Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
You know as well as I do, but obviously not HYUFD, that thay was a *retrospective* comment since 1978. Still less a formal agreement. It ill behoves you to try and support him.
You said it wasn't in the paperwork. It was. It was in the Scottish Government's White Paper produced at public expense as propaganda for voting yes in the Referendum. It was not a part of the Edinburgh Agreement or any other agreement that I know but it is untrue to say that the SNP did not campaign on the idea that this was a once in a generation opportunity. They did.
Having said that, who cares what a former FM and government said? They cannot bind their successors and cannot bind the people of Scotland.
Five years on, the reputation of Pincher, 52, is in tatters. On Thursday he resigned as the government’s deputy chief whip after being accused of groping two men while out drinking the night before at the Carlton Club, a Tory watering hole.
One of his alleged victims said he was left “shell-shocked” after Pincher groped his left buttock and groin shortly after purchasing a round of drinks in the club’s Macmillan bar.
“I had my drink in my hand and then he then went down and grabbed my arse and then slowly ... moved his hand down the front of my groin. I froze a little bit and it ended after about two or three seconds, but it was a very bizarre thing.” An MP corroborated this account.
His ordeal was made worse, the alleged victim claims, when Sarah Dines, a Tory whip who was also present and whom he spoke to about the incident, asked him if he was gay. “I was a bit taken aback by that and said, ‘What’s that got to do with it? But yes, I am,’ ” the man said. “And her words were: ‘Well, that doesn’t make it straightforward.’ ”
Friends of Dines say she was attempting to establish the full circumstances of what happened and whether there had been a prior relationship between Pincher and the man. She later reported the incident to her superiors, which friends say shows she took the matter seriously.
Five years on, the reputation of Pincher, 52, is in tatters. On Thursday he resigned as the government’s deputy chief whip after being accused of groping two men while out drinking the night before at the Carlton Club, a Tory watering hole.
One of his alleged victims said he was left “shell-shocked” after Pincher groped his left buttock and groin shortly after purchasing a round of drinks in the club’s Macmillan bar.
“I had my drink in my hand and then he then went down and grabbed my arse and then slowly ... moved his hand down the front of my groin. I froze a little bit and it ended after about two or three seconds, but it was a very bizarre thing.” An MP corroborated this account.
His ordeal was made worse, the alleged victim claims, when Sarah Dines, a Tory whip who was also present and whom he spoke to about the incident, asked him if he was gay. “I was a bit taken aback by that and said, ‘What’s that got to do with it? But yes, I am,’ ” the man said. “And her words were: ‘Well, that doesn’t make it straightforward.’ ”
Friends of Dines say she was attempting to establish the full circumstances of what happened and whether there had been a prior relationship between Pincher and the man. She later reported the incident to her superiors, which friends say shows she took the matter seriously.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
I’ve been meaning to ask, what was the polling on the UK population wanting a referendum on the EU pre June 2016?
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
It is vanishingly unlikely that the UK Government will allow the SNP to set timing, game the question, etc. of any second Indyref.
If and when there is a second Indyref it will be on the UK Government's terms - it's not their first time at this particular Rodeo. A vote will certainly be allowed; several if the Scottish Government decides to hold them. But they won't be binding.
Didn't happen the first time round. Mr Cameron and the EC were very much involved. There was this thing called the "Edinburgh Agreement".
There’s hardly enough room for all the Unionist thumbs being pressed on the scales of an Indy ref that they insist isn’t going to happen.
It's precisely the weight of Mr. Salmond's substantial thumbs on the scales last time that will make the UK Government wary of allowing the SNP free rein in these areas if and when another official referendum is to be held.
You mean, after an agreement with the entire UKG and EC involved?
The entire UK Government did not agree that the Scottish Tourist Board would make their marketing campaign a paean to independence as they did (and still do), which is just one example of the SNP ruthlessly using the power and resources of the Scottish state to further their cause.
Leaving that to one side, I think when a referendum has been held 'once in a generation', and the losing party wants a re-run, it's probably fair for them to accept that conditions will more less favourable to them the second time round.
One of the men allegedly groped by Chris Pincher at the Carlton Club on Wednesday has spoken to The Sunday Times about his anger at how Number 10 dealt with the matter
Deliciously, that poster campaign uses the classic London Underground font (a beautiful font) largely developed by Eric Gill
Ahem
I hope there is a follow-up poster which says
“FUCKING THE FAMILY DOG, AND ALL YOUR DAUGHTERS
Is not allowed on the Bakerloo Line”
Yes well, we're back to the age-old issue of great art being sometimes produced by utter arseholes. Wagner and Picasso, say 'Hi'.
Eric Gill produced some sublime fonts, and beautiful sculptures, which I love. But he was an evil perverted bastard.
I agree. i just noted the delightful subplot hidden in those posters
Incidentally, was Picasso an utter arsehole? I’m not sure he was. A fairly selfish womanising bastard, perhaps, but he was also liked and loved by a lot of people. And yes his fame and money and charisma meant he got to fuck a lot of women. So be it. Successful men will do that
I’m not sure you can put him in the same bracket as Wagner, who expressed vile anti-Semitic views throughout his life, and put these ugly sentiments into his art.
Picasso was largely apolitical (he pretended to be communist but didn’t mean it) and such politics as he did express in his art was on the side of the angels. Guernica, in particular
Yeah, maybe that's fair. I am sure there are a lot of other utter-bastard-artistic-geniuses out there, I just couldn't think of another one to go with Wagner (whose music I love btw) - and since only having one example seemed pathetic I picked on Picasso, probably unfairly.
Hemmingway was a bit of an arse, but again not in the Wagner league.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
I’ve been meaning to ask, what was the polling on the UK population wanting a referendum on the EU pre June 2016?
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
Five years on, the reputation of Pincher, 52, is in tatters. On Thursday he resigned as the government’s deputy chief whip after being accused of groping two men while out drinking the night before at the Carlton Club, a Tory watering hole.
