I don’t understand why anyone is bothering arguing with KevinB/MickTrain.
It’s the whole MO - try and cause dissent over things that we disagree with but not to the level that is something that’s such an issue in Russia.
He can poke about sexual freedoms, gay marriage, general politics and then eventually some news agency in Russia is reporting that a “major” (yes I know) political discussion forum in the UK where politicians are known to post is full of people who reject the western liberal view.
Give Kevin/Gary/Mick a few posts to embarrass themselves then shut them down as it’s not being done for no reason.
And Kevin is seriously in the closet.
Do you secretly fancy me boulay
Didn't the last sockpuppet but two go down exactly this line? Also punctuated exactly the same.
Watched the Rishi vid. Not bad. The Tories could do worse. He’s got more charm and charisma than Starmer, but he’s no Boris, for good or ill
My god he is tiny tho. A leprechaun of a man
i think people might forgive the wealth stuff, as at least it makes him incorruptible. And he has an excellent backstory about immigration and social mobility. It will be quite hard for Labour to fight him, because any outright attacks might look like racism
All in all, a pretty good choice. I agree it will probably end up as Sunak V Truss or Mordaunt
How can the Tories having effectively removed Boris for being fined in lockdown replace him with Sunak, who was also fined in lockdown at the same event too?
Just thinking, if Dehenna Davison were to throw her fascinator into the ring, someone with a warehouse full of "DD" T-shirts left over from David Davis' leadership bid will be pleased.
She's endorsed Truss.
Not surprising. Did you see the DD T-shirt photos? Like a 1960s trade fair.
My family WhatsApp, which is quite rightwing (but with greens and lefties too) has gone from accepting the departure of Boris to OMFG look at these idiots (the potential replacements) and Can we have Boris back
yes Leon i think thats the standard reaction in the country...many who voted Boris wont touch Sunak
Why? Do you detect something with your gaydar?
funny Foxy...wish i could get a GP to touch me but i still cant locate one..
Why do you keep holding Foxy responsible for the state of all GPs?
I see Johnson has just promoted Sarah Dines, despite her involvement in the Pincher affair. He going to spend the next couple of months thinking up petty acts of defiance, isn’t he ?
I don’t understand why anyone is bothering arguing with KevinB/MickTrain.
It’s the whole MO - try and cause dissent over things that we disagree with but not to the level that is something that’s such an issue in Russia.
He can poke about sexual freedoms, gay marriage, general politics and then eventually some news agency in Russia is reporting that a “major” (yes I know) political discussion forum in the UK where politicians are known to post is full of people who reject the western liberal view.
Give Kevin/Gary/Mick a few posts to embarrass themselves then shut them down as it’s not being done for no reason.
And Kevin is seriously in the closet.
You're right, and I already regret rising to the bait.
My family WhatsApp, which is quite rightwing (but with greens and lefties too) has gone from accepting the departure of Boris to OMFG look at these idiots (the potential replacements) and Can we have Boris back
This is the situation Johnson has put the Tories in. Damned if they keep him, damned (now) that they have kicked him out. I think Johnson was leading them to a historic drubbing, but there was a small chance he might have turned it round. Under new leadership I think they will lose by less, but also have virtually no chance of actually winning. On a balance of probability basis that is probably better for them.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Watched the Rishi vid. Not bad. The Tories could do worse. He’s got more charm and charisma than Starmer, but he’s no Boris, for good or ill
My god he is tiny tho. A leprechaun of a man
i think people might forgive the wealth stuff, as at least it makes him incorruptible. And he has an excellent backstory about immigration and social mobility. It will be quite hard for Labour to fight him, because any outright attacks might look like racism
All in all, a pretty good choice. I agree it will probably end up as Sunak V Truss or Mordaunt
How can the Tories having effectively removed Boris for being fined in lockdown replace him with Sunak, who was also fined in lockdown at the same event too?
That isn't why they removed Boris at all.
But we know the attack lines (we've already seen 'Sunak is a wet remainer despite having always backed leave') that faction are intending to employ.
What will be interesting is who they don't try to undermine, either as they are no threat or because they back them.
My family WhatsApp, which is quite rightwing (but with greens and lefties too) has gone from accepting the departure of Boris to OMFG look at these idiots (the potential replacements) and Can we have Boris back
What astounds me is the appalling "quality" of the candidates. I know that Boris is accused of surrounding himself with low quality wannabes and has-beens but is this lot really all that is available?
There is no way that any of this shower will lead the Tories to victory at the next election.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
I don’t understand why anyone is bothering arguing with KevinB/MickTrain.
It’s the whole MO - try and cause dissent over things that we disagree with but not to the level that is something that’s such an issue in Russia.
He can poke about sexual freedoms, gay marriage, general politics and then eventually some news agency in Russia is reporting that a “major” (yes I know) political discussion forum in the UK where politicians are known to post is full of people who reject the western liberal view.
Give Kevin/Gary/Mick a few posts to embarrass themselves then shut them down as it’s not being done for no reason.
And Kevin is seriously in the closet.
Do you secretly fancy me boulay
It’s clearly no secret. I never ever was interested in a man even after five years in dormitories at boarding school but you ride up here on your horse, topless, dripping masculinity and all I want to do is lube myself up and fuck you in the arse.
My family WhatsApp, which is quite rightwing (but with greens and lefties too) has gone from accepting the departure of Boris to OMFG look at these idiots (the potential replacements) and Can we have Boris back
This is the situation Johnson has put the Tories in. Damned if they keep him, damned (now) that they have kicked him out. I think Johnson was leading them to a historic drubbing, but there was a small chance he might have turned it round. Under new leadership I think they will lose by less, but also have virtually no chance of actually winning. On a balance of probability basis that is probably better for them.
yes good post..Boris had the magic spark..Sunak wont appeal in the red wall
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
I hope his first action will be to withdraw the whip from Rees-Mogg and tell him to join Labour.
