Report comment

I heard Paul on the radio last week, and he sounded very persuasive. However, there was one thing that I was unsure of then, and now.

"The RCP then sought endorsement for its new policy in a curious way. Its position would remain neutral, it announced, until a ‘supermajority’ of members voted otherwise. "

What I don;t understand is this. Does the RCP require a 'supermajority' in favour of a specific alternative proposal or, as suggested by the construction of JR's sentence, a simple 'supermajority' against the status quo?

If 31% voted to assist, 31% voted not to assist and 38% voted to remain neutral, then the largest support would be for continuing neutrality, being precisely what the 'supermarjority' would have rejected.

I say we just leave it to Westminster. They're really good at dealing swiftly, compassionately and competently with all manner of difficult questions.