One of his alleged victims said he was left “shell-shocked” after Pincher groped his left buttock and groin shortly after purchasing a round of drinks in the club’s Macmillan bar.
“I had my drink in my hand and then he then went down and grabbed my arse and then slowly ... moved his hand down the front of my groin. I froze a little bit and it ended after about two or three seconds, but it was a very bizarre thing.” An MP corroborated this account.
His ordeal was made worse, the alleged victim claims, when Sarah Dines, a Tory whip who was also present and whom he spoke to about the incident, asked him if he was gay. “I was a bit taken aback by that and said, ‘What’s that got to do with it? But yes, I am,’ ” the man said. “And her words were: ‘Well, that doesn’t make it straightforward.’ ”
Friends of Dines say she was attempting to establish the full circumstances of what happened and whether there had been a prior relationship between Pincher and the man. She later reported the incident to her superiors, which friends say shows she took the matter seriously.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
The difference now is not whether the Tories lose, but how badly they lose. It will take a lot of effort to reach Canadian levels of wipe-out
There won't be a Canadian wipe-out, because that was due to a Party split on the Right. The combined vote in 1993 in Canada was over 34% for Tories + Reform. Not dissimilar to what the Tories get now.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
Five years on, the reputation of Pincher, 52, is in tatters. On Thursday he resigned as the government’s deputy chief whip after being accused of groping two men while out drinking the night before at the Carlton Club, a Tory watering hole.
One of his alleged victims said he was left “shell-shocked” after Pincher groped his left buttock and groin shortly after purchasing a round of drinks in the club’s Macmillan bar.
“I had my drink in my hand and then he then went down and grabbed my arse and then slowly ... moved his hand down the front of my groin. I froze a little bit and it ended after about two or three seconds, but it was a very bizarre thing.” An MP corroborated this account.
His ordeal was made worse, the alleged victim claims, when Sarah Dines, a Tory whip who was also present and whom he spoke to about the incident, asked him if he was gay. “I was a bit taken aback by that and said, ‘What’s that got to do with it? But yes, I am,’ ” the man said. “And her words were: ‘Well, that doesn’t make it straightforward.’ ”
Friends of Dines say she was attempting to establish the full circumstances of what happened and whether there had been a prior relationship between Pincher and the man. She later reported the incident to her superiors, which friends say shows she took the matter seriously.
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
Job in hand probably not the best choice of words.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
I’ve been meaning to ask, what was the polling on the UK population wanting a referendum on the EU pre June 2016?
That referendum was over 40 years after the first EEC referendum in 1975 ie a genuine generation and only happened as the Tories won an outright majority in 2015 on a manifesto promise of an EU referendum
Lol. Are you saying the Tories had a mandate on…checks Wiki…37% of the vote?
Are you saying that any Sindy referendum should have the old 40% of the whole electorate threshold for any change?
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
One of the men allegedly groped by Chris Pincher at the Carlton Club on Wednesday has spoken to The Sunday Times about his anger at how Number 10 dealt with the matter
Deliciously, that poster campaign uses the classic London Underground font (a beautiful font) largely developed by Eric Gill
Ahem
I hope there is a follow-up poster which says
“FUCKING THE FAMILY DOG, AND ALL YOUR DAUGHTERS
Is not allowed on the Bakerloo Line”
Yes well, we're back to the age-old issue of great art being sometimes produced by utter arseholes. Wagner and Picasso, say 'Hi'.
Eric Gill produced some sublime fonts, and beautiful sculptures, which I love. But he was an evil perverted bastard.
I agree. i just noted the delightful subplot hidden in those posters
Incidentally, was Picasso an utter arsehole? I’m not sure he was. A fairly selfish womanising bastard, perhaps, but he was also liked and loved by a lot of people. And yes his fame and money and charisma meant he got to fuck a lot of women. So be it. Successful men will do that
I’m not sure you can put him in the same bracket as Wagner, who expressed vile anti-Semitic views throughout his life, and put these ugly sentiments into his art.
Picasso was largely apolitical (he pretended to be communist but didn’t mean it) and such politics as he did express in his art was on the side of the angels. Guernica, in particular
Yeah, maybe that's fair. I am sure there are a lot of other utter-bastard-artistic-geniuses out there, I just couldn't think of another one to go with Wagner (whose music I love btw) - and since only having one example seemed pathetic I picked on Picasso, probably unfairly.
Hemmingway was a bit of an arse, but again not in the Wagner league.
Yes, I’d put Hemingway with Picasso, in the standard “selfish successful alpha male artist and womanizing bastard” basket. There are many in there. Indeed it’s pretty hard not to go in that basket if you become a successful artist, because: why have you done it, if not to fuck lots of women (or men, or sheep, or whatever)?
Wagner is in a higher league of deplorability
I went to Warner’s house in Lucerne last summer, for the Gazette. It is a stunningly beautiful location and a surprisingly modest but agreeable house. It is also where he wrote and had performed, on the stairs, for the first time, Siegfried’s Idyll, named for his newborn son
I listened to it as I walked around the house, admiring Wagner’s shoe and Wagner’s death mask, etc etc. Succulently lovely music. Loved by Hitler for all the wrong reasons, which Wagner approved. It is most perplexing
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
The difference now is not whether the Tories lose, but how badly they lose. It will take a lot of effort to reach Canadian levels of wipe-out
There won't be a Canadian wipe-out, because that was due to a Party split on the Right. The combined vote in 1993 in Canada was over 34% for Tories + Reform. Not dissimilar to what the Tories get now.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
But what he is, what he has always been, and what he will be as your next Prime Minister, is Not Boris Johnson. And that is what makes Ben Wallace Acceptable, Under the Circumstances.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
It is vanishingly unlikely that the UK Government will allow the SNP to set timing, game the question, etc. of any second Indyref.