If Johnson's remaining supporters object, he could do the same to the rest of them. Five MPs will make little difference to his majority but will have a good moral effect and a great effect on morale.
Plus, getting rid of Mogg, Dorries, Bone, Jenkyn and Fabricant would raise the average IQ of the PCP by about 8%.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
Even if Sunak won the leadership and somehow scraped a win at the next general election then yes Boris loyalists would make his life he'll with rebellions in the subsequent Parliament as Thatcherite rebels made Major's life hell from 1992 to 1997
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
I support bringing him down before that happens. Just not up to it. No solutions.
So I'm glad JRM is firing NLaws at his campaign. I want Nadine to say some sharp words about the price of milk too.
I am actually really really interested in the views of these parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians: Dominic Cummings Lord Frost Theresa May Boris Johnson David Davis
- Every single Tory MP still in the race except Ben Wallace who is leading a Ukrainian tank division to reclaim Crimea;
- Johnson still in No. 10 and planning addition of 3rd floor to son's treehouse
….
- Rishi Sunak rescued after fourteen hours trapped in own car due to both valets who ordinarily open doors for him calling in sick.
Rescuers bemused but appreciative of his attempts to tip them by repeatedly tapping their foreheads with his Black Amex.
I rather liked this one:
- The House of Lords swells to 14,423 members as Boris Johnson continues to appoint anyone who has ever tweeted anything nice about him.
New Lord Britain4Boris2024 attends ceremony remotely from St. Petersburg but says he still feels included as ceremony is conducted in Russian.
This was pretty believable
- Keir Starmer delivers withering cross in PMQ's and the 12 political obsessive centre left journos watching tweet that "This is the end of Johnson" for the 947th time.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
Even if Sunak won the leadership and somehow scraped a win at the next general election then yes Boris loyalists would make his life he'll with rebellions in the subsequent Parliament as Thatcherite rebels made Major's life hell from 1992 to 1997
agreed much bad blood it will split the tory party in two
And this one to see if it can handle a higher res.
I guarantee no one on here will ever have been to this place and I'd be incredibly surprised if anyone can guess where it is.
Looks rather like volcano route, La Palma. .
I'm gobsmacked. Wow.
You are absolutely right. It is indeed La Ruta de los Volcanos on La Palma.
I was the only person walking it that glorious day (or rather, that I saw). Pretty remote at times and with smouldering volcanoes, which as we now know are not dormant.
Would it make sense for a Conservative candidate for PM to decide to skip this contest? (Assuming they are young enough.)
I am no seer, but it seems to me that the successful candidate is likely to have a short and miserable couple of years in Number 10, lose a general election, and then be replaced as leader.
But let me know if this strategy is implausible. Or if none of the potential candidates would think like that.
Who he was happy to support mere days ago. And if he was not, he is claiming Boris was a terrible PM because he would be admitting Boris could not control his own Chancellor.
Which do you think it is - is he lying about thinking Sunak is terrible, or is he admitting Boris was terrible?
Rees Mogg criticised Sunak before. In some respects Sunak, a slick liberal ex banker, has more in common with Emmanuel Macron than Margaret Thatcher
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Go stick your pinhead up your fat ass, you fucking piss-ant punk.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Yes, she had loads of boyfriends, but they were idiots so we forced her onto a lesbian conversion therapy course, which did the trick.
You’re not really “joining in the fun” are you, Woolie?
I think these pic games are a laugh, but every picture must have enough clues in it, such that you can make a reasonable guess via deduction, without having been there. Otherwise it’s stupid
Why is Hunt so toxic amongst the membership? I know he has the reputation of being a remainer, but he's not exactly Grieve, Clarke, or Heseltine. He was about as prominent as an advocate of the EU as May was in the 2016 referendum... which is to say, not much at all.
I don't understand it at all.
But, it seems to exist.
The two only things I can come up with are... 1)He's associated with the May regime and her Brexit deal (particularly as he didn't serve in Boris' cabinet). So if you hated her premiership and her deal, that might affect how you feel towards Hunt. He also might be less likely to scrap the NI protocol than other candidates because he seemed happy with her "soft Brexit" deal. 2) The membership is still fairly pro-Boris, while Hunt is seen as a major critic of his regime (kle4 has also mentioned this). Electing him leader would be akin to Labour electing Jess Phillips in the 2020 leadership election. Anyone who refuses to serve in the previous leader's cabinet/shadow cabinet and is seen as critical of them doesn't get the crown.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
Your daughter is very lucky to have such a wonderful supportive family . Bless you and thanks for such an inspiring post .
I’m making my early prediction - which will be bollocks no doubt.
It’s going to get to a choice of three - Rishi, Truss and a hunt/tugendhat.
Rishi will have the numbers, not enough to beat Truss but the hunt/other crew will realise he’s a better option than Truss and publicly shift their support to Rishi.
It will be made clear to Truss she won’t win a run-off and will be offered a senior role.
They (not Truss) will do what is necessary to avoid it going to the membership.
Rishi will ultimately be a palatable pick for most of the MPs, young, fresh, dishing Labour by having a BAME (not sure if this is the correct term) experienced at the highest level, doesn’t need money so not corruptible and can buy own wallpaper, Brexiters but pragmatic, sound money but can sell the idea to the country “were in the shit so this isn’t what I want but pull together for a bit longer and all will be better”.
As I said - prob balls but I think it’s a good chance.
Most of Boris' support will swing behind Wallace rather than Truss next week, anti Boris MPs will split between Sunak, Hunt, Tugendhat and Javid, giving Wallace enough to make the final 2
Wallace v Sunak would be an interesting final among the members.
