Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on July 09, 2024, 04:36:39 PM
-
We're now in the post election world, and what happens to the Tories is a new chapter. While parties need to be broad churches, I'm struggling to see a party led by Braverman, nevermind Farage, will contain Ben Houchen
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4y7ewedg1o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4y7ewedg1o
-
I couldn't give a gnat's gnadger what happens to them.
-
I couldn't give a gnat's gnadger what happens to them.
Well you should. They are still the official opposition and should be the ones holding the government to account. Not only that, it is likely at some point in the future that they will be forming a government.
-
Well you should. They are still the official opposition and should be the ones holding the government to account. Not only that, it is likely at some point in the future that they will be forming a government.
I worry that if they indulge in a long stramash, that the main opposition voice will be Reform.
-
I worry that if they indulge in a long stramash, that the main opposition voice will be Reform.
It shouldn't be. The Lib Dems have many more seats and I expect the Greens to be fairly vociferous. However, Reform UK Party ltd seems to have the ear of the media.
-
It shouldn't be. The Lib Dems have many more seats and I expect the Greens to be fairly vociferous. However, Reform UK Party ltd seems to have the ear of the media.
My guess is that the Lib Dems won't be in direct opposition to many of the policies. So won't be seen as the opposition even with the seats. The Greens may be vociferous in some areas but I think will.struggle to be heard. I think that Reform will make the story easy and that's always a better sell to the media.
-
I worry that if they indulge in a long stramash, that the main opposition voice will be Reform.
I don't think so for various reasons, not least because of the points that JP made - that if the tories become an incoherent inward looking rabble for a while the spotlight will inevitable fall on the party with 72 seats, the LibDems, rather than a party will 5 seats who will fight for the oxygen of publicity with other parties of similar size (SNP, Greens, Plaid, DUP).
But there are other reasons why Reform may actually find it harder to get coverage now than before the election, specifically.
1. Their whole mantra has been that they are the anti-establishment outsiders - 'vote for us because we aren't the b*****ds in Westminster' doesn't work so well when you are now part of the establishment and in Westminster.
2. The rules on broadcasting impartiality for parliamentary parties are stronger than for 'outsiders' - so while for years Farage was guaranteed a 'talking head' spot in Question Time and countless other media outlets, I think that will be much more restricted now. And his ability to be heard in Parliament will also be restricted by the parliamentary rules.
3. If the tories end up with a tumultuous leadership race I think Farage and Reform's attention (and comments) will turn towards that race rather than on opposing the government. Why - well because who ends up as tory leader impacts Farage and Reform's prospects far more - including the possibility of merger.
4. Farage will (as he always does) get bored - give it a few months and no doubt we will find that he needs to spend more time in Washington (for reasons) rather than Clacton or Westminster. His attention will inevitably turn to the US election rather than opposing Starmer's government.
5. Reform/Brexit/UKIP - all the vehicles for Farage have a tendency to fall apart when required to conform to the rules of elected office - see their squabbling in the EU parliament, inability to cement and retain councils etc. So expect Farage, Anderson and Tice to have a falling out pretty soon - likely over Farage's absenteeing and Anderson (at least) considering that Reform need to focus on being a parliamentary party.
6. The weird power of Westminster to turn rebels into conformists - I've seen this several times with a few MPs I've known - railing against the system, but as soon as in Westminster loving nothing better than to extoll the virtues of the 'traditions'.
-
I don't think so for various reasons, not least because of the points that JP made - that if the tories become an incoherent inward looking rabble for a while the spotlight will inevitable fall on the party with 72 seats, the LibDems, rather than a party will 5 seats who will fight for the oxygen of publicity with other parties of similar size (SNP, Greens, Plaid, DUP).
But there are other reasons why Reform may actually find it harder to get coverage now than before the election, specifically.
1. Their whole mantra has been that they are the anti-establishment outsiders - 'vote for us because we aren't the b*****ds in Westminster' doesn't work so well when you are now part of the establishment and in Westminster.
2. The rules on broadcasting impartiality for parliamentary parties are stronger than for 'outsiders' - so while for years Farage was guaranteed a 'talking head' spot in Question Time and countless other media outlets, I think that will be much more restricted now. And his ability to be heard in Parliament will also be restricted by the parliamentary rules.
3. If the tories end up with a tumultuous leadership race I think Farage and Reform's attention (and comments) will turn towards that race rather than on opposing the government. Why - well because who ends up as tory leader impacts Farage and Reform's prospects far more - including the possibility of merger.
4. Farage will (as he always does) get bored - give it a few months and no doubt we will find that he needs to spend more time in Washington (for reasons) rather than Clacton or Westminster. His attention will inevitably turn to the US election rather than opposing Starmer's government.
5. Reform/Brexit/UKIP - all the vehicles for Farage have a tendency to fall apart when required to conform to the rules of elected office - see their squabbling in the EU parliament, inability to cement and retain councils etc. So expect Farage, Anderson and Tice to have a falling out pretty soon - likely over Farage's absenteeing and Anderson (at least) considering that Reform need to focus on being a parliamentary party.
6. The weird power of Westminster to turn rebels into conformists - I've seen this several times with a few MPs I've known - railing against the system, but as soon as in Westminster loving nothing better than to extoll the virtues of the 'traditions'.
While it's good to get your valuable view, when Labour was indulging in its bout of vicious introspection, despite there being a substantial presence of SNP members, and the various other parties, the opposition voice was quietened, and in many cases the loudest voices were from within the Tory Party.
Reform don't need to work like a unified party to get heard, and the media love an inchoate howl.
-
Reform don't need to work like a unified party to get heard, and the media love an inchoate howl.
I'd agree. Thinking that the normal rules will work for Farage is naive.
Whatever else I think of him his ability to manipulate the media and some of the public is quite remarkable.
We underestimate him at our peril.
-
I'd agree. Thinking that the normal rules will work for Farage is naive.
Whatever else I think of him his ability to manipulate the media and some of the public is quite remarkable.
We underestimate him at our peril.
The new cads on the block also have Anderson who as a mini me Farage has also proved remarkable in attracting publicity and it not mattering if it's good or bad.
