybe not.

Andrea Leadsom was right of course. Childless leaders are destroying Europe, because they have no stake in its future - no skin in the game. Why not the woman who called it correctly?