Normally the final 2 are a One Nation centrist v a rightwinger eg Johnson v Hunt, May v Leadsom, Cameron v Davis, IDS v Clarke, Hague v Clarke, Major v Redwood (in 1990 Major presented himself as a Thatcherite rightwinger v Heseltine).
So in my view Tugendhat or Hunt v Wallace is more likely than Sunak or Truss v Wallace.
Metropolitan libertarians eg Portillo or Gove or effectively Sunak and Truss rarely make the final 2
I’m sure that’s right, although the divisions in the party are harder to read these days.
Brexit v Remain Wets v Dry Old School Squires v Metro Liberals One Nation Tories vs Populists
I would add Red Wall v Blue Rinse to that list of divides. I heard Esther McVey's name mentioned earlier today- she could be the Red Wall candidate. Either her or Dehenna Davison.
Why is Hunt so toxic amongst the membership? I know he has the reputation of being a remainer, but he's not exactly Grieve, Clarke, or Heseltine. He was about as prominent as an advocate of the EU as May was in the 2016 referendum... which is to say, not much at all.
I don't understand it at all.
But, it seems to exist.
It's bizarre. Hunt is like a Tory leader out of central casting, but is apparently anathema to the membership. Too Remainery? Too metropolitan? Too sensible?
I think Hunt is the only leadership contender who was a member of Cameron's first Cabinet. Given the revolutionary nature of Brexit, and of running against the austerity of the Cameron years, you could see why that link to the past would count against him.
Watched the Rishi vid. Not bad. The Tories could do worse. He’s got more charm and charisma than Starmer, but he’s no Boris, for good or ill
My god he is tiny tho. A leprechaun of a man
i think people might forgive the wealth stuff, as at least it makes him incorruptible. And he has an excellent backstory about immigration and social mobility. It will be quite hard for Labour to fight him, because any outright attacks might look like racism
All in all, a pretty good choice. I agree it will probably end up as Sunak V Truss or Mordaunt
How can the Tories having effectively removed Boris for being fined in lockdown replace him with Sunak, who was also fined in lockdown at the same event too?
Because that is not why Boris had to go. What happened between the vonc, which Boris survived, and this week? Number 10's chaotic response and serial dissimulation around Pinchergate, and the two by-elections which, taken together, showed Boris was motivating anti-Tory tactical voting.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
Congratulations on your psychic abilities to tell what people are thinking.
Besides, some people have awkward looking smiles anyway
My family WhatsApp, which is quite rightwing (but with greens and lefties too) has gone from accepting the departure of Boris to OMFG look at these idiots (the potential replacements) and Can we have Boris back
What astounds me is the appalling "quality" of the candidates. I know that Boris is accused of surrounding himself with low quality wannabes and has-beens but is this lot really all that is available?
There is no way that any of this shower will lead the Tories to victory at the next election.
Was Clement Attlee the last bald man to win an election? In 1950?
Churchill was bald by 1951, also very deaf.
I think you're leftish. I'm sure you're really quite informed on history. I have recently read a book or two on the Korean war. Harsh times of course, but Atlee really doesn't look good. I'd also formed a less praiseworthy picture from other sources. I'm interested as to whether you think Atlee is over-regarded.
If you think I'm leftish, God help you, as not that long ago I was a fairly dependable Conservative although I was never a party member and voted for other parties as and when I saw fit.
I think there is a tendency to be starry eyed about Attlee simply because he was regarded by the left as not only Labour's most successful leader until recently but in many ways the only truly successful one who totally changed the terms of economic discourse in this country for decades.
However, quite a lot of that would have happened anyway, and his government contained some pretty nasty human beings, the likes of Dalton, Shinwell and Bevan who quite openly made policy based on punishing those they hated (those with any money) not based on sound governance. Which had a number of disastrous side effects including the blowing of huge sums of Marshal aid as current account expenditure on economically unremunerative ventures e.g. the NHS when they could have been spent on repairing war damage. Ironically, that's much the same thing Labour (and Harold Macmillan) later accused Thatcher of doing with North Sea Oil and the profits from selling nationalised industry.
At the same time, they achieved a very great deal of their programme - however flawed it was - against a ticking clock and facing very difficult circumstances, including the unwinding of Britain's war debts, the winter of 1946-47 followed by the harvest failures of the later 1940s, the beginning of the Cold War which stretched Britain militarily and the increasing pressure from the colonies for independence at this moment. That's no small achievement.
Overall, like most governments, the record is mixed. Whether for good or ill, however, they did change Britain very considerably. And they wouldn't have done it without Attlee's diplomatic skill in keeping the government of Bevan, Bevin, Morrison, Dalton, Cripps and Ede, who all hated each other, together and functioning.
For that, he probably does deserve to be ranked alongside Thatcher as the most impactful postwar PM.
Hope that is of interest.
Good post. I have often enjoyed reading about the feuds between that cabinet. From this perspective, there are some good anecdotes. But you make a good point; it must have taken considerable skill to keep them together.
Why is Hunt so toxic amongst the membership? I know he has the reputation of being a remainer, but he's not exactly Grieve, Clarke, or Heseltine. He was about as prominent as an advocate of the EU as May was in the 2016 referendum... which is to say, not much at all.
I don't understand it at all.
But, it seems to exist.
It's bizarre. Hunt is like a Tory leader out of central casting, but is apparently anathema to the membership. Too Remainery? Too metropolitan? Too sensible?
I think Hunt is the only leadership contender who was a member of Cameron's first Cabinet. Given the revolutionary nature of Brexit, and of running against the austerity of the Cameron years, you could see why that link to the past would count against him.
