Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

CON leadership contender Liz Truss on the monarchy in 1994 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 13 in General
CON leadership contender Liz Truss on the monarchy in 1994 – politicalbetting.com

Liz Truss opposes the monarchy at the 1994 Lib Dem conference. pic.twitter.com/i68cqNmdwA

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,283
    Afternoon all :)

    Everyone is entitled to change their mind/opinion and this was nearly 30 years ago.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    Not going to any street parties or any other such things, I will enjoy some peace and quiet away from work for once.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    She sounds awful here.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495

    Not going to any street parties or any other such things, I will enjoy some peace and quiet away from work for once.

    yes the same- Yesterday i went on a 12 mile walk through the more secluded and deserted bits of Sherwood Forest - bliss ! Hardly saw a soul.

    i am not a royalist or a republican - more of a "whatever" - the one thing I dont like though is having my spare time organised by others so love doing my own thing
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,281
    edited June 3
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Everyone is entitled to change their mind/opinion and this was nearly 30 years ago.

    I am not a fan of Truss but of course she can change her mind over time

    It will be a sorry day when we cannot change our minds about an issue, and this forum has plenty who want those who support leave to change their minds
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,283
    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495
    edited June 3

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Everyone is entitled to change their mind/opinion and this was nearly 30 years ago.

    I am not a fan of Truss but of course she can change her mind over time

    It will be a sorry day when we cannot change our minds about an issue, and this forum has plenty who want those who support leave to change their minds
    Just shows you though that there is rarely a "right" answer to anything given people change their minds themselves and we should just live life how you want to and not take other peoples opinion/advice/instructions too seriously
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,047
    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    Does she still say he Rs like Jonathan Ross does?
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    If anything that's a sign it was a genuine philosophical conversion.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128
    Thankfully, most of us won’t have things we said as students played back to us in 30 years’ time.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens a decade from now, when all the students who grew up on Facebook and Twitter, start to stand in numbers for political office.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495
    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495
    Sandpit said:

    Thankfully, most of us won’t have things we said as students played back to us in 30 years’ time.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens a decade from now, when all the students who grew up on Facebook and Twitter, start to stand in numbers for political office.

    busy deleting posts no doubt
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,056

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Everyone is entitled to change their mind/opinion and this was nearly 30 years ago.

    I am not a fan of Truss but of course she can change her mind over time

    It will be a sorry day when we cannot change our minds about an issue, and this forum has plenty who want those who support leave to change their minds
    Yeah, she’s changed her mind on a something over 28 years not a fan of hers but this is desperate stuff on a par with the likes of Jack Straw being communists when in Uni.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,047

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,357
    Sandpit said:

    Thankfully, most of us won’t have things we said as students played back to us in 30 years’ time.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens a decade from now, when all the students who grew up on Facebook and Twitter, start to stand in numbers for political office.

    There should be a statute of limitations of no more than five years on all opinions expressed on the interweb. This kind of offence archeology has already had serious consequences for a number of politicians and celebs.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,820
    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,596
    edited June 3
    Aslan said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    If anything that's a sign it was a genuine philosophical conversion.
    Perhaps she was buying the dips; which in its own way is sensible in politics as in shares. Joining Labour in 1996 the only way is down for the party (in the long run) and loads of people are ahead of you in the game of joining that which is on the rise.

    Joining the Tories in 1996 was a long term investment bought when the price is cheap and all the cool kids are looking elsewhere.

    Having said that, IMHO she is nowhere near being a serious contender, pace Mr Smithson.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,281
    Dan has this right and it was embarrassing to listen to

    54 plus letters in please on monday conservative mps

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1532736969071120384?t=kRSyj7KKDReuTiHcLZEJTw&s=19
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,283
    Aslan said:


    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.

    It's all paradoxical - democracies and revolution. It's more evolutionary than revolutionary - very often revolution needs to new oppression, violence and authoritarianism.

    Strangely, the "fear of revolution" often makes so-called democracies enact repressive legislation and as I've said before, make people frightened enough and they'll happily sign away any rights they do have in the name of "security".

