The first ballot among Tory MPs took place today. May already has over 50%, so it is hard to see how the transfer of votes from candidates who have stood down can change to decision. Result:
Total 329: May 165, Leadsom 66. Gove 48, Crabb 34, Fox 16. Fox and Crabb have dropped out. It seems likely that Fox and Crabb’s votes will go to May. The next (and final) MP vote will be on Thursday.
Just for fun, let us make a assumption. Suppose that that happens. May will then have 215 votes. Suppose that Gove is last and his votes go to Leadsom. The situation would then be May 215. Leadsom 114. Those votes would count for nothing when the choice is put to the Tory membership. Gender would not matter since both are female. But what about the Brexit thing? May seems to have avoided being involved, but Leadsom came out for Brexit. Will that favour Leadsom? It is very hard to know how strongly Brexit the hardcore Tory party membership is, or vice versa. Favourites for the leadership have been overturned several times by the members, so it is not at all certain how the final vote will go. But I understand that there have been calls for whoever the person will the least votes is to withdraw, in which case, there would only be May left standing, and she would be elected leader ‘by acclimation’ at the Tory party conference. Maybe Leadsom would come under intense pressure to stand down ‘for the good of the party and Britain’. Maybe, but I doubt that the membership would be overjoyed by such a trick. Frankly, I doubt that such a trick will be played, but what might happen is that May and Leadsom come to an agreement whereby Leadsom will not try very hard. In return, she will get a good position in May’s cabinet. It will be a replay of Cameron’s election, where he strutted about on the stage making his learned-off-by-heart speech. The other candidate appeared lacklustre and Cameron was elected.
Does it matter?
I doubt it. Whoever becomes PM will still have to work out what leaving the EU means. What have we voted for exactly? I don’t know because I have no expertise. I would say that an immediate consequence is that our MEPs no longer exist. The same might apply to our Commissioners, and Council members. Of course, that does not mean that everyone immediately packs their bags and comes home. The withdrawal must be orderly.
But, cutting things short, the real question concerns treaties. Which treaties need to be annulled, which can be amended and which can continue? In a way, the common market does not come into it, except for those parts of treaties which forbade tariff-free trade with the rest of the world. Now, there is nothing to stop the UK doing just that. Actually, the reality is that treaties can just be allowed to lapse as the world changes. What is important is that treaties which are mutually beneficial should continue. There is no need for Junker et al to be involved.
The situation is not that messy unless you want to make it messy. There are no real ‘laws’ involved – there are only treaties. We do not have to repeal every law that has been passed as a result of EU directives. We can keep what we want and discard what we do not want.
What seems clear to me is that people are becoming more and more aware of edicts and decrees, whether they come from the EU or the WHO, IPCC, UN. All those decrees have been created semi-secretly, using junk science and imposed via emotional control. “Oh my god! The world is about to fry! (Or freeze). Something must be done!” But the more that academia screams, “Disaster!”, the more impervious The People become to the screams. It takes longer for politicians and governments to become impervious, and even longer for such organisations to be defunded. But, eventually, defunded they will be.
The UK will stop funding the EU. That is a MUST following the Brexit vote. A negotiation could concern the NECESSARY costs of the common market and prompt a contribution from the UK. We might, based upon our charitable nature, contribute to looking after refugees from Syria and such places until those places are peaceful enough for those people to go home. But it is OUR decision, and not the EU’s. We might provide tents, food and drink, medical supplies, but we WILL NOT provide space in our country for them. That is not cruel. In fact, it would be cruel to subject such people to the rain and cold of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. We are used to the weather – they are not.
All that aside, as I see it, it does not matter whether May of Leadsom becomes PM. Either of them will feel the same political pressures. What I hope is that, when confronted with pressure from ASH et al, they will just say, “FUCK OFF! WE HAVE FAR GREATER THINGS TO DEAL WITH!”
For is that not the truth? ASH ET AL, along with the obesity gang, have been pushing trivia. But ASH, in itself, is only a tiny part of the problem. For too long, highly paid teachers, such as university professor and doctors, have been in the ascendancy. They have ruled because politicians are ignorant. But the REAL problem is that politicians have allowed the academics to choose the advisers. That is a recipe for disaster since those academics have no responsibility for the consequences. Only in the last few days, the Society of Statisticians has come out and complained about junk statistical analysis. That must have hurt! Perhaps Government should pass all statistical health studies to that Society for evaluation. It is hard to see how the junk studies of SHS harm could have passed muster had they been evaluated by such a body, assuming that the body was impervious to pressure. I sort of favour an ideal panel of statisticians who are retired or almost retired, to evaluate the health zealot studies. People with no external pressures. I think that Government is too readily accepting the advice of biased people.
Is that why the Brexit vote has been necessary? Ought not Government have seen long ago where the multiplicity and complexity of treaties were leading? Were Heath, Wilson, Major, Callaghan, Blair and Brown oblivious to where the path was leading? Or were they complicit?
To me, it is incomprehensible that a ‘United States of Europe’ could be pursued in secret by a small elite of elite politicians, who had ceased to have an elected position. Whence do they get their power? Who pays?
We know that the FCTC was funded by by Big Pharma for a while, until it could tap into taxation. Would Cameron et al have contributed their own money? Of course not!
Will May or Leadsom create a committee to cut the costs of university education? I doubt it since their power depends upon increasing costs. It is time that that universal dependency was reversed. We want to see our elected representatives reducing costs. And I do not mean reducing benefits. I mean the costs of government.
I think that May may be the best bet. Apparently, she is bossy and abrasive. She might well be the person to say, “Bugger off!” to the IPCC and WHO.
But, most of all, stop giving them our money.