Plus he was up Murdoch's arse for much of that first role before he was moved to Health.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
We were lucky enough to at PB, to get upgraded to the Level IV Troll - the one that’s clearly actually studied in the UK at some point, has followed politics here for a while, and knows just enough about a few divisive subjects to draw out the sort of personal comments that he thinks can be used to set people against each other. He’s a big upgrade on the Level III Troll we had last month though, he was as useless as a Russian invasion of Kiev.
And this one to see if it can handle a higher res.
I guarantee no one on here will ever have been to this place and I'd be incredibly surprised if anyone can guess where it is.
Looks rather like volcano route, La Palma. .
I'm gobsmacked. Wow.
You are absolutely right. It is indeed La Ruta de los Volcanos on La Palma.
I was the only person walking it that glorious day (or rather, that I saw). Pretty remote at times and with smouldering volcanoes, which as we now know are not dormant.
I had my worst professional experience there.
Gosh. Able to elaborate?
@Leon is right about my pic. If you looked closely, especially to the right, you could see the volcanic terrain. Also being above the cloud line is a classic Canary thing - hence the observatories on Tenerife and, most famously, La Palma itself.
And this one to see if it can handle a higher res.
I guarantee no one on here will ever have been to this place and I'd be incredibly surprised if anyone can guess where it is.
Looks rather like volcano route, La Palma. .
I'm gobsmacked. Wow.
You are absolutely right. It is indeed La Ruta de los Volcanos on La Palma.
I was the only person walking it that glorious day (or rather, that I saw). Pretty remote at times and with smouldering volcanoes, which as we now know are not dormant.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
I support bringing him down before that happens. Just not up to it. No solutions.
So I'm glad JRM is firing NLaws at his campaign. I want Nadine to say some sharp words about the price of milk too.
I am actually really really interested in the views of these parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians: Dominic Cummings Lord Frost Theresa May Boris Johnson David Davis
Was Clement Attlee the last bald man to win an election? In 1950?
Churchill was bald by 1951, also very deaf.
I think you're leftish. I'm sure you're really quite informed on history. I have recently read a book or two on the Korean war. Harsh times of course, but Atlee really doesn't look good. I'd also formed a less praiseworthy picture from other sources. I'm interested as to whether you think Atlee is over-regarded.
If you think I'm leftish, God help you, as not that long ago I was a fairly dependable Conservative although I was never a party member and voted for other parties as and when I saw fit.
I think there is a tendency to be starry eyed about Attlee simply because he was regarded by the left as not only Labour's most successful leader until recently but in many ways the only truly successful one who totally changed the terms of economic discourse in this country for decades.
However, quite a lot of that would have happened anyway, and his government contained some pretty nasty human beings, the likes of Dalton, Shinwell and Bevan who quite openly made policy based on punishing those they hated (those with any money) not based on sound governance. Which had a number of disastrous side effects including the blowing of huge sums of Marshal aid as current account expenditure on economically unremunerative ventures e.g. the NHS when they could have been spent on repairing war damage. Ironically, that's much the same thing Labour (and Harold Macmillan) later accused Thatcher of doing with North Sea Oil and the profits from selling nationalised industry.
At the same time, they achieved a very great deal of their programme - however flawed it was - against a ticking clock and facing very difficult circumstances, including the unwinding of Britain's war debts, the winter of 1946-47 followed by the harvest failures of the later 1940s, the beginning of the Cold War which stretched Britain militarily and the increasing pressure from the colonies for independence at this moment. That's no small achievement.
Overall, like most governments, the record is mixed. Whether for good or ill, however, they did change Britain very considerably. And they wouldn't have done it without Attlee's diplomatic skill in keeping the government of Bevan, Bevin, Morrison, Dalton, Cripps and Ede, who all hated each other, together and functioning.
For that, he probably does deserve to be ranked alongside Thatcher as the most impactful postwar PM.
Hope that is of interest.
It is very much of interest. Thank you.
Somehow Churchill and Atlee messed up in a big way. I don't quite get how.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
Even if Sunak won the leadership and somehow scraped a win at the next general election then yes Boris loyalists would make his life he'll with rebellions in the subsequent Parliament as Thatcherite rebels made Major's life hell from 1992 to 1997
I don’t understand why anyone is bothering arguing with KevinB/MickTrain.
It’s the whole MO - try and cause dissent over things that we disagree with but not to the level that is something that’s such an issue in Russia.
He can poke about sexual freedoms, gay marriage, general politics and then eventually some news agency in Russia is reporting that a “major” (yes I know) political discussion forum in the UK where politicians are known to post is full of people who reject the western liberal view.
Give Kevin/Gary/Mick a few posts to embarrass themselves then shut them down as it’s not being done for no reason.
And Kevin is seriously in the closet.
Do you secretly fancy me boulay
It’s clearly no secret. I never ever was interested in a man even after five years in dormitories at boarding school but you ride up here on your horse, topless, dripping masculinity and all I want to do is lube myself up and fuck you in the arse.
Who he was happy to support mere days ago. And if he was not, he is claiming Boris was a terrible PM because he would be admitting Boris could not control his own Chancellor.
Which do you think it is - is he lying about thinking Sunak is terrible, or is he admitting Boris was terrible?
Rees Mogg criticised Sunak before. In some respects Sunak, a slick liberal ex banker, has more in common with Emmanuel Macron than Margaret Thatcher
In fact you are right JRM has criticised Sunak before. I assume you criticised him in turn for doing so, since Sunak was the Chancellor and operating under agreement of the Prime Minister (there is no chance - none - that the PM did not sign off on policy), and other members of the Cabinet should not be publicly criticising their colleagues I am sure you will agree. And a constitutionalist like JRM should have cared about collective responsibility too.
You've persuaded me, JRM was being traitorous to Boris's government by publicly departing from the agreed position of the Prime Minister.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Yes, she had loads of boyfriends, but they were idiots so we forced her onto a lesbian conversion therapy course, which did the trick.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
WTAF? Are you even remotely serious? What is next? Conversion therapy or worse?
