It could be all over on Monday or the Conservatives may be about to mesmerise the nation with another round of vicious infighting.
The Conservative Party rules can’t be changed. They are that Conservative MPs draw up a shortlist of two candidates from their number.
The 180,000 paid-up and unelected party members then choose between them. Less than half of those eligible to vote actually voted for Liz Truss last time but they still overruled the MPs’ preference and saddled the nation with a prime minister who lasted less than 50 days.
Sir Graham Brady and the executive of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers have done what they can to try to stop it happening again by changing the way MPs draw up the shortlist. It is possible that the MPs will present the membership with a fait accompli early next week.
After the bumpy ride for the country and their party under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, senior Tory backbenchers have done what they can to ensure an orderly transition to an orthodox candidate: most likely Rishi Sunak or Penny Mordaunt, who were the runners-up in the last contest which, amazingly, elected Ms Truss less than two months ago.
As things stand, however, there is a chance that these best laid plans could go awry, resulting in Britain ending up with another “disrupter” prime minister drawn from an unrepresentative band of populist libertarians.
How will Tories pick the new PM?
Image: Rishi Sunak lost to Liz Truss in the last Tory leadership contest
The ’22 have set the threshold for nominations high. To enter the contest, a candidate will need to gather written backing from 100 fellow Tory MPs over this weekend. That is five times higher than the 20 required last time and has the desired effect of limiting the field to a maximum of three candidates since there are only 357 Conservatives in the Commons.
Advertisement
Nominations will close at 2pm on Monday. MPs will then vote, with the results declared at 6pm. Theoretically, that may not be necessary. It is possible that only one candidate – Rishi Sunak, the runaway favourite – will get enough nominations. He would then win by a walkover, similiar to the way Gordon Brown took over the premiership from Tony Blair.
Nominating someone is more potent than just voting for them. Remember the charity nominations Margaret Beckett and other “morons”, her words not mine, gave Jeremy Corbyn so he could run. This time MPs might decide that Mr Sunak is going to win anyway, so for a quiet life and possibly currying favour with the new boss they could give him a key to No 10.
But in the final round this summer, Mr Sunak led with 137 votes, to 113 for Ms Truss and 105 for Penny Mordaunt. Ms Mordaunt wants to run again and is scrabbling for her base to nominate her. In polls this summer she was more popular with Tory voters than Mr Sunak. She would prefer a straight fight with Mr Sunak, whether that comes about because only she and he are nominated or because they beat a possible third candidate in an initial vote.
If there are two candidates left for the membership to choose from, there will be an online ballot of the membership next week, with the result declared on Friday. Before that, the ’22 have already said that there will be “an indicative vote” between them first by MPs. The purpose of this is to send a powerful and unambiguous message to the membership about whom MPs want as leader. In choosing Ms Truss last time they went against the MPs’ first preference of Sunak.
If Mr Sunak and Ms Mordaunt are the final two, they could still take the decision out of the membership’s hands by agreeing that one who has least backing from MPs withdraw in favour of the one with most, allowing him or her to become prime minister. They would also both commit in advance to serve in the same cabinet and to keep Jeremy Hunt as chancellor .
Such a smooth transition would be derailed if there is a third candidate with 100 nominations.
All eyes are on Boris Johnson, who is said, like Donald Trump, to want a comeback. If, and it is a big if, he gets on to the starting grid, there could be a stampede of MPs who might decide he looks like a vote winner and put him into the second round against either Ms Mordaunt or Mr Sunak.
His chances of victory and re-election by the membership would be very high. He is popular and he is the only candidate who can claim a personal mandate, having led the party to victory in the 2019 general election.
But, but, but.
Tory MPs and cabinet ministers turfed out Mr Johnson this summer for serial dishonesty and sending others out to lie on his behalf. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and a few diehards may be calling on him to return but he has never been loved by the rank and file of the parliamentary party, who control the nominations. Nor does he fit snuggly with the libertarian, UKIP-style entryists of the European Research Group, who are now fighting a rear-guard action to preserve their influence in the party.
There are obvious efforts by Johnson supporters in parliament and the media to talk him up this weekend. But his shooting star support from some MPs could easily plateau short of 100 nominations. If so, having drawn attention to himself yet again, Mr Johnson would most likely return to his less demanding, more lucrative exertions on the US lecture circuit.
Could an unlikely outsider emerge?
If it is not Mr Johnson, someone else could emerge as the third challenger.
Suella Braverman fancies her chances and her sacking as Ms Truss’s home secretary positions her to rally the right. Kemi Badenoch also has high ambitions.
Fortunately for Ms Mordaunt or Mr Sunak, Jeremy Hunt and Ben Wallace have both ruled themselves out of the race. It is unlikely anyone else would be able to muster 100 nominating signatures.
Shell-shocked Tory MPs do not want to take the risk of taking a punt on another incoherent or incompetent leader. They want a well-known figure with a proven track record to steady the ship.
In the ultimate reckoning, this is likely to count against Ms Mordaunt. At 49, she is older than Mr Sunak, 42, and has been in parliament five years longer, since 2010. But she has served barely two years as a cabinet minister.
Mr Sunak by contrast has three years in cabinet under his belt, two of them as the chancellor who piloted the economy through COVID.
MPs have the future of the nation in their hands. One option would be to open the door to the return of the discredited individual they kicked out a few months ago. Or they could shut him out for good and opt for a technocrat.
Donald Trump said he will ask the Justice Department to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged ties to former US president Bill Clinton and other prominent Democrats.