    Which was the more "free" society in 1795 - Britain or France?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,007
    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Pitt the Younger wasn't too bad.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,047
    Truss reminds me of Pitt the Younger in Blackadder:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3jIE3b-bhY
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 21,046
    Sandpit said:

    Thankfully, most of us won’t have things we said as students played back to us in 30 years’ time.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens a decade from now, when all the students who grew up on Facebook and Twitter, start to stand in numbers for political office.

    FB's been around for 18 years. Students who were early adopters will be nigh on 40 now.
    Today's students wouldn't be seen anywhere near Boomer Central.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,958
    As youthful indiscretions go it would seem a bit weird if this was less forgivable than breaking the law (class A drug use), or the entitled performative cruelty of the Bullingdon Club.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    stodge said:

    Aslan said:


    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.

    It's all paradoxical - democracies and revolution. It's more evolutionary than revolutionary - very often revolution needs to new oppression, violence and authoritarianism.

    Strangely, the "fear of revolution" often makes so-called democracies enact repressive legislation and as I've said before, make people frightened enough and they'll happily sign away any rights they do have in the name of "security".

    Which was the more "free" society in 1795 - Britain or France?
    I agree evolution is better than revolution. My point was that you can't argue the reaction of institutions of the late 18th Century means the Enlightenment wasn't about liberal ideas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,160
    Truss has of course now abandoned her republican past, telling the Express, she has begun to understand 'to understand more about why Britain is successful and part of our success is the constitutional monarchy that supports a free democracy."
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1534760/Liz-Truss-BBC-Republican-Monarchy-Queen-Nick-Robinson-VN

    In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.

    If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495
    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Thankfully, most of us won’t have things we said as students played back to us in 30 years’ time.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens a decade from now, when all the students who grew up on Facebook and Twitter, start to stand in numbers for political office.

    FB's been around for 18 years. Students who were early adopters will be nigh on 40 now.
    Today's students wouldn't be seen anywhere near Boomer Central.
    Thats true
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Looking into this Gerald Darmanin minister. He sounds like a real piece of shit. Sexual abuse allegations, banning of protests, and now slandering of victims because of his own nation's failings.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,007
    Aslan said:

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Pitt the Younger wasn't too bad.
    ... although he did enact the aforementioned Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to demonstrate how much he valued free speech and democracy ;-)
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,596

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Because of the big influences in our own strange Enlightenment. Firstly the events of 1688-90; secondly the 'organic evolution' philosophy of Edmund Burke; thirdly the British (especially English) disdain for theory of any description.

  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    I am not a right winger either. I am a patriotic social democrat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,160
    edited June 3
    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,710
    Aslan said:

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Pitt the Younger wasn't too bad.
    His views on law and order were a bit extreme, but on second thoughts perhaps not by modern standards. I don't think he went in for castrating sex offenders, unlike the odd Tory MP today.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,281
    HYUFD said:

    Truss has of course now abandoned her republican past, telling the Express, she has begun to understand 'to understand more about why Britain is successful and part of our success is the constitutional monarchy that supports a free democracy."
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1534760/Liz-Truss-BBC-Republican-Monarchy-Queen-Nick-Robinson-VN

    In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.

    If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader

    As a practicing Christian how on earth could you listen to Boris's reading at St Paul’s today without feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,903
    Just remember that Dominic Cummings thinks Truss one of the maddest people in the HoC. So she must have something going for her.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Oh, and Darmanin is a homophobe too. Sounds like a complete bigot.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495
    Sandpit said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
    I think its because the view of the majority (or alternatively the view of the average man in the street ) has changed - free speech is hardest to do when challenging the majority view - that has not changed just the majority view -
  • PhilPhil Posts: 815
    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Thankfully, most of us won’t have things we said as students played back to us in 30 years’ time.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens a decade from now, when all the students who grew up on Facebook and Twitter, start to stand in numbers for political office.

    FB's been around for 18 years. Students who were early adopters will be nigh on 40 now.
    Today's students wouldn't be seen anywhere near Boomer Central.
    Going by my eldest’s social media habits: His university forced him onto Facebook in order to organise various social things at the very beginning, but the entire student body promptly decamped to Discord servers split by subject / hall of residence etc etc. Faccebook is dead to him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,903
    England are really back on form, aren't they? Looks like 1 win in `18 now on the cards.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,710
    DavidL said:

    Just remember that Dominic Cummings thinks Truss one of the maddest people in the HoC. So she must have something going for her.