I don’t understand why anyone is bothering arguing with KevinB/MickTrain.
It’s the whole MO - try and cause dissent over things that we disagree with but not to the level that is something that’s such an issue in Russia.
He can poke about sexual freedoms, gay marriage, general politics and then eventually some news agency in Russia is reporting that a “major” (yes I know) political discussion forum in the UK where politicians are known to post is full of people who reject the western liberal view.
Give Kevin/Gary/Mick a few posts to embarrass themselves then shut them down as it’s not being done for no reason.
And Kevin is seriously in the closet.
Do you secretly fancy me boulay
Didn't the last sockpuppet but two go down exactly this line? Also punctuated exactly the same.
TBF @Leon is also now eschewing punctuation, so we can’t be sure it’s not just him having a bit of fun.
Watched the Rishi vid. Not bad. The Tories could do worse. He’s got more charm and charisma than Starmer, but he’s no Boris, for good or ill
My god he is tiny tho. A leprechaun of a man
i think people might forgive the wealth stuff, as at least it makes him incorruptible. And he has an excellent backstory about immigration and social mobility. It will be quite hard for Labour to fight him, because any outright attacks might look like racism
All in all, a pretty good choice. I agree it will probably end up as Sunak V Truss or Mordaunt
How can the Tories having effectively removed Boris for being fined in lockdown replace him with Sunak, who was also fined in lockdown at the same event too?
I’m going to let you into a little secret, only known in the inner circles of the upper echelons of the Tory party. They didn’t remove Boris because of the FPN….
They didn't directly - but partygate is where he lost the country. But I don't think Rishi is anything like as tainted. The perception of Rishi is not one of a party animal. And Rishi was notable in being one of the more reluctant to impose restrictions. Still mildly problematic, of course.
Problematic in that one leader can say 'I wasn't fined, but he was' in a general election contest. It won't be the only factor but it all adds up, including a cost of living crisis.
Sunak might be the MPs choice but I don't see him beating Starmer in a GE. People underestimate Starmer and downplay the job he has done turning around Labour from the Corbyn years.
Obviously not representative of wider public opinion, but Sunak is going down like a bucket of sick on MailOnline comments tonight. I don't think he is electable. Starmer can beat him.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
So, when you use the words 'lost the argument', what exactly do you mean?
Because from where I'm sitting, which I admit is one of the nicer parts of LA, you've made up a whole bunch of shit about how people actually hate homosexuality and lie to pollsters, and then are so brainwashed that they vote in favour of gay marriage at the ballot box.
You also wrote about how when you look at gay wedding photos (and I admit, I've never closely stared at the Groom's parents in a gay wedding photo), then there's terrible look behind their eyes.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Yes, she had loads of boyfriends, but they were idiots so we forced her onto a lesbian conversion therapy course, which did the trick.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
I support bringing him down before that happens. Just not up to it. No solutions.
So I'm glad JRM is firing NLaws at his campaign. I want Nadine to say some sharp words about the price of milk too.
I am actually really really interested in the views of these parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians: Dominic Cummings Lord Frost Theresa May Boris Johnson David Davis
Their preferences I think would tell us a lot.
Cummings will be for Sunak no question
If I were Sunak I run from that endorsement. Who would want it now? Cummings was popular with those who used to hate him because he could dish dirt on Boris, but what Tory faction would trust his view?
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
Your daughter is very lucky to have such a wonderful supportive family . Bless you and thanks for such an inspiring post .
Thank you. Though I'd like to think we're nothing special and that all decent parents would support their kids in whatever (reasonable) decisions they made.
Mind you, we're quite a "woke" extended family as well, so we have our weaknesses.....
To succeed a new leader has to gain control of an angry party. That means they either have to be supported by or dominate the right wing. Ideally both. That is the price of entry.
Sunak has a target on his back. Can he dominate the right? I doubt it.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
Wishful thinking I am afraid
They are over
And for clarification I am not opposed to Wallace but I am not convinced he is going to stand
Things are moving very quickly - I don't think anyone can really afford to wait any longer before making their position known. Maybe over the weekend can be managed, the formal rules will be announced then, but MPs want to get to the final two quick, and need to know who is serious.
And who do they even sound out when half the people you sound out are sounding you out about their own run?
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
I support bringing him down before that happens. Just not up to it. No solutions.
So I'm glad JRM is firing NLaws at his campaign. I want Nadine to say some sharp words about the price of milk too.
I am actually really really interested in the views of these parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians: Dominic Cummings Lord Frost Theresa May Boris Johnson David Davis
Their preferences I think would tell us a lot.
Cummings will be for Sunak no question
But I don't think Sunak would bring Cummings back.
Would it make sense for a Conservative candidate for PM to decide to skip this contest? (Assuming they are young enough.)
I am no seer, but it seems to me that the successful candidate is likely to have a short and miserable couple of years in Number 10, lose a general election, and then be replaced as leader.
But let me know if this strategy is implausible. Or if none of the potential candidates would think like that.
Think of where all the bright young things in the last Labour cabinet are now, who passed on the opportunity to challenge Brown at the end of Labour's last period in government.
You don't get to choose the timing of your opportunity in politics. You take it, and make the most of it, or you miss out.
To succeed a new leader has to gain control of an angry party. That means they either have to be supported by or dominate the right wing. Ideally both. That is the price of entry.
Sunak has a target on his back. Can he dominate the right? I doubt it.
He also needs a party desperate to move to the centre after years in opposition to win a general election again, which Blair and Cameron and arguably now Starmer benefit from and he wouldn't
Here’s a pic that can definitely be guessed, if you have the right zoological knowledge and you check the species and the terrain. Taken in 2013 or so, hence the poor quality (apols)
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
It's remarkable how many pastors and politicians who made their careers out of railing against homosexuality turned out to be secretly gay.