The call from the US president comes as fresh questions about Mr Trump’s own relationship with the paedophile financier were raised as his name came up multiple times when 20,000 pages were released from Epstein’s files earlier this week. Mr Trump has called claims to link him to Epstein as a “hoax”.
Mr Trumpsaid he would ask US Attorney General Pamela Bondi to look into any alleged involvement between former Democrat leader Clinton and paedophile financier Epstein. She later wrote on X that she would assign the investigation to Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Along with Mr Clinton, Mr Trump said he would also ask the Justice Department to investigate former treasury secretary Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn founder, who is also a prominent Democratic donor.
Image: Former US president Bill Clinton. File Pic: Reuters
All three men were mentioned in the 20,000 Epstein-related documents released by the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. None of them, however, have been accused of wrongdoing in the Epstein case.
In a lengthy post on his social media platform Truth Social, Mr Trump said: “Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein Hoax, involving Democrats, not Republicans, to try and deflect from their disastrous SHUTDOWN, and all of their other failures, I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Mr Trump also said: “Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrat’s problem, not the Republican’s problem!
“They all know about him, don’t waste your time with Trump. I have a Country to run!”
What do the named parties say about alleged links to Epstein?
Angel Urena, deputy chief of staff for Mr Clinton, said in 2019: “President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some time ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York…has never been to Little St James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida.”
Epstein had been a JPMorgan client from 1998 until 2013.
“The firm deeply regrets any association with this man, and would never have continued doing business with him if it believed he was using the bank in any way to commit his heinous crimes,” JPMorgan said in a statement in September 2023.
Summers, former Harvard University president, recently issued a statement saying he has “great regrets in my life.”
“As I have said before, my association with Jeffrey Epstein was a major error of judgement,” the statement said.
Similarly, Mr Hoffman told Axios in 2019 he regretted his relationship with Epstein.
“My few interactions with Jeffrey Epstein came at the request of Joi Ito, for the purposes of fundraising for the MIT Media Lab.
“Prior to these interactions, I was told by Joi that Epstein had cleared the MIT vetting process, which was the basis for my participation.
“My last interaction with Epstein was in 2015. Still, by agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice. For this, I am deeply regretful.”
A 47-year-old New Jersey man died last year from alpha-gal syndrome, a red meat allergy caused by a tick bite.
His death is believed to be the first documented death from a meat allergy triggered by tick bites.
Symptoms for alpha-gal syndrome – which in 2011 was first linked to bites from the Lone Star tick – can include hives, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, severe stomach pain, difficulty breathing, dizziness and swelling of the lips, throat, tongue or eyelids.
The reaction to the foods that cause the symptoms can be delayed, and usually present themselves a few hours later, unlike some other food allergies, which occur soon after eating.
The new research follows the case of a healthy airline pilot who went camping in 2024 with his wife and children. They had steak for supper. This was unusual, as he rarely ate meat.
He woke at 2am with violent pain in his abdomen, vomiting and diarrhoea.
The next day he ate breakfast and went on a five-mile walk.
More from World
A fortnight later, back in New Jersey, he went to a barbecue, where he ate a hamburger. About four hours later, he grew ill. Shortly afterwards, his son found him on the bathroom floor unconscious.
Image: Am operating theatre. File pic by iStock
His son called paramedics, and he was admitted to hospital, but the man was announced dead later that night.
Blood tests conducted by researchers revealed evidence of the alpha-gal syndrome. Proof that it came from a Lone Star tick is inconclusive.
The researchers made the link after a statement from the man’s wife, who had said he had 12 or 13 “chigger” bites near his ankles earlier in the summer.
But the conclusion makes sense, as people in eastern America sometimes mistake the bites from mites with those from larval ticks.
More than 100,000 people in the U.S. have become allergic to red meat since 2010 because of the syndrome, according to one estimate.
Three Chinese astronauts have successfully returned to Earth from their nation’s space station after their capsule was damaged.
The team deployed a red and white striped parachute as they descended, before landing at a remote site in the Gobi Desert in Asia on Friday.
The astronauts – Chen Dong, Chen Zhongrui and Wang Jie – had been due to return on 5 November to end their six-month rotation at the Tiangong space station.
However, their journey back was delayed by nine days because the Shenzhou-20 return capsule they were due to travel in was found to have tiny cracks.
These were most likely caused by the impact of space debris hitting the craft, China’s space agency said.
There are millions of pieces of mostly tiny particles that circle the Earth at speeds faster than a bullet.
They can come from launches and collisions and pose a risk to satellites, space stations and the astronauts who operate outside them.
With the Shenzhou-20 out of action, the crew – who travelled to the space station in April – used a Shenzhou-21 craft instead, which had brought a three-person replacement crew to the station.
Image: The launch of the Shenzhou-21 craft from Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in Gansu province, China, on 31 October. Pic: Kyodo via AP
The Chinese space agency said the stranded taikonauts – the Chinese word for astronauts – had remained in good condition throughout.
The first module of the Tiangong, which means “Heavenly Palace”, was launched by the Chinese state in 2021.
It is smaller than the International Space Station, from which Beijing is blocked, due to US national security concerns.
China’s space programme has developed steadily since 2003.
In a long term plan to advance its orbital capabilities, China plans to land a person on the moon by 2030 and has already explored Mars with a robotic rover.
The Asian nation’s latest space mission brought four mice to study how weightlessness and confinement would affect them.
An engineer from the Chinese Academy of Sciences said the study will help master key technologies for breeding and monitoring small mammals in space.