If and when there is a second Indyref it will be on the UK Government's terms - it's not their first time at this particular Rodeo. A vote will certainly be allowed; several if the Scottish Government decides to hold them. But they won't be binding.
Didn't happen the first time round. Mr Cameron and the EC were very much involved. There was this thing called the "Edinburgh Agreement".
There’s hardly enough room for all the Unionist thumbs being pressed on the scales of an Indy ref that they insist isn’t going to happen.
It's precisely the weight of Mr. Salmond's substantial thumbs on the scales last time that will make the UK Government wary of allowing the SNP free rein in these areas if and when another official referendum is to be held.
You mean, after an agreement with the entire UKG and EC involved?
Because the idiot Etonian “I’d be rather good as prime minister” David Cameron was convinced he would win indyref easily, and ended up crying on live television, and then, amazingly, repeated the complacent arrogant process with the Brexit vote, and this time he lost, and had to resign, and is now a laughable figure known only for that terrible defeat
You don’t think UK politicians have watched all this, and learnt? Of course they have, especially Boris, who is nothing if not cunning and selfish. No way he will grant a vote, what’s in it for him? He doesn’t have to, and he doesn’t understand the concept of moral leverage, so there ya go
Starmer will be the same, only he will pretend to be more moral
We were musing the other day on whether if things keep getting worse for him he might fancy it as the ultimate distraction.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
The difference now is not whether the Tories lose, but how badly they lose. It will take a lot of effort to reach Canadian levels of wipe-out
There won't be a Canadian wipe-out, because that was due to a Party split on the Right. The combined vote in 1993 in Canada was over 34% for Tories + Reform. Not dissimilar to what the Tories get now.
Indeed, when the Tories were polling 20% or so in Spring 2019 and the Brexit Party were polling similar they were in far more danger of a Canada 1993 style result than now
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
Most people in Britain dont think dealing with Ukraine is the most pressing problem though - Johnson is trying to use this issue to survive -
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
They were brought to mind by the frankly embarrassing behaviour of the current government and the need for contrast in image as well as the conduct of government. And in good times with good choices I might even agree. But the choice is not good. Its bordering on desperate.
One of the men allegedly groped by Chris Pincher at the Carlton Club on Wednesday has spoken to The Sunday Times about his anger at how Number 10 dealt with the matter
Deliciously, that poster campaign uses the classic London Underground font (a beautiful font) largely developed by Eric Gill
Ahem
I hope there is a follow-up poster which says
“FUCKING THE FAMILY DOG, AND ALL YOUR DAUGHTERS
Is not allowed on the Bakerloo Line”
Yes well, we're back to the age-old issue of great art being sometimes produced by utter arseholes. Wagner and Picasso, say 'Hi'.
Eric Gill produced some sublime fonts, and beautiful sculptures, which I love. But he was an evil perverted bastard.
I agree. i just noted the delightful subplot hidden in those posters
Incidentally, was Picasso an utter arsehole? I’m not sure he was. A fairly selfish womanising bastard, perhaps, but he was also liked and loved by a lot of people. And yes his fame and money and charisma meant he got to fuck a lot of women. So be it. Successful men will do that
I’m not sure you can put him in the same bracket as Wagner, who expressed vile anti-Semitic views throughout his life, and put these ugly sentiments into his art.
Picasso was largely apolitical (he pretended to be communist but didn’t mean it) and such politics as he did express in his art was on the side of the angels. Guernica, in particular
Yeah, maybe that's fair. I am sure there are a lot of other utter-bastard-artistic-geniuses out there, I just couldn't think of another one to go with Wagner (whose music I love btw) - and since only having one example seemed pathetic I picked on Picasso, probably unfairly.
Hemmingway was a bit of an arse, but again not in the Wagner league.
Yes, I’d put Hemingway with Picasso, in the standard “selfish successful alpha male artist and womanizing bastard” basket. There are many in there. Indeed it’s pretty hard not to go in that basket if you become a successful artist, because: why have you done it, if not to fuck lots of women (or men, or sheep, or whatever)?
Wagner is in a higher league of deplorability
I went to Warner’s house in Lucerne last summer, for the Gazette. It is a stunningly beautiful location and a surprisingly modest but agreeable house. It is also where he wrote and had performed, on the stairs, for the first time, Siegfried’s Idyll, named for his newborn son
I listened to it as I walked around the house, admiring Wagner’s shoe and Wagner’s death mask, etc etc. Succulently lovely music. Loved by Hitler for all the wrong reasons, which Wagner approved. It is most perplexing
Picasso was an out and out misogynist of course, if Wiki is to be believed:
"Picasso has been commonly characterised as a womaniser and a misogynist, being quoted as having said to one of his mistresses, Françoise Gilot, "Women are machines for suffering." He later told her, "For me there are only two kinds of women: goddesses and doormats." In her memoir, Picasso, My Grandfather, Marina Picasso writes of his treatment of women, "He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them."
Of the several important women in his life, two, Marie-Thèrése Walter, a mistress, and Jacqueline Roque, his second wife, died by suicide. Others, notably his first wife Olga Khokhlova, and his mistress Dora Maar, succumbed to nervous breakdowns. His son, Paulo, developed a fatal alcoholism due to depression. His grandson, Pablito, also died by suicide that same year by ingesting bleach when he was barred by Jacqueline Roque from attending the artist's funeral."
One of the men allegedly groped by Chris Pincher at the Carlton Club on Wednesday has spoken to The Sunday Times about his anger at how Number 10 dealt with the matter
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
I’ve been meaning to ask, what was the polling on the UK population wanting a referendum on the EU pre June 2016?
That referendum was over 40 years after the first EEC referendum in 1975 ie a genuine generation and only happened as the Tories won an outright majority in 2015 on a manifesto promise of an EU referendum
Lol. Are you saying the Tories had a mandate on…checks Wiki…37% of the vote?
Are you saying that any Sindy referendum should have the old 40% of the whole electorate threshold for any change?
Why on earth would you bring a referendum into a comparison between the mandates given by two general elections?