Here's just a few:
George Rekers Steve Wiles Ted Haggard Glenn Murphy Jr
i honestly think because they were so high profile in their opposition they could well have been targeted
Ah, so when George Rekers - founder of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council - decided to book a male escort off RentBoy.com, it was because he was targeted?
How exactly does this targeting work?
And are you saying that actually everyone is gay, and that all that needs to happen is for someone to be targeted and suddenly they're calling up rent boys for orgies?
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Yes, she had loads of boyfriends, but they were idiots so we forced her onto a lesbian conversion therapy course, which did the trick.
Wanker.
You are far too kind to such scum.
oh wheres the kindness and tolerance gone.....
You know not the meaning of the words. You insult a man's daughter to his virtual face. You are slime.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
I support bringing him down before that happens. Just not up to it. No solutions.
So I'm glad JRM is firing NLaws at his campaign. I want Nadine to say some sharp words about the price of milk too.
I am actually really really interested in the views of these parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians: Dominic Cummings Lord Frost Theresa May Boris Johnson David Davis
Their preferences I think would tell us a lot.
Cummings will be for Sunak no question
Right, that rules Sunak out. He would clearly be terrible.
To succeed a new leader has to gain control of an angry party. That means they either have to be supported by or dominate the right wing. Ideally both. That is the price of entry.
Sunak has a target on his back. Can he dominate the right? I doubt it.
Unless he can get overwhelming MP support, perhaps getting Truss backing him, I think they will have enough anger at him to scupper him with members.
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
I support bringing him down before that happens. Just not up to it. No solutions.
So I'm glad JRM is firing NLaws at his campaign. I want Nadine to say some sharp words about the price of milk too.
I am actually really really interested in the views of these parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians: Dominic Cummings Lord Frost Theresa May Boris Johnson David Davis
Their preferences I think would tell us a lot.
Cummings will be for Sunak no question
But I don't think Sunak would bring Cummings back.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Yes, she had loads of boyfriends, but they were idiots so we forced her onto a lesbian conversion therapy course, which did the trick.
Wanker.
You are far too kind to such scum.
oh wheres the kindness and tolerance gone.....
You know not the meaning of the words. You insult a man's daughter to his virtual face. You are slime.
Bit harsh.
Without primordial slime, none of us would be here. It was very useful stuff.
Would it make sense for a Conservative candidate for PM to decide to skip this contest? (Assuming they are young enough.)
I am no seer, but it seems to me that the successful candidate is likely to have a short and miserable couple of years in Number 10, lose a general election, and then be replaced as leader.
But let me know if this strategy is implausible. Or if none of the potential candidates would think like that.
Plausible - but equally, they might never get the chance to be PM again. And if they don’t get the gig, which is likely the case just on the law of averages, they’ve at least raised their profile.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
It's remarkable how many pastors and politicians who made their careers out of railing against homosexuality turned out to be secretly gay.
Here's just a few:
George Rekers Steve Wiles Ted Haggard Glenn Murphy Jr
i honestly think because they were so high profile in their opposition they could well have been targeted
Ah, so when George Rekers - founder of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council - decided to book a male escort off RentBoy.com, it was because he was targeted?
How exactly does this targeting work?
And are you saying that actually everyone is gay, and that all that needs to happen is for someone to be targeted and suddenly they're calling up rent boys for orgies?
My family WhatsApp, which is quite rightwing (but with greens and lefties too) has gone from accepting the departure of Boris to OMFG look at these idiots (the potential replacements) and Can we have Boris back
What astounds me is the appalling "quality" of the candidates. I know that Boris is accused of surrounding himself with low quality wannabes and has-beens but is this lot really all that is available?
There is no way that any of this shower will lead the Tories to victory at the next election.
You may be surprised
I mean when weve bern treated to Labour leaderships featuring magic grandpa versus Owen Smith, that time they put Diane Abbott up, the Miliband family comedy troup and not forgetting Rebecca Long Bailey they cant be 'too' bad
Here’s a pic that can definitely be guessed, if you have the right zoological knowledge and you check the species and the terrain. Taken in 2013 or so, hence the poor quality (apols)
Galapagos? The gannet/booby plus sealions - not many other places with sealions in hot climates. (Apart from the Cape of Good Hope.)
Here’s a pic that can definitely be guessed, if you have the right zoological knowledge and you check the species and the terrain. Taken in 2013 or so, hence the poor quality (apols)
Are those blue footed Booby's, hence the Galapagos?
Here’s a pic that can definitely be guessed, if you have the right zoological knowledge and you check the species and the terrain. Taken in 2013 or so, hence the poor quality (apols)
I don't have the right zoological knowledge but there are formations like that on the Galapagos
To succeed a new leader has to gain control of an angry party. That means they either have to be supported by or dominate the right wing. Ideally both. That is the price of entry.
Sunak has a target on his back. Can he dominate the right? I doubt it.
He also needs a party desperate to move to the centre after years in opposition to win a general election again, which Blair and Cameron and arguably now Starmer benefit from and he wouldn't
My outsiders nose senses a Tory party that fancies a bit of dry, simple Thatcherite economics.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
So, when you use the words 'lost the argument', what exactly do you mean?
Because from where I'm sitting, which I admit is one of the nicer parts of LA, you've made up a whole bunch of shit about how people actually hate homosexuality and lie to pollsters, and then are so brainwashed that they vote in favour of gay marriage at the ballot box.
You also wrote about how when you look at gay wedding photos (and I admit, I've never closely stared at the Groom's parents in a gay wedding photo), then there's terrible look behind their eyes.
