32 per cent, roughly one in three panel members, supported such an exchange and 60 per cent, some three in five of the whole, opposed it.
This year has shown that our current leadership election system is untenable. Yet to replace it should mean compensating members with an expansion of their control of the party, including funds, candidate selection, and policy.
Party members deserve a larger say over policy, candidate selection, and much else. But it must be for the House of Commons to choose the prime minister.
Activists are willing to go along with the Party as long as it’s prepared to go along with them. Which has meant it doing so on the great issues of the day. Which in recent years have boiled down to one – Brexit.
To date, 17,000 members have taken up a ticket to one of our regional events. Don’t miss your chance to question the candidates.
It will give you a stronger voice heard at the top of government; recognise our volunteers and activists; and ensure that we keep on winning election campaigns and keep Labour out of Government.
As the candidates campaign across the country, we must all keep focused on the task of defeating Starmer at the next election.
It splits the difference between a wide submission window and encouraging people to vote later in the campaign.
All the differences between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss pale in comparison to the gulf between our party and Labour.
For the Party to impose on MPs a leader in whom they have no confidence would be an affront to the constitution.
In the last contest, we ditched the American knockabout for the traditional British format, and had a much healthier debate.
The Party Chairman responsible for fund-raising is playing for higher stakes than he may appreciate.
MPs hardly have a great track record of selecting suitable candidates – and the current system allows for coronations when needed.