-
... despite there being a substantial presence of SNP members ...
But the SNP can never act as a de facto opposition in Westminster because they (by design) only represent Scotland, one part of the UK. So the comparison with the current position of the LibDems is spurious as there is LibDem parliamentary representation across the country, including England, Scotland and Wales.
-
Reform don't need to work like a unified party to get heard, and the media love an inchoate howl.
My expectation is that once parliamentary politics returns after the summer, Farage's comments will focus on the tory leadership campaign and the US presidential election. Why ... because those are the things he cares about because, let's face it, he only cares about himself and his ego. And in his mid his next step will either be a take-over of the tories or landing some role in a Trump administration.
-
But the SNP can never act as a de facto opposition in Westminster because they (by design) only represent Scotland, one part of the UK. So the comparison with the current position of the LibDems is spurious as there is LibDem parliamentary representation across the country, including England, Scotland and Wales.
And as already covered in the reply to jeremyp, the Lib Dems are not going to be significantly in opposition to much of Labour policy. After all, you've just been singing the praises of how well they work together.
-
My expectation is that once parliamentary politics returns after the summer, Farage's comments will focus on the tory leadership campaign and the US presidential election. Why ... because those are the things he cares about because, let's face it, he only cares about himself and his ego. And in his mid his next step will either be a take-over of the tories or landing some role in a Trump administration.
Quite possibly, and should that take over of the Tories happen, then Reform are the main voice of the opposition as I am worried about.
Just because he's an lazy egotist doesn't make him any less dangerous, see Johnson.
-
And as already covered in the reply to jeremyp, the Lib Dems are not going to be significantly in opposition to much of Labour policy.
There is more than one approach to opposition - you can simply 'knee jerk' - if they say one thing then we will say the opposite. But that, I think, increasingly antagonises people who rail at the yah boo politics of Westminster. The other approach is potentially more constructive and possible likely to garner more support. This approach is effectively we will support where we think that is the right thing to so, we will challenge you to go further and faster where we think you are being too cautious, we will actively oppose where we genuinely disagree. I think that will be the approach of the LibDems and the 'we will challenge you to go further and faster' may be the clearest message.
After all, you've just been singing the praises of how well they work together.
I was talking about the political expediency of a general election campaign, where it was in both Labour and the LibDem's interests not to go head to head against each other (thereby letting the tories through the middle) but to target different seats. The shared goal being to get as many seats as possible and in both cases that largely involved kicking out tories to replace them rather than kicking out a LibDem to be replaced by Labour or vice versa.
But that was an exceptionally successful tactic for the general election - that's done now - Labour have their 412 seats, the LibDems have their 72 - job done. How that plays out in Westminster going forward is an entirely different matter and if I were Ed and Daisy I think they will be wanting to ensure that if the tories go all introspective for a while that they are seen as the real (as opposed to the official) opposition and also to do that in a different way to the ya boo politics of the past.
-
There is more than one approach to opposition - you can simply 'knee jerk' - if they say one thing then we will say the opposite. But that, I think, increasingly antagonises people who rail at the yah boo politics of Westminster. The other approach is potentially more constructive and possible likely to garner more support. This approach is effectively we will support where we think that is the right thing to so, we will challenge you to go further and faster where we think you are being too cautious, we will actively oppose where we genuinely disagree. I think that will be the approach of the LibDems and the 'we will challenge you to go further and faster' may be the clearest message.
I was talking about the political expediency of a general election campaign, where it was in both Labour and the LibDem's interests not to go head to head against each other (thereby letting the tories through the middle) but to target different seats. The shared goal being to get as many seats as possible and in both cases that largely involved kicking out tories to replace them rather than kicking out a LibDem to be replaced by Labour or vice versa.
But that was an exceptionally successful tactic for the general election - that's done now - Labour have their 412 seats, the LibDems have their 72 - job done. How that plays out in Westminster going forward is an entirely different matter and if I were Ed and Daisy I think they will be wanting to ensure that if the tories go all introspective for a while that they are seen as the real (as opposed to the official) opposition and also to do that in a different way to the ya boo politics of the past.
Which won't be interesting news, and hence what will be heard is the empty vessels.
-
Which won't be interesting news, and hence what will be heard is the empty vessels.
Err - when was the last time that the LibDems had sufficient seats to set themselves up as the 'real' opposition as a third party in terms of seats where the official opposition had gone awol.
Hmm - not 2019, nor 2017 - definitely not 2015. Could have been in 2010 had they not become part of the government. Not 2005, as the tories were an effective opposition. So arguably 2001.
So that's 23 years ago - so, yes it will be interesting news, and I suspect will be heard. The 'LibDems are back' is a powerful narrative.
-
Quite possibly, and should that take over of the Tories happen, then Reform are the main voice of the opposition as I am worried about.
Just because he's an lazy egotist doesn't make him any less dangerous, see Johnson.
Firstly I think it is unlikely that Farage would end up taking over the tories, much as he'd love to.
But if he did, the tories would split - the one nation tories would simply not be able to remain in the party. And any party led by Farage will have a low ceiling - i.e. the maximum vote share possible as although there are a solid block (say 15%-20%) who might love him there are far too many people who loath him for him to get remotely close to winning an election as a party leader (even if that party is the tories). A Farage led tory party simply wouldn't get sufficient support to win a general election - just as a Corbyn led Labour party was never going to win a general election, although I think his ceiling was rather higher than Farage's.
-
Latest Tory leadership odds 33/1 bar these
-
Well here's where Jacob Rees Mogg is going
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/jul/10/more-fawlty-towers-than-downton-abbey-jacob-rees-moggs-bid-to-become-a-reality-tv-star
-
Six months of this, as has been mooted, might be fun
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg3eqy1r5q0o
-
"Another Conservative said: “The answer is we need to find a way to appeal to voters we lost to all parties. I don’t know how you do that on policy, but Keir Starmer showed you can do it by looking competent and serious. But I don’t know if any of the candidates we have at the moment can do that.”"