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
Taliban was somewhat different though.
How fundamentally? (no pun intended)
They were blown up. Not dismantled, so can't be replaced. They were from the 6th/7th Century, so very ancient, therefore of worldwide cultural significance. They were religious. So of completely different import. Latvia is a democracy. So their removal is subject to the electorate. They don't like it they can be replaced.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
But what he is, what he has always been, and what he will be as your next Prime Minister, is Not Boris Johnson. And that is what makes Ben Wallace Acceptable, Under the Circumstances.
Oh, I loved the original of that. Just genius. And all the more persuasive because it did not hide Biden's multiple weaknesses.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
I’ve been meaning to ask, what was the polling on the UK population wanting a referendum on the EU pre June 2016?
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
Taliban was somewhat different though.
How fundamentally? (no pun intended)
They were blown up. Not dismantled, so can't be replaced. They were from the 6th/7th Century, so very ancient, therefore of worldwide cultural significance. They were religious. So of completely different import. Latvia is a democracy. So their removal is subject to the electorate. They don't like it they can be replaced.
well I always thought it part of the attraction of Riga as a tourist. That aside I think its the same attitude behind it - dont like something /fallen out with somebody - get rid of all trace - cancel culture in the non-digital world . Really sad attitude I think- and I am not sure whoever get the most votes decides these things (ie democracy) as it always results in silly things like Notts county council replacing its carpets with red or blue everytime the tories or labour get in- Sometimes societies need to just grow up
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
I’ve been meaning to ask, what was the polling on the UK population wanting a referendum on the EU pre June 2016?
That referendum was over 40 years after the first EEC referendum in 1975 ie a genuine generation and only happened as the Tories won an outright majority in 2015 on a manifesto promise of an EU referendum
Lol. Are you saying the Tories had a mandate on…checks Wiki…37% of the vote?
Are you saying that any Sindy referendum should have the old 40% of the whole electorate threshold for any change?
Why on earth would you bring a referendum into a comparison between the mandates given by two general elections?
Angela was down at Gay Pride earlier today, which was excellent by the way. I saw her there. Seeing so much joy and excessive partying reminded me yet again just how inhumane lockdown was. London was absolutely full of unbridled life.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
They were brought to mind by the frankly embarrassing behaviour of the current government and the need for contrast in image as well as the conduct of government. And in good times with good choices I might even agree. But the choice is not good. Its bordering on desperate.
Always a danger to mistake lack of charisma for presence of competency.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
The difference now is not whether the Tories lose, but how badly they lose. It will take a lot of effort to reach Canadian levels of wipe-out
There won't be a Canadian wipe-out, because that was due to a Party split on the Right. The combined vote in 1993 in Canada was over 34% for Tories + Reform. Not dissimilar to what the Tories get now.
Indeed, when the Tories were polling 20% or so in Spring 2019 and the Brexit Party were polling similar they were in far more danger of a Canada 1993 style result than now
Yes. The return of Farage to politics on some pretext or other, and then gaining traction, is the only way that scenario is plausible. And, for that reason, it won't be allowed to happen under any circumstance.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
If only you could persuade SKS to defect to the Conservatives…..
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
I agree. Hence my comment at 9.23.
The trouble is with too frequent votes on it that the rest of the UK will assume one will go the Nats way and decide to tell the Scots they are not wanted anymore in a Union - Not much point in hanging on to a uncertain future with a partner in any walk of life
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
The difference now is not whether the Tories lose, but how badly they lose. It will take a lot of effort to reach Canadian levels of wipe-out
There won't be a Canadian wipe-out, because that was due to a Party split on the Right. The combined vote in 1993 in Canada was over 34% for Tories + Reform. Not dissimilar to what the Tories get now.
A Tory party split is not out of the question imo.
A split between the traditional, sound fiscal policy, business-focused, work-with-Europe, mainly Blue Wall tories, and the populist, Brexit, anti-immigration, Red Wall tories is not inconceivable.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
That’s a plan to fail. Mordaunt would be a plan to succeed.
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
Taliban was somewhat different though.
How fundamentally? (no pun intended)
They were blown up. Not dismantled, so can't be replaced. They were from the 6th/7th Century, so very ancient, therefore of worldwide cultural significance. They were religious. So of completely different import. Latvia is a democracy. So their removal is subject to the electorate. They don't like it they can be replaced.
well I always thought it part of the attraction of Riga as a tourist. That aside I think its the same attitude behind it - dont like something /fallen out with somebody - get rid of all trace - cancel culture in the non-digital world . Really sad attitude I think- and I am not sure whoever get the most votes decides these things (ie democracy) as it always results in silly things like Notts county council replacing its carpets with red or blue everytime the tories or labour get in- Sometimes societies need to just grow up
I don't disagree really. But it's a question of degree, isn't it? Like I say. Latvia is a democracy, so it has more latitude.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Randy Andy, how he is the Queen's favourite I shall never know.
Prince Andrew agreed to do his infamous Newsnight interview after a producer taunted him about his “Randy Andy” nickname, it has emerged.
Sam McAlister, the woman responsible for securing the landmark BBC interview, said the final meeting which convinced the Duke of York to appear on television saw her “give it to him very bluntly”.
“Sir. I have lived in this country for over 40 years and, until now, I only knew two things about you,” she told him.
“It's that you're known as ‘Air Miles Andy’ and ‘Randy Andy’ and I can absolutely tell you that the latter really doesn't help you in your current predicament.”
Fearing she had “blown our chances of landing the interview of a lifetime”, McAlister waited for a response as her team - presenter Emily Maitlis and Newsnight deputy editor Stewart Macleancer - looked “shocked”.
“There was a long pause,” she said. “Then Andrew laughed. The room collectively exhaled.”
Prince Andrew had been joined in the meeting by his daughter Princess Beatrice, who took notes and appeared “anxious”, and his then-private secretary Amanda Thirsk, the producer said.