When did you first develop this obsession?
i was talking about gay marriage not homosexuality in general...i agree very few people want to make it illegal that would be wrong....but questioning the acceptance of gay marriage by the majority of people is not homophobia....there is a difference I know theres lots of gays in LA so obviously when you say everyone has gay friends that may be true in LA...its not true in much of the red wall Also i do think many people think things like Pride month are counterproductive for the gay movement But mainly im in favour of love
Was Clement Attlee the last bald man to win an election? In 1950?
Churchill was bald by 1951, also very deaf.
I think you're leftish. I'm sure you're really quite informed on history. I have recently read a book or two on the Korean war. Harsh times of course, but Atlee really doesn't look good. I'd also formed a less praiseworthy picture from other sources. I'm interested as to whether you think Atlee is over-regarded.
If you think I'm leftish, God help you, as not that long ago I was a fairly dependable Conservative although I was never a party member and voted for other parties as and when I saw fit.
I think there is a tendency to be starry eyed about Attlee simply because he was regarded by the left as not only Labour's most successful leader until recently but in many ways the only truly successful one who totally changed the terms of economic discourse in this country for decades.
However, quite a lot of that would have happened anyway, and his government contained some pretty nasty human beings, the likes of Dalton, Shinwell and Bevan who quite openly made policy based on punishing those they hated (those with any money) not based on sound governance. Which had a number of disastrous side effects including the blowing of huge sums of Marshal aid as current account expenditure on economically unremunerative ventures e.g. the NHS when they could have been spent on repairing war damage. Ironically, that's much the same thing Labour (and Harold Macmillan) later accused Thatcher of doing with North Sea Oil and the profits from selling nationalised industry.
At the same time, they achieved a very great deal of their programme - however flawed it was - against a ticking clock and facing very difficult circumstances, including the unwinding of Britain's war debts, the winter of 1946-47 followed by the harvest failures of the later 1940s, the beginning of the Cold War which stretched Britain militarily and the increasing pressure from the colonies for independence at this moment. That's no small achievement.
Overall, like most governments, the record is mixed. Whether for good or ill, however, they did change Britain very considerably. And they wouldn't have done it without Attlee's diplomatic skill in keeping the government of Bevan, Bevin, Morrison, Dalton, Cripps and Ede, who all hated each other, together and functioning.
For that, he probably does deserve to be ranked alongside Thatcher as the most impactful postwar PM.
Hope that is of interest.
It is very much of interest. Thank you.
Somehow Churchill and Atlee messed up in a big way. I don't quite get how.
Crudely, they didn't have the money to achieve what they wanted to achieve, or the patience to wait until they could raise it by sustainable means, or the willingness to modernise effectively that would lead to economic growth later.
There were other factors involved, but that's at the root of most of it.
Arguably, it's a problem that continues to bedevil us to this day.
Of course, KevinB has rather missed an enormous logic hole in his fantasy.
He's been assuring us that the oldest voters are sufficiently against gay marriage to be supportive of overturning it. And whilst over-65s are the still net in favour, they are the least accepting age group.
However, there's an issue with relying on the over-65s group providing your core support 30+ years from now. I wonder if he can spot it.
(And the possible loophole that maybe people become more anti-gay-marriage as they age has not been seen at all; if anything, they've been going the other way. And each echelon has been retaining their pro-gay-marriage bias as they age into the next age group. Understandable, really, the adage that people become more conservative as they age tends to be by viewing whatever was the default when they were younger as being how things should be in future - and thirty years from now, most people will have had gay marriage as being normal for a long long time)
I think it's far more simple than that: it's social proof and convention.
It was working against gay people and now it works for them.
That can change, and change quickly, as the Supreme Court decision has started to roll things back and reopen debate in the USA and here.
I see what you mean, but I think that's a poor framing. Social conventions were working against gays, but it is not working 'for' them now. What has happened is that many, if not most, people simply do not care. The conventions are not working 'for' them; the conventions just don't care.
That's great IMO, as it is equality.
But you are correct that that could change, and perhaps rapidly.
One key issue about changing it: to roll back gay marriage, you have to annul and undo hundreds of thousands of marriages. Including reversing the legal ramifications such as next of kin aspects and inheritances, including inheritances that have already happened.
Massive issue.
I haven't been invited to a gay wedding, but loads of people must have gone to one, and it's hard to see how my heterosexual marriage has been damaged by them. I can understand why a large minority were uncomfortable about the change, but it must only be a very small minority that would support reversing it now.
We have and it was a lovely occasion
dunno i often spot in gay marriage photos the grooms parents with forced smiles looking distinctly uncomfortable...as in social pressure tells us we should be happy but is this what we really want for our son....check gay wedding photos you will see what i mean
You’re beginning to sound a tad… obsessive. That’s very, very occasionally a sign that someone’s repressing something.
thats the standard trope used when people have lost the argument re homosexuality and actually repression aint a bad thing civilizarion is built on it sometimes i feel like killing someone but i wont do it maybe i would fancy a gay orgy in my house but i wouldnt....repression you see it can be a good thing
I try to avoid doing personal on here, but you're provocative, so....
My daughter's gay. She's getting married shortly to a beautiful (in every sense of the word) woman. I, and the rest of the family, are immensely proud of her, and are really excited and looking forward to the wedding. As a parent, I've found it very rewarding to have a daughter with a different sexuality from my own, and have learnt a lot.
By contrast, your homophobia means you're missing out on the rich variety of human life. Though it may be that it's just gay men you've got a thing about?
im happy for your daughter and of course you are proud of her...did she ever have a boyfriend by the way
Yes, she had loads of boyfriends, but they were idiots so we forced her onto a lesbian conversion therapy course, which did the trick.
Wanker.
You are far too kind to such scum.
oh wheres the kindness and tolerance gone.....