Ooft! The article covers that there are those who think they got a 'David Cameron' if they take a longer time. This seems to me to bit post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Labour lost in 2010 in part because it was 'time', and partly the global financial crisis. That allowed Cameron to being the serious and competent guy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2g6md2lxvo
-
New leader by November 2nd.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p24l5254xo
-
I knew something had been bothering me about the title of this thread. It's misspelled.
Wither the Tories. :)
-
https://x.com/TomHCalver/status/1815318877963747391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1815318877963747391%7Ctwgr%5Edd624ab201eac02c36279efa7bb7efac213e06cc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.politicalbetting.com%2Findex.php%2Farchives%2F2024%2F07%2F23%2Fwhy-things-can-get-worse-for-the-tories%2F
Projection of the ratio of voters lost becasue they've died vs gained because they've attained voting age by the next election. Horrific for the tories. And this assumes voting age to be 18 rather than 16 as seems likely for the next general election.
-
https://x.com/TomHCalver/status/1815318877963747391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1815318877963747391%7Ctwgr%5Edd624ab201eac02c36279efa7bb7efac213e06cc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.politicalbetting.com%2Findex.php%2Farchives%2F2024%2F07%2F23%2Fwhy-things-can-get-worse-for-the-tories%2F
Projection of the ratio of voters lost becasue they've died vs gained because they've attained voting age by the next election. Horrific for the tories. And this assumes voting age to be 18 rather than 16 as seems likely for the next general election.
I'd be a bit suspicious of how they calculated that.
-
I'd be a bit suspicious of how they calculated that.
Why?
-
Why?
Because demographics can be tricky things. If you are seventy, for example, you probably have a better than five in six chance of being alive at the next general election.
-
Because demographics can be tricky things. If you are seventy, for example, you probably have a better than five in six chance of being alive at the next general election.
Also 5 years of Labour being the govt will impact what happens to the younger vote split. I am not sure the results from the last election, particularly the Reform vote, is close to being analysed. We may be in a time of more volatility, or the election may have been an outlier.
-
Because demographics can be tricky things. If you are seventy, for example, you probably have a better than five in six chance of being alive at the next general election.
But I don't think that's how this is determined - it is looking at the overall age profile of 2024 tory voters and determing (from known life expectancy data) those who are less than 50% likely to be still alive in 5 years time. And on that basis they have concluded that one in six of the people who voted tory on 4th July won't still be alive in five years.
-
Cleverly to the rescue?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2g0z1gkzyo
-
But I don't think that's how this is determined - it is looking at the overall age profile of 2024 tory voters and determing (from known life expectancy data) those who are less than 50% likely to be still alive in 5 years time.
Yes we all know that they did something like that. There's no need to restate the bleedin' obvious. But how they did it is pretty important. Until I see the methodology, I will not be trusting the number, and neither should you.
For example. If you are 85 now and male, you have a better than 50% chance to make it to the next general election (see calculator below).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/articles/lifeexpectancycalculator/2019-06-07
-
Tugendhat's hat in ring
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4p2jwqkvo
-
Jenrick joins the scuffle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmypvr4p49o
In case people have forgotten
https://news.sky.com/story/the-1bn-development-and-the-tory-donor-the-robert-jenrick-controversy-explained-12014447
-
Jenrick joins the scuffle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmypvr4p49o
In case people have forgotten
https://news.sky.com/story/the-1bn-development-and-the-tory-donor-the-robert-jenrick-controversy-explained-12014447
Thanks for dredging up that story so I didn't have to.
Clearly Jenrick is well qualified.
-
Mel Strides into the frame.
I suppose if they need 10 MPs backing them we could in theory have 12 candidates at this stage if those standing signed other nominations, and that wasn't against the rules.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1rp80v76lo
-
Patel joins the pretty pageant
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lky7z7531o
-
Now they are six
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw0yr7pyzneo
-
And now (or at least when considered appropriate) the task of choosing a new Party leader will go to the Party membership. Remember their choice last time?
The kind of people who are prepared to become members of the Conservative Party bear little resemblence to the people in the electorate in general who support Conservative policies.
-
And now (or at least when considered appropriate) the task of choosing a new Party leader will go to the Party membership. Remember their choice last time?
The kind of people who are prepared to become members of the Conservative Party bear little resemblence to the people in the electorate in general who support Conservative policies.
Given the loss of voters to Reform, I'm not entirely clear who the electorate who support Tory policies are, and I think that's one of the problems for the Tory Party here.
-
Surely it should be blue cards?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4k2l37rzo
-
Given the loss of voters to Reform, I'm not entirely clear who the electorate who support Tory policies are, and I think that's one of the problems for the Tory Party here.
This is Conservative Party members, not voters. I would like to think that all the more rabid ones have defected to Reform UK Party ltd, but, unless their membership has already lapsed they will still be eligible to vote for the new leader.
-
This is Conservative Party members, not voters. I would like to think that all the more rabid ones have defected to Reform UK Party ltd, but, unless their membership has already lapsed they will still be eligible to vote for the new leader.
I was replying to HH raising the idea that the Conservative members are substantially different from their voters, which he based around Truss's election. It may be that applies to those who voted for them this time but that a substantial number of their voters went to Reform, I'm not sure whether the Tory members and Tory voters are far apart or together.
-
Tory leadership candidates asked to name their political hero:
Badenoch: Airey Neave
Cleverly: Ronald Reagan
Jenrick: Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher & Nigel Lawson
Patel: Thatcher
Stride: John F. Kennedy
Tugendhat: Dwight Eisenhower
Hmm....
-
Tory leadership candidates asked to name their political hero:
Badenoch: Airey Neave
Cleverly: Ronald Reagan
Jenrick: Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher & Nigel Lawson
Patel: Thatcher
Stride: John F. Kennedy
Tugendhat: Dwight Eisenhower
Hmm....
All seem pretty reasonable to me, if predictable.
-
All seem pretty reasonable to me, if predictable.
Airey Neave is a bit odd, and three go for US Presidents, one of whom was President when Thatcher was in power, and one a Democrat who had little actual achievements. None mentioned Churchill - perhaps because they thought that was too predictable or tainted by Johnson's desperate attempts to associate himself with him. Jenrick's desperation to be interesting leads him to naming 3 people.