Afterwards, he claimed to be “going upstairs” to have tea with his mother the Queen to ask her advice.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
Angela was down at Gay Pride earlier today, which was excellent by the way. I saw her there. Seeing so much joy and excessive partying reminded me yet again just how inhumane lockdown was. London was absolutely full of unbridled life.
yes now we are getting legal action for not locking down earlier though - Lawyers can really create a miserable society
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
That’s a plan to fail. Mordaunt would be a plan to succeed.
The Tories could elect Jesus Christ as leader and they'd still be scuppered at the next GE by the economy.
Angela was down at Gay Pride earlier today, which was excellent by the way. I saw her there. Seeing so much joy and excessive partying reminded me yet again just how inhumane lockdown was. London was absolutely full of unbridled life.
It was indeed. Mrs Stodge and I travelled home via Waterloo mid afternoon and it was encouraging to see so many young and not so young able to express their sexuality and identity without fear or abuse.
"A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others."
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
If only you could persuade SKS to defect to the Conservatives…..
Wallace or Hunt v Starmer would certainly be the most boring party leaders at a general election since Heath v Wilson and even if Heath was dull Wilson had a bit of charisma and Thorpe as Liberal leader was far more charismatic than Davey. However maybe we want some boredom after Boris and Corbyn
Five years on, the reputation of Pincher, 52, is in tatters. On Thursday he resigned as the government’s deputy chief whip after being accused of groping two men while out drinking the night before at the Carlton Club, a Tory watering hole.
One of his alleged victims said he was left “shell-shocked” after Pincher groped his left buttock and groin shortly after purchasing a round of drinks in the club’s Macmillan bar.
“I had my drink in my hand and then he then went down and grabbed my arse and then slowly ... moved his hand down the front of my groin. I froze a little bit and it ended after about two or three seconds, but it was a very bizarre thing.” An MP corroborated this account.
His ordeal was made worse, the alleged victim claims, when Sarah Dines, a Tory whip who was also present and whom he spoke to about the incident, asked him if he was gay. “I was a bit taken aback by that and said, ‘What’s that got to do with it? But yes, I am,’ ” the man said. “And her words were: ‘Well, that doesn’t make it straightforward.’ ”
Friends of Dines say she was attempting to establish the full circumstances of what happened and whether there had been a prior relationship between Pincher and the man. She later reported the incident to her superiors, which friends say shows she took the matter seriously.
Indeed, with that logic a man groping a woman would be ok, if she were heterosexual.
We're back to the plain old 'probably asking for it' victim blaming. Says a lot about Dines' attitudes, if true.
Yes, her explanation of 'attempting to establish the full circumstances' is not very convincing, since the victim's orientation is not part of the circumstances, it would be irrelevant.
So it looks more like an assumption that, IDK, gay people are assumed to be more ok with being groped.
If that isn't what she meant, or even if it was, she will have to fall back on an 'I'm an idiot' defence.
Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
The difference now is not whether the Tories lose, but how badly they lose. It will take a lot of effort to reach Canadian levels of wipe-out
There won't be a Canadian wipe-out, because that was due to a Party split on the Right. The combined vote in 1993 in Canada was over 34% for Tories + Reform. Not dissimilar to what the Tories get now.
A Tory party split is not out of the question imo.
A split between the traditional, sound fiscal policy, business-focused, work-with-Europe, mainly Blue Wall tories, and the populist, Brexit, anti-immigration, Red Wall tories is not inconceivable.
It would only happen under PR, just as Corbyn would form a hard left party under PR too
I was once groped in public...I think...by a South Korean woman MP. I'd gone to lobby the Parliament on animal welfare, she was putting forward a helpful Bill, and we were asked to do a photo call. "Look friendly!" said the photographer jovially. I put my arm lightly round her shoulders. She grasped my left buttock and squeezed firmly while the snap was being taken. We stepped away, and then the photographer asked for another take. She then did it again.
Did I complain? I couldn't - it didn't seem a big deal, more funny than embarrassing, and she was an ally whose support we needed. She was perfectly demure before and afterwards. Maybe it's because she was shorter so an arm round my waist would have been awkward? Or a Korean custom? But it did make me think about the difficulty that women in a less strong position have - they're not even sure there was an offence, they perhaps feel a bit silly complaining, it's easier just to let it go. And so more serious offenders can get away with it for a while.
Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
also the ridiculous anti smoking law which is peak government nannying.one I am sorry to say is seemingly gaining traction amongst the nannies in this country
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
That’s a plan to fail. Mordaunt would be a plan to succeed.
The Tories could elect Jesus Christ as leader and they'd still be scuppered at the next GE by the economy.
Possibly (probably?) but I sense that Mordaunt would give them a genuine chance.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
Is he a goner? I mean, we have been told endlessly on PB that he is a goner, yet as far as I can see he remains prime minister. Funny old world.
Angela was down at Gay Pride earlier today, which was excellent by the way. I saw her there. Seeing so much joy and excessive partying reminded me yet again just how inhumane lockdown was. London was absolutely full of unbridled life.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
Because you don’t get to vote continuously and unilaterally on the break up of the UK - and that is what this is - without the rest of the UK having some input via our shared government in Westminster. If you don’t want to respect the British Parliament of the British People - which includes Scots - go ahead and declare UDI or start a war of insurrection, like the Irish
That’s it. Them’s the choices We are a democracy, You have to persuade the elected democracy of the UK that another referendum is justified a mere 9 years after the first vote in 300 years
One of the men allegedly groped by Chris Pincher at the Carlton Club on Wednesday has spoken to The Sunday Times about his anger at how Number 10 dealt with the matter
Deliciously, that poster campaign uses the classic London Underground font (a beautiful font) largely developed by Eric Gill
Ahem
I hope there is a follow-up poster which says
“FUCKING THE FAMILY DOG, AND ALL YOUR DAUGHTERS
Is not allowed on the Bakerloo Line”
Yes well, we're back to the age-old issue of great art being sometimes produced by utter arseholes. Wagner and Picasso, say 'Hi'.