    No, the logic is the other way. If he of all people thinks she is off the end of the pier, then ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,160
    edited June 3

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger might disagree. Plenty of businessmen or solicitors or doctors worked in the same practice as their fathers, farmers have farmed the same land as generations of their family
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,159

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    We might get may followed by Johnson followed by truss electively though. And don't say well at least we can vote them out because look what happens when we do
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495
    DavidL said:

    England are really back on form, aren't they? Looks like 1 win in `18 now on the cards.

    they are terrible
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    Johnson will not lose. He'll be safe for a year and call a GE in that time.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,012
    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    As opposed to ... ?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 21,201

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Chavez, Ceaucescu, Beria, Chairman Mao, Kim Il Sung and Brother Number One Pol Pot all say Hi!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,903
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Just remember that Dominic Cummings thinks Truss one of the maddest people in the HoC. So she must have something going for her.

    No, the logic is the other way. If he of all people thinks she is off the end of the pier, then ...
    Well I suppose that depends on whether you are a glass half full or a glass over the head kind of person, doesn't it?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432

    Not going to any street parties or any other such things, I will enjoy some peace and quiet away from work for once.

    yes the same- Yesterday i went on a 12 mile walk through the more secluded and deserted bits of Sherwood Forest - bliss ! Hardly saw a soul.

    i am not a royalist or a republican - more of a "whatever" - the one thing I dont like though is having my spare time organised by others so love doing my own thing
    Hope you are keeping well, state.

    I'm on principle opposed but in practice I am a whatever. I couldn't give a toss about any of them but then I don't give a toss what Rita Ora or whoever is wearing either.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,452

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    OGH advised me in 1996 that - if I wanted to get into politics - then it might be a good time to join the Conservatives.

    As it happened, I would rather have eaten my own left testicle than become a politician, but it was a nice thought.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Aslan said:

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Pitt the Younger wasn't too bad.
    ... although he did enact the aforementioned Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to demonstrate how much he valued free speech and democracy ;-)
    There was a reason I said "not too bad" rather than "good". He whopped the frogs and their autocratic enslaving emperor though, so did have some things going for him.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 21,046
    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,903

    HYUFD said:

    Truss has of course now abandoned her republican past, telling the Express, she has begun to understand 'to understand more about why Britain is successful and part of our success is the constitutional monarchy that supports a free democracy."
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1534760/Liz-Truss-BBC-Republican-Monarchy-Queen-Nick-Robinson-VN

    In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.

    If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader

    As a practicing Christian how on earth could you listen to Boris's reading at St Paul’s today without feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable
    The scriptures are a bit toe curling aren't they? Oh, sorry, I get what you mean now.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,710
    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Pitt the Younger wasn't too bad.
    ... although he did enact the aforementioned Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to demonstrate how much he valued free speech and democracy ;-)
    There was a reason I said "not too bad" rather than "good". He whopped the frogs and their autocratic enslaving emperor though, so did have some things going for him.
    He was a shit if you were a prole, but then the upper classes generally were.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,863
    HYUFD said:

    Truss has of course now abandoned her republican past, telling the Express, she has begun to understand 'to understand more about why Britain is successful and part of our success is the constitutional monarchy that supports a free democracy."
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1534760/Liz-Truss-BBC-Republican-Monarchy-Queen-Nick-Robinson-VN

    In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.

    If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader

    She's certainly changed plenty of her views all right. And all in the direction of endearing herself to those who will vote in a Tory leadership contest. Pure coincidence I'm sure.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,452
    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Harold Wilson was President of the Board of Trade in the Attlee administration!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128
    edited June 3
    DavidL said:

    England are really back on form, aren't they? Looks like 1 win in `18 now on the cards.

    A good couple of hours with the ball yesterday morning, and a brief bright spell with the ball this morning, surrounded by 9 hours of the usual mediocrity.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    HYUFD is certainly quite ignorant on Labour politics, I've see him make other silly mistakes before. On Tory politics and polling he is a sage, however
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,903
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    OGH advised me in 1996 that - if I wanted to get into politics - then it might be a good time to join the Conservatives.