-
What is the point in saying you'll bring back the Rwandan policy for an election that is over 4 and half years away, rather than look to build a policy responsive to immigration at the time. This isn't policy it's cos play.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v831dyme8o
-
Voters think Tories are a bit weird, and don't have much chance of winning next election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/02/voters-beginning-to-think-conservatives-are-weird-research-suggests
I suspect Stride will be out first, then Patel. I had been thinking that it would have been one of Badenoch/Jenrick would face off against one of Cleverly/Tugendhat but perhaps it might be Cleverly v Tugendhat looking at this. Glad to see the opinion of Jenrick matches my own.
-
Voters think Tories are a bit weird, and don't have much chance of winning next election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/02/voters-beginning-to-think-conservatives-are-weird-research-suggests
I suspect Stride will be out first, then Patel. I had been thinking that it would have been one of Badenoch/Jenrick would face off against one of Cleverly/Tugendhat but perhaps it might be Cleverly v Tugendhat looking at this. Glad to see the opinion of Jenrick matches my own.
Whoever t is, it's worth bearing n mind that the winner will probably not be the next Tory prime minister. The next Tory government is probably at least two general elections away, so there'll probably be at least two more Tory leaders before then, as in '97-'10.
-
Whoever t is, it's worth bearing n mind that the winner will probably not be the next Tory prime minister. The next Tory government is probably at least two general elections away, so there'll probably be at least two more Tory leaders before then, as in '97-'10.
I think winning next time very unlikely but after that the relative low % vote for Labour, and the more fractured nature of voting since then makes the time after thar more murky. If they were to win back say 80 seats next time, then I could see the leader being kept on.
-
I think winning next time very unlikely but after that the relative low % vote for Labour, and the more fractured nature of voting since then makes the time after thar more murky. If they were to win back say 80 seats next time, then I could see the leader being kept on.
Yes. It's not a given that losing an election ends your career as party leader. In my lifetime, Harold Wilson, Neil Kinnock and, infamously, Jeremy Corbyn all survived an election loss. Also, Michael Howard (net gain 33 seats) probably could have survived if he had not discounted himself on the grounds of age.
-
Yes. It's not a given that losing an election ends your career as party leader. In my lifetime, Harold Wilson, Neil Kinnock and, infamously, Jeremy Corbyn all survived an election loss. Also, Michael Howard (net gain 33 seats) probably could have survived if he had not discounted himself on the grounds of age.
I think of the current candidates only Stride is at all questionable on age at the next election and he's just a year older than Starmer
-
So Patel out with Jenrick and Badenoch current front runners. I suspect most of the 14 votes she got to go to Jenrick, some to Badenoch. Looks like Stride out next, and would think his votes split between Cleverly and Tugendhat. We then faff about till after the conference but I think the most likely outcome now is something like Jenrick vs Cleverly
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d7y92n31zo
-
So Patel out with Jenrick and Badenoch current front runners. I suspect most of the 14 votes she got to go to Jenrick, some to Badenoch. Looks like Stride out next, and would think his votes split between Cleverly and Tugendhat. We then faff about till after the conference but I think the most likely outcome now is something like Jenrick vs Cleverly
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d7y92n31zo
I think Jenrick is corrupt and should be in prison. So he'll probably win.
-
I think Jenrick is corrupt and should be in prison. So he'll probably win.
It does appear that that may be part of his appeal. It's been a very disappointing campaign so far, and I did not have high expectations. The continued idiotic maunderings about pulling out of the ECHR seems to come from all candidates. Badenoch's idea that the problem is that the previous govts 'governed left' is just odd. They don't seem to be doing much to avoid looking like a Nigel Farage tribute act.
-
This may be an example of JeremyP's Law of Diminishing Politicians.
The best people tend to rise to the top but they get cancelled by association when the leader fails. We were already pretty close to the bottom of the barrel when Sunk resigned.
We will probably have to wait a generation for a new crop of good Conservative politicians to assert themselves.
-
This may be an example of JeremyP's Law of Diminishing Politicians.
The best people tend to rise to the top but they get cancelled by association when the leader fails. We were already pretty close to the bottom of the barrel when Sunk resigned.
We will probably have to wait a generation for a new crop of good Conservative politicians to assert themselves.
"Less bad Conservative politicians", surely?
How has this thread ended up above the stickys without becoming one? [Edit} As you were - it's back below them now.
-
This may be an example of JeremyP's Law of Diminishing Politicians.
The best people tend to rise to the top but they get cancelled by association when the leader fails. We were already pretty close to the bottom of the barrel when Sunk resigned.
We will probably have to wait a generation for a new crop of good Conservative politicians to assert themselves.
I think for a variety of reasons politicians are getting generally worse so the best is a lower standard but the Tories are also stuck with no person with much credit at all, and they don't really know what they are for either.
-
"Less bad Conservative politicians", surely?
Being a good politician is orthogonal to being a good person. And I don't think you're automatically a bad person just because you are a Conservative.
-
So Patel out with Jenrick and Badenoch current front runners. I suspect most of the 14 votes she got to go to Jenrick, some to Badenoch. Looks like Stride out next, and would think his votes split between Cleverly and Tugendhat. We then faff about till after the conference but I think the most likely outcome now is something like Jenrick vs Cleverly
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d7y92n31zo
Stride out, bad round for Cleverly who picked up no votes from Patel. Now level with Tugendhat.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg339l7xkr2o
-
I don't think you're automatically a bad person just because you are a Conservative.
I can think of a few goodish Tories, such as Edwina Currie and Arthur Gore, 8th Earl of Arron, both of whom played important roles on the way to gay equality, and Arran also campaigned against animal cruelty (I once saw him with his trousers round his ankles, but that's another story), but not many.
-
And I don't think you're automatically a bad person just because you are a Conservative.
Reminds me of the line by Ian Banks in The Quarry "I'm not arguing there are no decent people in the Tory party, but they're like bits of sweetcorn in a turd; technically they've kept their integrity, but they're still embedded in shit."