Eric Gill produced some sublime fonts, and beautiful sculptures, which I love. But he was an evil perverted bastard.
I agree. i just noted the delightful subplot hidden in those posters
Incidentally, was Picasso an utter arsehole? I’m not sure he was. A fairly selfish womanising bastard, perhaps, but he was also liked and loved by a lot of people. And yes his fame and money and charisma meant he got to fuck a lot of women. So be it. Successful men will do that
I’m not sure you can put him in the same bracket as Wagner, who expressed vile anti-Semitic views throughout his life, and put these ugly sentiments into his art.
Picasso was largely apolitical (he pretended to be communist but didn’t mean it) and such politics as he did express in his art was on the side of the angels. Guernica, in particular
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
If only you could persuade SKS to defect to the Conservatives…..
Wallace or Hunt v Starmer would certainly be the most boring party leaders at a general election since Heath v Wilson and even if Heath was dull Wilson had a bit of charisma and Thorpe as Liberal leader was far more charismatic than Davey. However maybe we want some boredom after Boris and Corbyn
There must be a happy medium somewhere. Mordaunt v Lammy? Can’t think of a charismatic Lib Dem, though.
Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
She might but Luxon is getting steadily better and consistent best PM figures, much better than Collins who was useless, the 'wrong direction'/approval scores are getting worse and you get the feeling shes been seen through now. Frankly anyone who declares the government 'are your sole source of truth' ought to be removed by the short and curlies and never allowed back.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
I agree. Hence my comment at 9.23.
The trouble is with too frequent votes on it that the rest of the UK will assume one will go the Nats way and decide to tell the Scots they are not wanted anymore in a Union - Not much point in hanging on to a uncertain future with a partner in any walk of life
Sure, like any relationship repeated threats to walk out the door will eventually find the door being held open for you whether you want it or not.
But the majority of Scots who voted in the last election in Scotland were foolish enough to vote for parties committed to a second referendum. It was extremely close but they won. In a marriage of equals that should be respected, even if it means yet more economic damage and failure to address our multitude of problems once again.
We can only hope that after this people give it a rest for a while.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
That’s a plan to fail. Mordaunt would be a plan to succeed.
The Tories could elect Jesus Christ as leader and they'd still be scuppered at the next GE by the economy.
His attitudes towards re-distribution would preclude Him making the final two.
I was once groped in public...I think...by a South Korean woman MP. I'd gone to lobby the Parliament on animal welfare, she was putting forward a helpful Bill, and we were asked to do a photo call. "Look friendly!" said the photographer jovially. I put my arm lightly round her shoulders. She grasped my left buttock and squeezed firmly while the snap was being taken. We stepped away, and then the photographer asked for another take. She then did it again.
Did I complain? I couldn't - it didn't seem a big deal, more funny than embarrassing, and she was an ally whose support we needed. She was perfectly demure before and afterwards. Maybe it's because she was shorter so an arm round my waist would have been awkward? Or a Korean custom? But it did make me think about the difficulty that women in a less strong position have - they're not even sure there was an offence, they perhaps feel a bit silly complaining, it's easier just to let it go. And so more serious offenders can get away with it for a while.
I don’t suppose you’re planning to apply for the post of Ambassador to South Korea?
I was once groped in public...I think...by a South Korean woman MP. I'd gone to lobby the Parliament on animal welfare, she was putting forward a helpful Bill, and we were asked to do a photo call. "Look friendly!" said the photographer jovially. I put my arm lightly round her shoulders. She grasped my left buttock and squeezed firmly while the snap was being taken. We stepped away, and then the photographer asked for another take. She then did it again.
Did I complain? I couldn't - it didn't seem a big deal, more funny than embarrassing, and she was an ally whose support we needed. She was perfectly demure before and afterwards. Maybe it's because she was shorter so an arm round my waist would have been awkward? Or a Korean custom? But it did make me think about the difficulty that women in a less strong position have - they're not even sure there was an offence, they perhaps feel a bit silly complaining, it's easier just to let it go. And so more serious offenders can get away with it for a while.
Lol!
Maybe Korean women are a bit forward?
True story: the only time I have been offered money for sex was by a very funny, smart Korean women in her late 20s who was - not to put too fine a point on it - seriously fat. i was about 37
She said she was just tired of being a virgin and she offered me cash (or a nice dinner) if I would do the deed. I fear I said No, but as politely as I could. I was unnerved! And also not sure I could perform. She was big
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
Starmer is more Wilson or Callaghan than Blair and the Tories and Labour traded power in the 1960s and 1970s 4 times. The 1960s and 1970s were also a time of rising inflation and strikes, with a threatening Russia, much like now
I was once groped in public...I think...by a South Korean woman MP. I'd gone to lobby the Parliament on animal welfare, she was putting forward a helpful Bill, and we were asked to do a photo call. "Look friendly!" said the photographer jovially. I put my arm lightly round her shoulders. She grasped my left buttock and squeezed firmly while the snap was being taken. We stepped away, and then the photographer asked for another take. She then did it again.
Did I complain? I couldn't - it didn't seem a big deal, more funny than embarrassing, and she was an ally whose support we needed. She was perfectly demure before and afterwards. Maybe it's because she was shorter so an arm round my waist would have been awkward? Or a Korean custom? But it did make me think about the difficulty that women in a less strong position have - they're not even sure there was an offence, they perhaps feel a bit silly complaining, it's easier just to let it go. And so more serious offenders can get away with it for a while.
Lol!
Maybe Korean women are a bit forward?