    As it happened, I would rather have eaten my own left testicle than become a politician, but it was a nice thought.
    What, eating your own testicle? It takes all sorts, I suppose.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,027

    DavidL said:

    England are really back on form, aren't they? Looks like 1 win in `18 now on the cards.

    they are terrible
    Classic lords on second day. Pitch flat, ball goes soft, runs come. Seen it many times. Pretty sure we will lose though...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 21,201
    Sandpit said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
    Many things, including the death of communism leading to a lack of ideological direction, especially taken in tandem with atheism (remember a lot of left wing thought used to be quite religious: Methodism overlapped with British socialism, for instance)

    Identity politics - Woke - rushed to fill the gaping void. Very successfully. As it is a form of secular religion. So it ticked all the boxes

    However in a religion the holy thing trumps all else so all the Enlightenment values got dumped in favour of extreme social justice for the intersectionally oppressed
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,495

    Not going to any street parties or any other such things, I will enjoy some peace and quiet away from work for once.

    yes the same- Yesterday i went on a 12 mile walk through the more secluded and deserted bits of Sherwood Forest - bliss ! Hardly saw a soul.

    i am not a royalist or a republican - more of a "whatever" - the one thing I dont like though is having my spare time organised by others so love doing my own thing
    Hope you are keeping well, state.

    I'm on principle opposed but in practice I am a whatever. I couldn't give a toss about any of them but then I don't give a toss what Rita Ora or whoever is wearing either.
    yes thanks - I even got a chance to use my OS map in anger when one of the few people i saw in the forest asked where the Major Oak was (main tourist site in Sherwood Forest as the Robin Hood story says its where he gathered his outlaws) - so I tutted a bit (like a builder being asked for a quote) and said you are two miles away and showed him how to get there in a deliberately mappish sort of way (pass the firetower , go left at the church with a spire) - as i said bliss!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,903

    DavidL said:

    England are really back on form, aren't they? Looks like 1 win in `18 now on the cards.

    they are terrible
    Even Potts is now playing like he belongs in this team. Unfortunate.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412
    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    At the nadir of a parties fortunes is the correct time for an ambitious opportunist to join. It is at a subsequent election that seats will be gained, and new faces wanted. For example Blair got his seat in 1983 at a then low point.

    At the next election (on current polling) Labour will be gaining a hundred seats, so joining in the Corbyn years without being too tainted would be a good move.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,159
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Truss has of course now abandoned her republican past, telling the Express, she has begun to understand 'to understand more about why Britain is successful and part of our success is the constitutional monarchy that supports a free democracy."
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1534760/Liz-Truss-BBC-Republican-Monarchy-Queen-Nick-Robinson-VN

    In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.

    If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader

    As a practicing Christian how on earth could you listen to Boris's reading at St Paul’s today without feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable
    The scriptures are a bit toe curling aren't they? Oh, sorry, I get what you mean now.
    No. Their problem is that they are wrong. Nobody sane disputes that they are literary masterpieces
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,710
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    OGH advised me in 1996 that - if I wanted to get into politics - then it might be a good time to join the Conservatives.

    As it happened, I would rather have eaten my own left testicle than become a politician, but it was a nice thought.
    What, eating your own testicle? It takes all sorts, I suppose.
    One wonders why the left rather than right ... but AIUI there is a definite, erm, interest community in such things out there. I don't want to google it so you will have to do that for yourself, should you improbably so wish.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    HYUFD will be telling us that Attlee wasn't the PM next
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,012

    As youthful indiscretions go it would seem a bit weird if this was less forgivable than breaking the law (class A drug use), or the entitled performative cruelty of the Bullingdon Club.

    Speaking her mind as a young person and expressing a cogent opinion on class inequality. Not even an indiscretion for me. And, yes, extremely admirable cf those other examples you cite. Esp the shameful Bullingdon stuff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,797
    Aslan said:

    Hurrah for Liz.

    I mean we wouldn’t accept hereditary Prime Ministers or Doctors so why should we be saddled with a hereditary head of state.

    We’re not North Korea.

    Pitt the Younger wasn't too bad.
    The Earls of Derby and the various iterations of the Cecil family were a bit naff though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,160
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
    You're digging yourself into a hole here buddy
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128
    edited June 3
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    England are really back on form, aren't they? Looks like 1 win in `18 now on the cards.

    they are terrible
    Even Potts is now playing like he belongs in this team. Unfortunate.
    Sadly yes.