-
Kemi Badenoch's batshit theory of class
https://news.sky.com/story/kemi-badenoch-claims-she-became-working-class-after-securing-a-job-at-mcdonalds-as-a-teenager-13217266
-
And it's all getting so boring...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqzndjrvwdo
I think they lost a chance in not having one of the very few newcomers go for it
I doubt they would have won but at least it would have injected something novel into the race.
-
Is opposing Israel unBritish?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg56zlge8g5o
-
Interesting set of speeches from the candidates at the Tory conference, sadly I thought Jenrick made the best speech, even though I hated its content.
-
Interesting set of speeches from the candidates at the Tory conference, sadly I thought Jenrick made the best speech, even though I hated its content.
Didn't see the speeches, but I gather that punters have suddenly woken up to the notion that Cleverly is more likely to make it to the last two than Badenoch. Reason being that assuming Tugendhat goes out in the next round of MP votes then then the Tugendhat centrist vote will split overwhelmingly to Cleverly, while the right wing vote will be split between two remaining candidates, Jenrick and Badenoch.
In fact even if Cleverly goes out next the argument remains but the other way around, in that case the final two would be Tugendhat and one of Jenrick/Badenoch.
So not looking good for Badenoch (unless she can overtake Jenrick), even before her massive own goals on maternity benefits and throwing 10% of civil servants in jail.
-
Didn't see the speeches, but I gather that punters have suddenly woken up to the notion that Cleverly is more likely to make it to the last two than Badenoch. Reason being that assuming Tugendhat goes out in the next round of MP votes then then the Tugendhat centrist vote will split overwhelmingly to Cleverly, while the right wing vote will be split between two remaining candidates, Jenrick and Badenoch.
In fact even if Cleverly goes out next the argument remains but the other way around, in that case the final two would be Tugendhat and one of Jenrick/Badenoch.
So not looking good for Badenoch (unless she can overtake Jenrick), even before her massive own goals on maternity benefits and throwing 10% of civil servants in jail.
Yes, I think Tugendhat goes next, most of his votes go to Cleverly. Both Jenrick and Cleverly will want Badenoch out next as she's generally been the best polling amongst the members, and her speech was probably the best received in the hall but I don't think the speech will deal with her mistakes this week with the MPs. If though it is Jenrick v Cleverly, I think that Jenrick is the favourite in that.
To be fair to the 'punters', they have been well aware of that for some time, hence Jenrick has been favourite, despite Badenoch polling better than him amongst members, because the last 2 has been thought to be likely to be Jenrick vs Cleverly with Jenrick being betted on to win.
-
To be fair to the 'punters', they have been well aware of that for some time, hence Jenrick has been favourite, despite Badenoch polling better than him amongst members, because the last 2 has been thought to be likely to be Jenrick vs Cleverly with Jenrick being betted on to win.
Not really sure they have to be honest. Since the last MPs vote some weeks ago it has been pretty likely that only one of Jenrick and Badenock would make it to the final two due to the likely transfers. Yet until the past day or so their combines probability of becoming leader has been about 90%. That makes no sense at all. Only in the past day does it appear that punters have woken up to the voting arithmetic of the contest and we are now seeing much more sensible odds, with Jenrick still favourite (51% likelihood), but Badenock having plummeted down to 12% (from about 30% just about a couple of days ago) with Cleverly now at about 30% (up from less than 10%).
Point being - you cannot become leader unless you are in the final two from the MPs rounds of voting.
-
Not really sure they have to be honest. Since the last MPs vote some weeks ago it has been pretty likely that only one of Jenrick and Badenock would make it to the final two due to the likely transfers. Yet until the past day or so their combines probability of becoming leader has been about 90%. That makes no sense at all. Only in the past day does it appear that punters have woken up to the voting arithmetic of the contest and we are now seeing much more sensible odds, with Jenrick still favourite (51% likelihood), but Badenock having plummeted down to 12% (from about 30% just about a couple of days ago) with Cleverly now at about 30% (up from less than 10%).
Point being - you cannot become leader unless you are in the final two from the MPs rounds of voting.
The betting has been on Jenrick winning
He's mist likely to do that if Badenoch is not in the final two. There is a good chance that Cleverly will not make the final 2, and if he does, he's not favourite against either Jenrick or Badenoch. If Badenoch does make the final 2, then she would be favourite but the belief is that she isn't going to make it. In that place the odds being Jenrick, Badenoch, Cleverly then Tugendhat made sense. The bad performance of Badenoch over the last few days meant that people assumed she was less likely to near Jenrick in the vote, and so the odds of her getting through were less.
This boosts Cleverly's chance hence the change there they were already aware that she wan't the most likely to get through and that's why Jenrick was the favourite.
Essentially the bet was that whoever of Badenoch or Jenrick got into the final was most likely to win but if that Badenoch got in she was almost certain to win, whereas with Jenrick vs Cleverley that is more up in the air.
-
The betting has been on Jenrick winning
He's mist likely to do that if Badenoch is not in the final two. There is a good chance that Cleverly will not make the final 2, and if he does, he's not favourite against either Jenrick or Badenoch. If Badenoch does make the final 2, then she would be favourite but the belief is that she isn't going to make it. In that place the odds being Jenrick, Badenoch, Cleverly then Tugendhat made sense. The bad performance of Badenoch over the last few days meant that people assumed she was less likely to near Jenrick in the vote, and so the odds of her getting through were less.
This boosts Cleverly's chance hence the change there they were already aware that she wan't the most likely to get through and that's why Jenrick was the favourite.
Essentially the bet was that whoever of Badenoch or Jenrick got into the final was most likely to win but if that Badenoch got in she was almost certain to win, whereas with Jenrick vs Cleverley that is more up in the air.
That isn't the view of the UK's leading political betting site (policialbetting.com) who have been saying for some while that Badenoch is overpriced and Cleverly underpriced as many punters simply didn't understand the process and the arithmetic to get into the final two.
If Cleverly has more chance of making the final two than Badenoch, then it has been non-sense that the odds had Badenoch having a 30% chance of becoming leader and Cleverly less than 10%.