True story: the only time I have been offered money for sex was by a very funny, smart Korean women in her late 20s who was - not to put too fine a point on it - seriously fat. i was about 37
She said she was just tired of being a virgin and she offered me cash (or a nice dinner) if I would do the deed. I fear I said No, but as politely as I could. I was unnerved! And also not sure I could perform. She was big
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
Because you don’t get to vote continuously and unilaterally on the break up of the UK - and that is what this is - without the rest of the UK having some input via our shared government in Westminster. If you don’t want to respect the British Parliament of the British People - which includes Scots - go ahead and declare UDI or start a war of insurrection, like the Irish
That’s it. Them’s the choices We are a democracy, You have to persuade the elected democracy of the UK that another referendum is justified a mere 9 years after the first vote in 300 years
Let's be honest, we have to persuade you, the living embodiment of 1000 years of solipsistic Engerlund. Only then will permission be given.
Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
As life moves on from Covid, National Party Christopher Luxon has got into a spot of bother over his proposed anti-gang legislation including the banning of gang insignia and preventing gang members from owning firearms.
It's a classic centre-right hard sounding but weak in detail plan full of holes and possible legal problems and while it's been predictably attacked from the centre-left, it's also been criticised by National's potential coalition rivals in the ACT who point out gang membership is not illegal per se but going after legitimate firearm owners who happen to be gang members is going too far.
Luxon has a long way to go to seal the deal with the New Zealand electorate for all his polling is far better than the hapless Judith Collins and with over a year until the next vote it'd be brave to call the election.
I was once groped in public...I think...by a South Korean woman MP. I'd gone to lobby the Parliament on animal welfare, she was putting forward a helpful Bill, and we were asked to do a photo call. "Look friendly!" said the photographer jovially. I put my arm lightly round her shoulders. She grasped my left buttock and squeezed firmly while the snap was being taken. We stepped away, and then the photographer asked for another take. She then did it again.
Did I complain? I couldn't - it didn't seem a big deal, more funny than embarrassing, and she was an ally whose support we needed. She was perfectly demure before and afterwards. Maybe it's because she was shorter so an arm round my waist would have been awkward? Or a Korean custom? But it did make me think about the difficulty that women in a less strong position have - they're not even sure there was an offence, they perhaps feel a bit silly complaining, it's easier just to let it go. And so more serious offenders can get away with it for a while.
Lol!
Maybe Korean women are a bit forward?
True story: the only time I have been offered money for sex was by a very funny, smart Korean women in her late 20s who was - not to put too fine a point on it - seriously fat. i was about 37
She said she was just tired of being a virgin and she offered me cash (or a nice dinner) if I would do the deed. I fear I said No, but as politely as I could. I was unnerved! And also not sure I could perform. She was big
She was big. And you’re not?
Not obese or seriously overweight, no
Rugby player type. Barrel chested. BMI generally about 24-25. You’re welcome
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
That’s a plan to fail. Mordaunt would be a plan to succeed.
The Tories could elect Jesus Christ as leader and they'd still be scuppered at the next GE by the economy.
His attitudes towards re-distribution would preclude Him making the final two.
yes people forget the only time Jesus lost his temper big time was when he went berserk at the money lenders - imagine being a junior money lender being sent by your boss at JP Nazareth saying oh dont worry about Jesus - he is as soft as chit (but get him to do that groping trick where he touches you and then heals you) and then he lets rip at you
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
Because you don’t get to vote continuously and unilaterally on the break up of the UK - and that is what this is - without the rest of the UK having some input via our shared government in Westminster. If you don’t want to respect the British Parliament of the British People - which includes Scots - go ahead and declare UDI or start a war of insurrection, like the Irish
That’s it. Them’s the choices We are a democracy, You have to persuade the elected democracy of the UK that another referendum is justified a mere 9 years after the first vote in 300 years
Let's be honest, we have to persuade you, the living embodiment of 1000 years of solipsistic Engerlund. Only then will permission be given.
Probably, yes. But you can also go UDI or start shelling us from Stirling Castle
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
That’s a plan to fail. Mordaunt would be a plan to succeed.
The Tories could elect Jesus Christ as leader and they'd still be scuppered at the next GE by the economy.
Be that as it may, I'd still prefer them to elect Jesus as opposed to the donkey.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I am coming around to the idea of Ben Wallace. Deliberately unflashy. Not prone to distracting gestures. Gets on with the job in hand. A minimum of nonsense. And very definitely not Boris.
The first four of those attributes are rehashes of exactly the same point. And the last is true of every other candidate. Not PM material imo.
He is more PM material than any of the other alternatives at present and as an ex army Defence Secretary ideal to deal with Ukraine too.
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
I respect your opinion, but you were very slow to recognise that Boris was a gonner, and backing Wallace displays a similar lack of forward thinking. The man has no discernable charisma. He is IDS without the wit, charm and good looks.
We have had more than enough charisma with Boris. If Boris loses a VONC I and most Tory MPs and members will be looking for the most boring, dull, serious candidate possible, an IDS, John Major style candidate is the most likely end result.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
Truss may need medical support if that is the case.
Comments
Having said that, who cares what a former FM and government said? They cannot bind their successors and cannot bind the people of Scotland.
Wow, yes, very high. 67% over 20%!! Certainly the settled will of the British people: we want a referendum
Quite a contrast with Scotland, now
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1543218778963693568?s=20&t=QINrbBdbRE3Zr5o5XGjH6A
Leaving that to one side, I think when a referendum has been held 'once in a generation', and the losing party wants a re-run, it's probably fair for them to accept that conditions will more less favourable to them the second time round.
Hemmingway was a bit of an arse, but again not in the Wagner league.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1543321577181380609?s=20&t=C1lpsmpLg7qUyOaAnWDMjQ
The combined vote in 1993 in Canada was over 34% for Tories + Reform. Not dissimilar to what the Tories get now.
Cry me a fucking river.