    But what a memory of yesterday, he’ll forever have his first Test innings figures ingrained on his brain.

    Matthew Potts
    9.2o 4m 13r 4w @1.39
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,459

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    HYUFD is certainly quite ignorant on Labour politics, I've see him make other silly mistakes before. On Tory politics and polling he is a sage, however
    He was one of the very few on here to get the 2019 election result more or less exactly right throughout the campaign as well. Of course he makes mistakes, particularly about things he knows less about, don't we all? But on the whole he's definitely one of the most knowledgable posters on here.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,797
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,710

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
    You're digging yourself into a hole here buddy
    One can sure hear the JCB diesel chugging away.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412

    HYUFD said:

    Truss has of course now abandoned her republican past, telling the Express, she has begun to understand 'to understand more about why Britain is successful and part of our success is the constitutional monarchy that supports a free democracy."
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1534760/Liz-Truss-BBC-Republican-Monarchy-Queen-Nick-Robinson-VN

    In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.

    If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader

    As a practicing Christian how on earth could you listen to Boris's reading at St Paul’s today without feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable
    Yes, Lizzie gave him a great reading to do.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    Fishing said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    HYUFD is certainly quite ignorant on Labour politics, I've see him make other silly mistakes before. On Tory politics and polling he is a sage, however
    He was one of the very few on here to get the 2019 election result more or less exactly right throughout the campaign as well. Of course he makes mistakes, particularly about things he knows less about, don't we all? But on the whole he's definitely one of the most knowledgable posters on here.
    He makes mistakes like I often do but he's not very good at owning up to them which undermines his arguments somewhat.

    See above.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,283
    edited June 3
    Sandpit said:


    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?

    I'm not sure you're right on this.

    The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.

    Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 21,046
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
    Indeed. Elevated straight to Junior Minister on election and in the Cabinet in under two years.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
    Great inspiration for Starmer he is too, only by looking forwards can Labour win again. Attlee did it, Wilson did it, Blair did it.

    Time to get back to that.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
    Many things, including the death of communism leading to a lack of ideological direction, especially taken in tandem with atheism (remember a lot of left wing thought used to be quite religious: Methodism overlapped with British socialism, for instance)

    Identity politics - Woke - rushed to fill the gaping void. Very successfully. As it is a form of secular religion. So it ticked all the boxes

    However in a religion the holy thing trumps all else so all the Enlightenment values got dumped in favour of extreme social justice for the intersectionally oppressed
    The joke in all of this is that intersectionality is about considering all the different parts of identity. So if you consider race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, socioeconomic class, you start to get into pretty small segments. If you start adding in other things that affect life experience and treatment, you can add physical attractiveness, height, weight, family size, birth order, rural vs urban, age, medical conditions, neurodivergence and so on. Ultimately, you splice the population down to the individual level, at which point we return to the Enlightenment and liberalism after all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Harold Wilson was President of the Board of Trade in the Attlee administration!
    At a time when exports were a major priority and anxiety for the government.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    Starmer might not have been a cabinet minister but he's run one of the largest organisations in the country.

    That alone makes him more qualified than most of the post-2005 Labour intake
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?

    I'm not sure you're right on this.

    The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.

    Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
    The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 21,046
    Fishing said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    HYUFD is certainly quite ignorant on Labour politics, I've see him make other silly mistakes before. On Tory politics and polling he is a sage, however
    He was one of the very few on here to get the 2019 election result more or less exactly right throughout the campaign as well. Of course he makes mistakes, particularly about things he knows less about, don't we all? But on the whole he's definitely one of the most knowledgable posters on here.
    Yes. But he's very partisan.
    It's a bit like me discussing LFC team selection. I don't watch them much. And when I do it isn't dispassionately.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    HYUFD is certainly quite ignorant on Labour politics, I've see him make other silly mistakes before. On Tory politics and polling he is a sage, however
    He was one of the very few on here to get the 2019 election result more or less exactly right throughout the campaign as well. Of course he makes mistakes, particularly about things he knows less about, don't we all? But on the whole he's definitely one of the most knowledgable posters on here.
    Yes. But he's very partisan.
    It's a bit like me discussing LFC team selection. I don't watch them much. And when I do it isn't dispassionately.
    He is very partisan but then so am I. What annoys me more is that he's really incapable of ever admitting he's wrong.