The odds seem pretty sensible now - Jenrick favourite (as he is likely to make final two and win), Cleverly second favourite (as he is also likely to make final two and although not currently favourite against Jenrick much can happen) and Badenoch way down in third as she is unlikely to make it to the members vote and if that is the case therefore cannot make it to be leader.
-
That isn't the view of the UK's leading political betting site (policialbetting.com) who have been saying for some while that Badenoch is overpriced and Cleverly underpriced as many punters simply didn't understand the process and the arithmetic to get into the final two.
If Cleverly has more chance of making the final two than Badenoch, then it has been non-sense that the odds had Badenoch having a 30% chance of becoming leader and Cleverly less than 10%.
The odds seem pretty sensible now - Jenrick favourite (as he is likely to make final two and win), Cleverly second favourite (as he is also likely to make final two and although not currently favourite against Jenrick much can happen) and Badenoch way down in third as she is unlikely to make it to the members vote and if that is the case therefore cannot make it to be leader.
Well, I'll note that on the 4th of September on here I said it would be Jenrick v Cleverly. The point is your position dismissed all punters, not a section of them, and yet Jenrick was favourite because the punters as a group were more thinking that Badenoch was not going to make it. So as a market they may not have been in line with my thinking but ad a market they were not taking it as likely that she would get through which is what your post implied.
-
I'd also point out that part of the reason for the Badenoch odds was the money that had gone on her early in the market, before there was even a race, and long before any of the votes. Most of the money since the first vote has been on Jenrick.
-
Well, I'll note that on the 4th of September on here I said it would be Jenrick v Cleverly.
Not sure I said said that, but it has certainly been my view since the last round of voting as Stride and likely Tugendhat voters are likely to transfer to a more moderate candidate, rather than either of Jenrick or Badenoch. And those two will split the right wing vote in the final MPs ballot meaning one more moderate candidate would make it to the final two.
The point is your position dismissed all punters, not a section of them, and yet Jenrick was favourite because the punters as a group were more thinking that Badenoch was not going to make it. So as a market they may not have been in line with my thinking but ad a market they were not taking it as likely that she would get through which is what your post implied.
Odds are, of course, a combination of the positions of the population of punters. But a market that was universally taking account of the position from 10th Sept and the voting arithmetic would not end up with Jenrick/Badenoch on a combined 90% likelihood and Cleverly on less than 10%. Sure there will be punters who understood the rules, but in order to skew the odds so much then there will be others who are betting on Badenoch (cos she's the members favourite, not recognising the strong likelihood that the members wont get a chance to vote for her) and betting on Jenrick, not because he is the most likely to get through and then win, but simply because he's in the lead from earlier rounds.
I guess the next most interesting point is whether Cleverly overtakes Badenoch (which is entirely plausible as there are 16 Stride votes to be redistributed and possibly some Tugenghat votes might leak to Cleverly as the most likely moderate). Or whether this happens in the final round - really hard to see where Badenoch picks up any further votes, but Cleverly may well have not just Strides 16 votes, but Tugendhat's 21 and he's only 7 behind Badenoch and 11 behind Jenrick.
I guess an interesting prediction is whether Cleverly actually comes top of the MPs vote in the final round with Jenrick second - quite possible from the numbers.
-
Not sure I said said that...
Well you didn't say
'Well, I'll note that on the 4th of September on here I said it would be Jenrick v Cleverly.' - because that was me saying that I had said that. Have you got your quoting mixed up?
-
The wacky race rolls on
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq8gy5n8y7o
-
And as the excitement builds to near ankle height, Tugendhat is out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x04vnng1o
-
For some reason, I have no interest whatsoever in who becomes the next Tory leader. This is concerning to me because they are the official opposition and it definitely does matter.
-
For some reason, I have no interest whatsoever in who becomes the next Tory leader. This is concerning to me because they are the official opposition and it definitely does matter.
I know what you mean. Looking at the votes there's been a big jump in Cleverly's vote to 39,, Jenrick dropped 2 to 31, possibly a loan of some votes to Cleverly to make it more likely that it's a Cleverly v Jenrick run off
Badenoch on 30. Tugendhat 20 votes which I suspect will mainly go Cleverly.
Again looks like Cleverly v Jenrick.
I suppose of the 2 I'd rather have Cleverly, as Jenrick is a corrupt grifter but...
-
I know what you mean. Looking at the votes there's been a big jump in Cleverly's vote to 39,, Jenrick dropped 2 to 31, possibly a loan of some votes to Cleverly to make it more likely that it's a Cleverly v Jenrick run off
Badenoch on 30. Tugendhat 20 votes which I suspect will mainly go Cleverly.
Again looks like Cleverly v Jenrick.
I suppose of the 2 I'd rather have Cleverly, as Jenrick is a corrupt grifter but...
Wondering to what extent Jenrick has lent votes out to ensure that Badenoch is knocked out before the final two. He may have ended up playing a bit too cute a game as Cleverly, rather than Jenrick now looks like the front runner. Key question is whether the tory member selectorate (who are about as unrepresentative of the UK population as you can get) would prefer Cleverly to Jenrick if that is the final two.
From an unbiased outsider perspective Cleverly looks to be the only one of the last four with an ounce of leadership credentials necessary to reach out to the real electorate. From a biased outsider perspective (who wants the tories in opposition for a very, very long time) Badenoch or Jenrick winning would be a fantastic result.
-
Cleverly knocked out! I was completely wrong. This indicates a lot of shifting votes.
Cleverly dropped votes, and all of Tugendhat votes seem to have gone to Jenrick and Badenoch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cp8l58gp421t
-
That is a surprise. Still, I'd expect nothing less from a nest of vipers.
-
That is a surprise. Still, I'd expect nothing less from a nest of vipers.
Based on membership polls this moves Badenoch to favourite but I think Jenrick will be willing to say just about anything so it could be interesting.
I think the Labour Party will be pleased, Reform less so but I worry for whither politics goes in the UK with this.
-
This from Katy Balls:
As one Tory strategist puts it:
‘No amount of briefing, strategy or campaigning can account for the sheer duplicity and scheming of Conservative MPs.’
-
Current odds
-
Current odds
I think this might be a closer and more interesting race than previous ones.
