Fun and games with ballot papers

[Andy Freude]

Not sure what you're getting at there.

That a "credible argument" against giving party members a greater say on the leader might, just might, be that the general membership doesn't always vote for the best person (likewise, the general public, when given a say, votes for stupid things). But, if that's democracy - On the other hand, there might be certain issues where, for a variety of reasons, it might be unsuitable to leave the decision to the 'rank and file' whoever they are.

Tories: Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard (but keep on asking them - they may pick a suitable one in the end).

[Richard Barrett]

a "credible argument" against giving party members a greater say on the leader might, just might, be that the general membership doesn't always vote for the best person

But members of a political party are a little different from the general public in terms of their investment in the result. I wouldn't presume to comment on whether Johnson is or isn't the "best person" to be Tory leader since any Tory leader is going to be more or less abhorrent as far as I'm concerned. As for Labour, party members are signed up to uphold certain principles and therefore have a commitment to choosing a party leader who is best placed to put those principles into action. Any person or group of people is capable of making decisions which turn out not to have been for the best, whether the whole party or some subset of it. So why should it be a subset?