    I think in general he's a good poster and I like him but this part of his personality winds people up.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412
    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?

    I'm not sure you're right on this.

    The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.

    Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
    It is also the Right that are suppressing the right to protest.

    The right to free speech does not extend to consequence free speech.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    One wonders if Khan will follow in the footsteps of Johnson and try and get back into the Government (should it be a Labour one), sometime in the mid to late 2020s.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,460
    HYUFD said:

    Truss has of course now abandoned her republican past, telling the Express, she has begun to understand 'to understand more about why Britain is successful and part of our success is the constitutional monarchy that supports a free democracy."
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1534760/Liz-Truss-BBC-Republican-Monarchy-Queen-Nick-Robinson-VN

    In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.

    If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader

    Isn't the suspicion going to be that that is precisely why she u-turned on the monarchy, Brexit and disarmament? It all looks a tad too convenient.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,868
    edited June 3
    Afternoon all.

    Judging by the vid, Liz T could have been Hermione in Harry Potter. Borisov Absentia Permanens !Nice to see that the NS is trying to scare us. Do we have any PB LT admirers in the military?


    How many votes will change because of something La Truss said at a Lib Dem conference at the age approximately 18 and a half?

    A lovely afternoon in the garden. Now I need some rain because the patio plants have drunk the water butt.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,357
     
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:

    Aslan said:

    She sounds awful here.

    I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
    maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
    See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Beaconsfield_by-election
    Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
    Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
    A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
    No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?


  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,012
    Sandpit said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
    It's because softhead bigotry is less tolerated these days. This impacts the right more since they are full of it - hence they feel gagged.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,241
    Sandpit said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

    Care to elaborate?
    EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

    I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

    I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

    Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

    I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
    A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

    OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

    Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

    I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
    "strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
    Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
    There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

    Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
    Bullshit!

    Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?

    Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.

    Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
    Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.

    I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
    How about Section 28 as an example of the Conservatives support for free speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
    Unfortunately the instinct to censor is quite a deep and recurring one.
    It is observable both on the left and the right, to the extent that these terms still mean something.
    Typically it is the winners of a particular battle trying to entrench their position by silencing their opponents, neutralising the threat they pose.
    If you look back at Brexit, the right were pretty bad. Anyone who disagreed with Brexit was a traitor. There were half serious calls to make support for the EU an act of treason.
    However, the left are generally more dangerous on this front, because they are driven by the idea that humans can be improved. This is an idea that has done vast amounts of damage in world history and should be rejected.
    Personally, I tend to think that it is the conservative party which I trust the most on the issue of freedom of speech, which is why I vote for them, even though they aren't perfect.
    If the lib dems went back to being actually liberal and democratic, then I would switch to them, but there is no real sign of that happening.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Now coming out that underage girls were sexually assaulted in St Denis. Both Liverpool and Madrid fans had to form rings to protect women from the Parisian gangs.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/were-liverpool-fans-sexually-assaulted-at-the-stade-de-france-/

    And Macron has apparently given his full backing to the wanker Darmanin. Soft on Putin, hard on teenage abuse victims. The French government are truly scum.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,258
    Bishop of Buckingham @alantlwilson tells me on @TimesRadio that @BorisJohnson should quit: “he's obviously an out and out liar. It's not the parties that's the problem, it's the lying.” He was drawing a contrast between the PM’s public service and that of the Queen…
    https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/1532763050054455296
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,283
    Aslan said:

    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?

    I'm not sure you're right on this.

    The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.

    Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
    The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
    I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,258
    Keep Boris Johnson as Prime Minister or lose the next election, senior Government source warns Tory rebels

    “If you chuck Boris, you blow the Red Wall apart”


    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-allies-warn-tory-rebels-they-risk-brexit-the-red-wall-and-next-election-if-they-oust-him-1668177?ito=twitter_share_article-top

    There is also a feeling among the PM’s supporters it would be better to face a leadership vote next week, than after potentially damaging by-election defeats on June 23 or the Privileges Committee Partygate probe in autumn
This discussion has been closed.