Typically the MPs have selected a sensible candidate and a right wing nutter and the members go for the nutter.
But here we have two right wing nutters - so which favour of nutter do the selectorate go for!
-
I think this might be a closer and more interesting race than previous ones.
Typically the MPs have selected a sensible candidate and a right wing nutter and the members go for the nutter.
But here we have two right wing nutters - so which favour of nutter do the selectorate go for!
I think Jenrick is playing the part of a right nutter and is just a grifter. Though I did think that of Truss as well but like Michael Bryant in Colditz, I think she played the part and then become the part.
I'm not convinced Badenoch is a nutter, just not very good.
-
I'm not convinced Badenoch is a nutter, just not very good.
I think she's both. I genuinely think she really believes all this culture wars anti-woke stuff, which frankly impacts people's lives not one iota.
And on not being very good - yup. I've seen her in action at a major event organised jointly by her department and the Department for Education. She made Gillian Keegan seem the height of competence and professionalism.
-
I think she's both. I genuinely think she really believes all this culture wars anti-woke stuff, which frankly impacts people's lives not one iota.
And on not being very good - yup. I've seen her in action at a major event organised jointly by her department and the Department for Education. She made Gillian Keegan seem the height of competence and professionalism.
So I take it you regard JK Rowling as a right wing nutter?
ETA I have to admit to deciding to hang back on posting my initial reaction to this because it was Friday night, and zi didn't want my anger at your vapid post to spoil it. My wife has a friend who attends various protests for women's single sex spaces. I know her reasonably well but zi won't describe her as a friend for reasons that will become cleat. She's been raped multiple times by multiple men. She is struggles with the presence of men generally because of the trauma. In a large group of women she can feel able to deal with some that she knows well but it's a strain.
She used to be able to go to her local rape crisis centre but they started allowing men who said they were women to attend the meetings. This was 5 years ago. There is no accessible rape crisis centre for her where men who say they are women are not allowed in the meetings. For this reason she has had to self exclude and the lack of support, and indeed the attitude from some that she is a bigot for wanting a single sex space at a rape crisis centre has been an enormous strain and set back her recovery hugely.
For me to them read from some middle class middlebrow misogynist, that people's lives have mot been affected one iota by such issues is frankly sickening. It appears that in order to cling on to the 'I am so progressive' badge you're happy to ignore the trauma of such women.
-
all this culture wars anti-woke stuff, which frankly impacts people's lives not one iota.
Apart from the people, like me, who've lost their jobs; women questioned by police for stating the simple truth that men aren't women; the women locked up in prison with men; women and girls losing out to men who pretend to think they're women so they can win prizes at sport; children being told at primary school that they might have been born in the wrong body; female nurses being ogled by a pervert while they change into their uniforms; disabled women unable to insist on same-sex initimate care. This list is not exhaustive.
Oh yeah, and the gay, lesbian and bisexual people who had their meeting disrupted by young idiots who've swallowed a load of irrational nonsense releasing thousands of insects in the venue to try to prevent them from speaking. Happily, they didn't succeed.
By "people's lives" you presumably mean your life?
-
Apart from the people, like me, who've lost their jobs; women questioned by police for stating the simple truth that men aren't women; the women locked up in prison with men; women and girls losing out to men who pretend to think they're women so they can win prizes at sport; children being told at primary school that they might have been born in the wrong body; female nurses being ogled by a pervert while they change into their uniforms; disabled women unable to insist on same-sex initimate care. This list is not exhaustive.
Oh yeah, and the gay, lesbian and bisexual people who had their meeting disrupted by young idiots who've swallowed a load of irrational nonsense releasing thousands of insects in the venue to try to prevent them from speaking. Happily, they didn't succeed.
By "people's lives" you presumably mean your life?
Applause
-
Not to mention gay teenagers who feel pressured into transitioning because of their shame at being gay. I hate quoting from the Daily Mail (I did have another article from a gay organisation but have lost that so the Mail will have to do for now):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13040507/transgender-children-gay-teenagers-surgery-hormones-detransition.html
This is not something that doesn't impact people's lives one iota. It really matters.
-
So I take it you regard JK Rowling as a right wing nutter?
ETA I have to admit to deciding to hang back on posting my initial reaction to this because it was Friday night, and zi didn't want my anger at your vapid post to spoil it. My wife has a friend who attends various protests for women's single sex spaces. I know her reasonably well but zi won't describe her as a friend for reasons that will become cleat. She's been raped multiple times by multiple men. She is struggles with the presence of men generally because of the trauma. In a large group of women she can feel able to deal with some that she knows well but it's a strain.
She used to be able to go to her local rape crisis centre but they started allowing men who said they were women to attend the meetings. This was 5 years ago. There is no accessible rape crisis centre for her where men who say they are women are not allowed in the meetings. For this reason she has had to self exclude and the lack of support, and indeed the attitude from some that she is a bigot for wanting a single sex space at a rape crisis centre has been an enormous strain and set back her recovery hugely.
For me to them read from some middle class middlebrow misogynist, that people's lives have mot been affected one iota by such issues is frankly sickening. It appears that in order to cling on to the 'I am so progressive' badge you're happy to ignore the trauma of such women.
That is a harrowing story, and anyone who followed the recent goings on at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre will have seen how quickly the 'transwomen are women' nonsense can unravel and where it is women, such as in your example, who pay the price for so-called 'progressive' gender ideas that fly in the face of reality and experience.
If she is a bigot for maintaining that men are not women then so am I - and an unapologetic one at that.
-
I've covered the treatment of Jenny Lindsay on the trans thread but just another person whose life was affected by more than 1 iota.
https://youtu.be/DL53RW1imVw?si=QDLJgPt1Txp3LCbC
-
Apart from the people, like me, who've lost their jobs; women questioned by police for stating the simple truth that men aren't women; the women locked up in prison with men; women and girls losing out to men who pretend to think they're women so they can win prizes at sport; children being told at primary school that they might have been born in the wrong body; female nurses being ogled by a pervert while they change into their uniforms; disabled women unable to insist on same-sex initimate care. This list is not exhaustive.