Wagner is in a higher league of deplorability
I went to Warner’s house in Lucerne last summer, for the Gazette. It is a stunningly beautiful location and a surprisingly modest but agreeable house. It is also where he wrote and had performed, on the stairs, for the first time, Siegfried’s Idyll, named for his newborn son
I listened to it as I walked around the house, admiring Wagner’s shoe and Wagner’s death mask, etc etc. Succulently lovely music. Loved by Hitler for all the wrong reasons, which Wagner approved. It is most perplexing
If Boris lost a VONC tomorrow, Wallace would probably be elected by the Tory Party to replace him as Tory leader and PM
(It's a nice photo btw)
Couldnt happen to a nicer Covid nutjob
"Picasso has been commonly characterised as a womaniser and a misogynist, being quoted as having said to one of his mistresses, Françoise Gilot, "Women are machines for suffering." He later told her, "For me there are only two kinds of women: goddesses and doormats." In her memoir, Picasso, My Grandfather, Marina Picasso writes of his treatment of women, "He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them."
Of the several important women in his life, two, Marie-Thèrése Walter, a mistress, and Jacqueline Roque, his second wife, died by suicide. Others, notably his first wife Olga Khokhlova, and his mistress Dora Maar, succumbed to nervous breakdowns. His son, Paulo, developed a fatal alcoholism due to depression. His grandson, Pablito, also died by suicide that same year by ingesting bleach when he was barred by Jacqueline Roque from attending the artist's funeral."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election
They were from the 6th/7th Century, so very ancient, therefore of worldwide cultural significance.
They were religious. So of completely different import.
Latvia is a democracy. So their removal is subject to the electorate. They don't like it they can be replaced.
As of now I would predict MPs would pick Hunt and Wallace to send to the membership, with the members voting for Wallace
And, for that reason, it won't be allowed to happen under any circumstance.
A split between the traditional, sound fiscal policy, business-focused, work-with-Europe, mainly Blue Wall tories, and the populist, Brexit, anti-immigration, Red Wall tories is not inconceivable.
But it's a question of degree, isn't it?
Like I say. Latvia is a democracy, so it has more latitude.
Prince Andrew agreed to do his infamous Newsnight interview after a producer taunted him about his “Randy Andy” nickname, it has emerged.
Sam McAlister, the woman responsible for securing the landmark BBC interview, said the final meeting which convinced the Duke of York to appear on television saw her “give it to him very bluntly”.
“Sir. I have lived in this country for over 40 years and, until now, I only knew two things about you,” she told him.
“It's that you're known as ‘Air Miles Andy’ and ‘Randy Andy’ and I can absolutely tell you that the latter really doesn't help you in your current predicament.”
Fearing she had “blown our chances of landing the interview of a lifetime”, McAlister waited for a response as her team - presenter Emily Maitlis and Newsnight deputy editor Stewart Macleancer - looked “shocked”.
“There was a long pause,” she said. “Then Andrew laughed. The room collectively exhaled.”
Prince Andrew had been joined in the meeting by his daughter Princess Beatrice, who took notes and appeared “anxious”, and his then-private secretary Amanda Thirsk, the producer said.
Afterwards, he claimed to be “going upstairs” to have tea with his mother the Queen to ask her advice.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/07/02/real-reason-why-prince-andrew-agreed-disastrous-newsnight-interview/
https://twitter.com/MammothWhale/status/1543289579465236487?s=20&t=ClxaymEF4f8iVT3oHL2cRQ
The Siegfried Idyll. Inspired by his newborn son and this view. From his house. Took this photo last year
Wagner’s shoe
The music is some of the most sublime ever written
https://youtu.be/891JUSQplzU
Yet he was an evil anti semite. What do you do
Queen’s job description is rewritten to reduce ‘must-do’ duties
Details of Monarch’s role as Head of State and Head of Nation amended by palace as it entrusts more responsibilities to the Prince of Wales
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/07/02/queens-job-description-rewritten-reduce-must-do-duties/
https://www.businessinsider.com/10-year-old-girl-travel-out-state-ohio-restricts-abortion-2022-7?r=US&IR=T
So it looks more like an assumption that, IDK, gay people are assumed to be more ok with being groped.
If that isn't what she meant, or even if it was, she will have to fall back on an 'I'm an idiot' defence.
Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
Did I complain? I couldn't - it didn't seem a big deal, more funny than embarrassing, and she was an ally whose support we needed. She was perfectly demure before and afterwards. Maybe it's because she was shorter so an arm round my waist would have been awkward? Or a Korean custom? But it did make me think about the difficulty that women in a less strong position have - they're not even sure there was an offence, they perhaps feel a bit silly complaining, it's easier just to let it go. And so more serious offenders can get away with it for a while.
That’s it. Them’s the choices We are a democracy, You have to persuade the elected democracy of the UK that another referendum is justified a mere 9 years after the first vote in 300 years
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
Frankly anyone who declares the government 'are your sole source of truth' ought to be removed by the short and curlies and never allowed back.
But the majority of Scots who voted in the last election in Scotland were foolish enough to vote for parties committed to a second referendum. It was extremely close but they won. In a marriage of equals that should be respected, even if it means yet more economic damage and failure to address our multitude of problems once again.
We can only hope that after this people give it a rest for a while.
Maybe Korean women are a bit forward?
True story: the only time I have been offered money for sex was by a very funny, smart Korean women in her late 20s who was - not to put too fine a point on it - seriously fat. i was about 37
She said she was just tired of being a virgin and she offered me cash (or a nice dinner) if I would do the deed. I fear I said No, but as politely as I could. I was unnerved! And also not sure I could perform. She was big
Have I got this right?
It's a classic centre-right hard sounding but weak in detail plan full of holes and possible legal problems and while it's been predictably attacked from the centre-left, it's also been criticised by National's potential coalition rivals in the ACT who point out gang membership is not illegal per se but going after legitimate firearm owners who happen to be gang members is going too far.
Luxon has a long way to go to seal the deal with the New Zealand electorate for all his polling is far better than the hapless Judith Collins and with over a year until the next vote it'd be brave to call the election.
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1543311890230743040
Rugby player type. Barrel chested. BMI generally about 24-25. You’re welcome
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not