pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,665 
|
Post by pl on Nov 5, 2024 15:49:40 GMT
I would imagine that the candidates are told the precise results, or at least how many votes they received... The proper candidates will probably have been told, not so sure about all the numpties who should never have been allowed to stand in the first place. It's not that they should never have been allowed to stand, but that the nominations process was bizarre. I understand it was self-nomination for a high profile role, with an electorate larger than that of some small countries. Imagine being able to self-nominate for, say, president of Iceland in a world in which all candidates are independents. It should have been, say, 200 signatures. Get down to 2-3 candidates from the off. And have a proper vote from there. |
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Nov 5, 2024 15:51:43 GMT
I dont have a problem with the process. There is no reason why anyone who was allowed to stand to this point should not have been allowed to.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,771
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 5, 2024 16:05:00 GMT
The second round candidates have just been announced by e mail ... Lady Elish Angiolini Rt Hon Dominic Grieve Lord William Hague Lord Peter Mandelson Baroness Jan Royall Clearly being a member of the aristocracy is a requirement of the job.... Minor members of the aristocracy, even. By those names, they are all younger sons/daughters/wives of aristos, not proper aristos. A proper aristo would be called something like Lord Mandelson.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 5, 2024 16:20:20 GMT
The above are exactly as I (and I guess many) expected, though I myself thought David Willetts was also a strong candidate He's about as welcome as another Covid pandemic in the HE sector due to the things he did as a minister (the consequences of which were in the news yesterday, I believe). Him running for a post such as this will have struck some as akin to a serial killer returning to the scene of the crime. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Nov 5, 2024 16:27:38 GMT
Clearly being a member of the aristocracy is a requirement of the job.... Minor members of the aristocracy, even. By those names, they are all younger sons/daughters/wives of aristos, not proper aristos. A proper aristo would be called something like Lord Mandelson.
of course Lord Mandelson is the grandson of a peer as well as being a peer himself |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 5, 2024 16:30:09 GMT
On principle, I do not like the non-publication of election results. I'm still determined to find the actual result of the Cambridge Chancellor election of 1950. I'm sure it must be there in the University archives, having been hidden at the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2024 16:45:06 GMT
After much soul searching, I’m endorsing Elish Angiolini for Chancellor. I cannot, in good conscience, endorse candidates who voted for (or abstained on) tuition fee votes, and Royall’s views are sheer lunacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Nov 5, 2024 17:01:48 GMT
takes one to know one, so they say
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 5, 2024 17:38:47 GMT
I am endorsing William Hague. And will continue not to vote in this farce.
(Just bloody appoint someone)
I would also like to announce my retirement from international football.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Nov 5, 2024 18:22:21 GMT
I dont have a problem with the process. There is no reason why anyone who was allowed to stand to this point should not have been allowed to. Of course there is. Allowing a bunch of numpties to stand has besmirched the reputation of a supposedly elite institution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2024 18:24:03 GMT
I dont have a problem with the process. There is no reason why anyone who was allowed to stand to this point should not have been allowed to. Of course there is. Allowing a bunch of numpties to stand has besmirched the reputation of a supposedly elite institution. Who do you consider to be a numpty from those remaining? |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Nov 5, 2024 18:36:42 GMT
Of course there is. Allowing a bunch of numpties to stand has besmirched the reputation of a supposedly elite institution. Who do you consider to be a numpty from those remaining? I was obviously referring to you and the other timewasters but of the the 5 in the second round William Hague is a complete and utter fool while Jan Royall is a joke candidate. I am unimpressed with Angiolini but she is better than the previous two I have mentioned. Mandelson and Grieve are the two candidates who I consider being close to acceptable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2024 18:52:45 GMT
What should I run for next?
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,688
|
Post by Jack on Nov 5, 2024 19:11:21 GMT
What should I run for next? The bus. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,128
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 5, 2024 19:16:02 GMT
What should I run for next? The hills. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Nov 5, 2024 19:17:39 GMT
Give yourself a holiday. There's more to life than standing in elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Nov 5, 2024 19:40:53 GMT
What should I run for next? Best to amble to the pub. William Hague's article in the Times today explaining why Trump was such a bad thing was a good article. Whether it will persuade me to vote that one of the two Magdalen Machine candidates is probably not the case. It was, however, a good article. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2024 19:47:32 GMT
I got lots of attention doing this, which was obviously the goal. Thanks for indulging me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Nov 5, 2024 19:55:13 GMT
None of their titles are inherited.... (Grieve is, I think, the nearest of them to an aristocrat; his gt-grandfather was a baronet) Bunch of parvenus ... No wonder Oxford's on the slide.
If you are going to take that attitude, Oxford's been on the slide for quite a long time. None of the last three chancellors of Oxford (Patten, elected in 2003; Jenkins, elected in 1987; and Macmillan, elected in 1960) was either a member of the House of Lords at the time of their election - all were awarded life peerages later - or apparently of any aristocratic ancestry that would have put them anywhere in line for a hereditary peerage (though Macmillan had indeed married into the aristocracy). Macmillan's predecessor, the Earl of Halifax (elected in 1933), certainly was an aristocrat, ex-Viceroy of India, and a member of the House of Lords - though at the time he was elected chancellor, he had not yet inherited the family title (then only a viscountcy) and essentially the barony that gave him membership of the Lords had been awarded because it was thought necessary for a Viceroy of India already to be a peer. (Also, the viscountcy was only a couple of generations old, though both previous holders of the title had married into far older and more eminent families.) Halifax's immediate predecessors, however, were mostly somewhat less aristocratic. Though all already peers on their elections as chancellor, like Halifax, their then peerages were all new, not inherited. Viscount Grey of Falloden was a former Foreign Secretary, with an inherited baronetcy but what looks like a gentry background though with some aristocratic connections - his great-grandfather had been the brother of the 1st Earl Grey (and uncle of the 2nd Earl Grey, Whig Prime Minister), and peerages seem to have been held by other Grey relatives (though also by Greys who may well not have been relatives) in earlier centuries. Before Grey, Viscount Cave was a recently-ennobled former Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor, again with a gentry background though without aristocratic relatives. Like Halifax, the Baron (later Marquess) Curzon of Kedlestone was an ex-Viceroy of India who was heir to a peerage (a barony in this case) but had obtained his then title (which did not even give membership of the House of Lords, unlike his later ones) as the obligatory one for a Viceroy of India. Before Curzon, Viscount Goschen was a former Chancellor of the Exchequer with no aristocratic background whatever - his father had been an immigrant from Germany who made a fortune as a banker. To get back to an aristocratic chancellor of Oxford who was definitely not a parvenu, one has to go as far as the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, chancellor of Oxford from 1869 to 1903, the head of a family going back to Tudor times, who had only recently inherited the marquessate from his father when elected chancellor, and who had scarcely started the prestigious political career which would include a total of over 13 years (still more than anyone else since the Earl of Liverpool 200 years ago) as the last Prime Minister from the House of Lords. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 5, 2024 20:31:15 GMT
Hence my proposal to tax hereditaries out of existence
|
|
