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.
Syria has carried out pre-emptive operations targeting Islamic State cells – arresting 71 people during 61 raids.
Explosives and weapons were seized, with the interior ministry revealing they were working on “precise” intelligence information.
“Many” of those detained were wanted criminals, with forces obtaining evidence that linked them to terrorist activities.
A statement added that the operation was part of “ongoing national efforts to combat terrorism and confront plots targeting the country’s security and citizens”.
The raids come as Syrian President Ahmed al Sharaa travels to Washington for a meeting with Donald Trump, where he will join a coalition against IS.
Meanwhile, the US is preparing to establish a military presence in Damascus to enable a security pact that is being brokered between Syria and Israel.
According to the Syrian Arab News Agency, officials intercepted information that suggested Islamic State was planning to launch new attacks.
More on Islamic State
Related Topics:
Interior ministry spokesman Nour al Din al Baba told al Ekhbariya: “The current major threat lies in IS’ attempts to reconstitute itself and recruit new members, particularly among the youth.”
Since then, al Sharaa’s transitional administration has been attempting to restore security, introduce economic reforms, and cooperate with international partners.
On Friday, the UK and US removed sanctions against al Sharaa – following in the footsteps of the UN Security Council.
The State Department said this was “in recognition of the progress demonstrated by the Syrian leadership”, including work to counter narcotics and eliminate chemical weapons.
Al Sharaa had faced a travel ban, asset freeze and an arms embargo for well over a decade because he was previously affiliated with al Qaeda.
Israeli troops in Gaza have received the remains of another hostage.
They have now been taken to the National Institute for Forensic Medicine to be examined.
If it is confirmed that they belong to a hostage, this would mean there are five bodies left to be returned under the terms of a ceasefire that began on 10 October.
Israel has also released the bodies of 285 Palestinians – but this identification process is harder because DNA labs are not allowed in Gaza.
Last night’s transfer is a sign of progress in the fragile truce, but some of the remains handed over in recent weeks have not belonged to any of the missing hostages.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:31
October: Heavy machinery enters Gaza to clear rubble
At times, Israel has accused Hamas of violating the agreement – however, US President Donald Trump has previously acknowledged conditions on the ground in Gaza are difficult.
Meanwhile, UN officials have warned the levels of humanitarian aid flowing into the territory fall well short of what Palestinians require.
Deputy spokesperson Farhan Haqq said more than 200,000 metric tons of aid is positioned to move in – but only 37,000 tons has arrived so far.
Earlier on Friday, hundreds of mourners attended the military funeral of an Israeli-American soldier whose body was returned on Sunday.
Image: Omer Neutra was an Israeli-American soldier. Pic: AP
Captain Omer Neutra was 21 when he was killed by Hamas militants who then took his body into Gaza following the October 7th attacks.
Admiral Brad Cooper, who heads up US Central Command, said during the service: “He is the son of two nations.
“He embodied the best of both the United States and Israel. Uniquely, he has firmly cemented his place in history as the hero of two countries.”
His mother Orna addressed her son’s coffin – and said: “We are all left with the vast space between who you were to us and to the world in your life and what you were yet to become. And with the mission to fill that gap with the light and goodness that you are.”
Image: IDF troops carry the coffin of hostage Omer Neutra. Pic: AP
In other developments, Turkish prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and 36 other Israeli officials on charges of carrying out “genocide” in Gaza.
They have been accused of crimes against humanity – but the move is highly symbolic since these officials were unlikely to enter Turkey.
Foreign minister Gideon Saar dismissed the warrants, and said: “Israel firmly rejects, with contempt, the latest PR stunt by the tyrant Erdogan.”
In Soviet times, Western observers would scrutinise video footage of state occasions, like military parades on Red Square, to try to learn more about Kremlin hierarchy.
Who was positioned closest to the leader? What did the body language say? Which officials were in and out of favour?
In some ways, not much has changed.
The footage present-day Kremlinologists are currently pouring over is from Wednesday’s landmark meeting of Russia’s Security Council, in which Vladimir Putin told his top officials to start drafting proposals for a possible nuclear weapons test.
It was an important moment. Not one you’d expect a trusted lieutenant to miss. But Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s veteran foreign minister, was conspicuously absent – the only permanent member of the Council not present.
According to the Russian business daily, Kommersant, his absence was “coordinated”.
More on Russia
Related Topics:
Image: US President Donald Trump meets with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Pic: AP
Image: Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio in Alaska. Pic: AP
That episode alone would have been enough to raise eyebrows.
But coupled with the selection of a more junior official to lead the Russian delegation at the upcoming G20 summit (a role Lavrov has filled in recent years) – well, that’s when questions get asked, namely: Has Moscow’s top diplomat been sidelined?
The question has grown loud enough to force the Kremlin into a denial, but it’s done little to quell speculation that Lavrov has fallen out of favour.
Image: Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. File pic: Reuters
Rumours of a rift have been mounting since Donald Trump called off a planned summit with Putin in Budapest last month, following a phone call between Lavrov and US secretary of state Marco Rubio.
According to the Financial Times, it was Lavrov’s uncompromising stance that prompted the White House to put the summit on ice.
Conversations I had with diplomatic sources here at the time revealed a belief that Lavrov had either dropped the ball or gone off-script. Whether it was by accident or by design, his diplomacy (or lack of it) torpedoed the summit and seemingly set back a US-Russia rapprochement.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
September: Anyone downing aircraft in Russian airspace will ‘regret it’
That would’ve angered Putin, who is keen to engage with Washington, not only on Ukraine but on other issues, like nuclear arms control.
More importantly, perhaps, it made the Russian president appear weak – unable to control his foreign minister. And Putin is not a man who likes to be undermined.
Football fans will be familiar with Sir Alex Ferguson’s golden rule of management: Never let a player grow bigger than the club. Putin operates in a similar fashion. Loyalty is valued extremely highly.
Image: Lavrov meets with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in 2015. Pic: Reuters
Image: North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Lavrov meet in Pyongyang in 2023. Pic: AP
Image: Lavrov and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi meet in Indonesia in 2022. Pic: Reuters
If Lavrov has indeed been sidelined, it would be a very significant moment indeed. The 75-year-old has been the face of Russian diplomacy for more than two decades and effectively Putin’s right-hand man for most of the Kremlin leader’s rule.
Known for his abrasive style and acerbic putdowns, Lavrov has also been a vociferous cheerleader for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
And in the melee that immediately followed the presidents’ press statements at the summit, I remember racing over to Lavrov as he was leaving and yelling a question to him through the line of security guards.
He didn’t even turn. Instead, he just shouted back: “Who are you?”
It was typical of a diplomatic heavyweight, who’s known for not pulling his punches. But has that uncompromising approach finally taken its toll?