Oh yeah, and the gay, lesbian and bisexual people who had their meeting disrupted by young idiots who've swallowed a load of irrational nonsense releasing thousands of insects in the venue to try to prevent them from speaking. Happily, they didn't succeed.
By "people's lives" you presumably mean your life?
The sad attempt at shutting up the LGB Alliance,but of course, the Prof will be able to say why he thinks Rhona Hotchkiss and Kate Barker know no iota about how their lives have been affected.
https://archive.vn/77Ktk
-
Wow - that was quite a pile on.
Particularly seeing that I never even mentioned trans issues in my post. Why would you assume that my comments exclusively, or even predominantly, related to trans rights. By the way they didn't.
-
Wow - that was quite a pile on.
Particularly seeing that I never even mentioned trans issues in my post. Why would you assume that my comments exclusively, or even predominantly, related to trans rights. By the way they didn't.
Doesn't matter. You said people' lives weren't affected one iota. You were wrong. Maybe you should consider that rather than playing the 'poor me, people disagree with me' card. My wife's friend who has had to self exclude from rape crisis support has gone though a bit more than that.
-
Doesn't matter. You said people' lives weren't affected one iota. You were wrong. Maybe you should consider that rather than playing the 'poor me, people disagree with me' card. My wife's friend who has had to self exclude from rape crisis support has gone though a bit more than that.
Of course it matters, precisely because I wan't talking about trans issues, so they are completely irrelevant to my comment.
I was talking about Badenoch regularly stoking division on matters which as far as I can see simply do not negatively affect people's lives. Examples:
Banging on about footballers and opposition politicians taking the knee - how many people's lives were negatively affected by this?
Inferring that children were being forced to take the knee in school, despite their being no evidence for this (despite Daily Mail style hysteria). How many people are negatively impacted by not being forced to take the knee.
Her bizarre spat with the National Trust over their decisions to update some information in their properties to provide greater historical context. How many people consider their lives now ruined due to a new sign in Snoddington Manor up the road.
Banging on about statues and named buildings. If an organisation chooses to change the name of a building as the previous name didn't reflect their current values how many people are negatively affected.
And just recently there are her bonkers comments on maternity pay and civil service.
These are the kinds of examples I was thinking about - specifically loads of issues she has been continually banging on about when what she is railing against seems not really to negatively affect people at all.
Oh and by the way (just to be absolutely clear) I do consider that some people are negatively affected by the ongoing debates over trans issues and in a small number of cases significantly negatively affected. And that, of course, includes trans people.
You and I have different views on this matter and I have rarely, if ever, dipped my toe into this discussion as I have seen how one sided it is on this MB and how any comments that aren't aligned with your view attract vitriol (as seen in the last few comments on this thread when I wasn't even discussing trans issues at all). As such this will be my last comment on this matter.
Given that I have now clearly indicated that my comment (reply 87) was NOT about trans issues, then I suggest that replies 88-94 are a derail of the topic (as they do not relate to my comment) and should either be removed or moved to the trans rights thread.
-
Of course it matters, precisely because I wan't talking about trans issues, so they are completely irrelevant to my comment.
I was talking about Badenoch regularly stoking division on matters which as far as I can see simply do not negatively affect people's lives. Examples:
Banging on about footballers and opposition politicians taking the knee - how many people's lives were negatively affected by this?
Inferring that children were being forced to take the knee in school, despite their being no evidence for this (despite Daily Mail style hysteria). How many people are negatively impacted by not being forced to take the knee.
Her bizarre spat with the National Trust over their decisions to update some information in their properties to provide greater historical context. How many people consider their lives now ruined due to a new sign in Snoddington Manor up the road.
Banging on about statues and named buildings. If an organisation chooses to change the name of a building as the previous name didn't reflect their current values how many people are negatively affected.
And just recently there are her bonkers comments on maternity pay and civil service.
These are the kinds of examples I was thinking about - specifically loads of issues she has been continually banging on about when what she is railing against seems not really to negatively affect people at all.
Oh and by the way (just to be absolutely clear) I do consider that some people are negatively affected by the ongoing debates over trans issues and in a small number of cases significantly negatively affected. And that, of course, includes trans people.
You and I have different views on this matter and I have rarely, if ever, dipped my toe into this discussion as I have seen how one sided it is on this MB and how any comments that aren't aligned with your view attract vitriol (as seen on this thread when I wasn't even discussing trans issues at all). As such this will be my last comment on this matter.
Given that I have now clearly indicated that my comment (reply 87) was NOT about trans issues, then I suggest that replies 88-94 are a derail of the topic (as they do not relate to my comment) and should either be removed or moved to the trans rights thread.
Stop lying.
-
Stop lying.
About what? I am not lying.
-
About what? I am not lying.
your not stupid. You knew what spread of things woke covers in terms of Badenoch.
-
your not stupid. You knew what spread of things woke covers in terms of Badenoch.
Oh - so you are a mind-reader now NS. You are wrong.
-
Oh - so you are a mind-reader now NS. You are wrong.
Yes, I'm a mind reader in that you are intelligent enough to know what this 'culture wars anti woke' stuff c9vers with Badenoch. Even your first post here this morning didn't say that you weren't thinking that it coveted women's rights to single spaces, just that you weren't exclusively or ven predominantly thinking about trans - which means you recognised that it did cover it.
So yep, lying.
-
Jenrick would make Rees Mogg Tory Party Chairman.
https://archive.vn/OcaRp
-
We had a bad Enoch back in the 60s. We don't want another one,
-
We had a bad Enoch back in the 60s. We don't want another one,
:D
-
Jenrick would make Rees Mogg Tory Party Chairman.
https://archive.vn/OcaRp
Apparently, Jenrick is so bland, he was nicknamed by his fellow Tory MPs "Robert Generic".
-
We had a bad Enoch back in the 60s. We don't want another one,
Even worse: compared to the previous Enoch, theis would be a Bad Enoch...
I'll get me coat.
-
Badenoch is apparently too preoccupied with her children to be leader of the opposition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62dke21y24o
-
Badenoch avoiding debates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevy3jd42x8o