You know not the meaning of the words. You insult a man's daughter to his virtual face. You are slime.
Bit harsh.
Without primordial slime, none of us would be here. It was very useful stuff.
Good point - my sincere apologies to slime, totally uncalled for to associate with K
Here’s a pic that can definitely be guessed, if you have the right zoological knowledge and you check the species and the terrain. Taken in 2013 or so, hence the poor quality (apols)
Are those blue footed Booby's, hence the Galapagos?
Would it make sense for a Conservative candidate for PM to decide to skip this contest? (Assuming they are young enough.)
I am no seer, but it seems to me that the successful candidate is likely to have a short and miserable couple of years in Number 10, lose a general election, and then be replaced as leader.
But let me know if this strategy is implausible. Or if none of the potential candidates would think like that.
Plausible - but equally, they might never get the chance to be PM again. And if they don’t get the gig, which is likely the case just on the law of averages, they’ve at least raised their profile.
So why not run ?
Yes, for me it is a bit like when people talked about it being better for Labour if Boris was in place than if they took him down (similar things been said about other leaders and oppositions) because a new leader might do better.
It could be true, but always better to seek the win, which makes you look successful.
Or classic 'good election to lose' talk, but ultimately you never know you might be able to manage better than expected - people speculated about it being better to be out of office during austerity.
Rishi and the others may not get another chance, and if they don't and the party loses, they may not get to be PM for 7+ years anyway.
Here’s a pic that can definitely be guessed, if you have the right zoological knowledge and you check the species and the terrain. Taken in 2013 or so, hence the poor quality (apols)
Are those blue footed Booby's, hence the Galapagos?
Excellent forward planning - exactly what we want - not someone winging it
If you elect Sunak it will seriously divide the Tory party. Boris’ gang will bring him down. They have form.
Wishful thinking I am afraid
They are over
And for clarification I am not opposed to Wallace but I am not convinced he is going to stand
Things are moving very quickly - I don't think anyone can really afford to wait any longer before making their position known. Maybe over the weekend can be managed, the formal rules will be announced then, but MPs want to get to the final two quick, and need to know who is serious.
And who do they even sound out when half the people you sound out are sounding you out about their own run?
And quite a few MPs seem to have been sounding out Wallace to see if he’ll run. It’s now (certainly this weekend) or never.
Here’s a pic that can definitely be guessed, if you have the right zoological knowledge and you check the species and the terrain. Taken in 2013 or so, hence the poor quality (apols)
Are those blue footed Booby's, hence the Galapagos?
You’re all wrong, but quite close….
It would have to be Easter Island, in that case. Or Crusoe's one, if not the SA mainland.
Comments
He even still has a blue-yellow coalition border around his profile picture.
Or his uncle. 'Who was the last Prime Minister to lead his government only from the Lords?'
He going to spend the next couple of months thinking up petty acts of defiance, isn’t he ?
I think Johnson was leading them to a historic drubbing, but there was a small chance he might have turned it round. Under new leadership I think they will lose by less, but also have virtually no chance of actually winning. On a balance of probability basis that is probably better for them.
So, old
Immediate thought: Mexico or the Caribbean
But the road looks well maintained, so prosperous. Hmmm!
What will be interesting is who they don't try to undermine, either as they are no threat or because they back them.
There is no way that any of this shower will lead the Tories to victory at the next election.
Who knew you could turn people so easily?
They are over
And for clarification I am not opposed to Wallace but I am not convinced he is going to stand
If Johnson's remaining supporters object, he could do the same to the rest of them. Five MPs will make little difference to his majority but will have a good moral effect and a great effect on morale.
Plus, getting rid of Mogg, Dorries, Bone, Jenkyn and Fabricant would raise the average IQ of the PCP by about 8%.
So I'm glad JRM is firing NLaws at his campaign. I want Nadine to say some sharp words about the price of milk too.
I am actually really really interested in the views of these parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians:
Dominic Cummings
Lord Frost
Theresa May
Boris Johnson
David Davis
Their preferences I think would tell us a lot.
- Keir Starmer delivers withering cross in PMQ's and the 12 political obsessive centre left journos watching tweet that "This is the end of Johnson" for the 947th time.
I am no seer, but it seems to me that the successful candidate is likely to have a short and miserable couple of years in Number 10, lose a general election, and then be replaced as leader.
But let me know if this strategy is implausible. Or if none of the potential candidates would think like that.
Rarotonga?
I don't know!
Wanker.
I think these pic games are a laugh, but every picture must have enough clues in it, such that you can make a reasonable guess via deduction, without having been there. Otherwise it’s stupid
There were enough clues in @Heathener’s photo. Not sure about @FrancisUrquhart’s
1)He's associated with the May regime and her Brexit deal (particularly as he didn't serve in Boris' cabinet). So if you hated her premiership and her deal, that might affect how you feel towards Hunt. He also might be less likely to scrap the NI protocol than other candidates because he seemed happy with her "soft Brexit" deal.
2) The membership is still fairly pro-Boris, while Hunt is seen as a major critic of his regime (kle4 has also mentioned this). Electing him leader would be akin to Labour electing Jess Phillips in the 2020 leadership election. Anyone who refuses to serve in the previous leader's cabinet/shadow cabinet and is seen as critical of them doesn't get the crown.
I have often enjoyed reading about the feuds between that cabinet. From this perspective, there are some good anecdotes. But you make a good point; it must have taken considerable skill to keep them together.
@Leon is right about my pic. If you looked closely, especially to the right, you could see the volcanic terrain. Also being above the cloud line is a classic Canary thing - hence the observatories on Tenerife and, most famously, La Palma itself.
Don't knock it til you've tried it
Somehow Churchill and Atlee messed up in a big way. I don't quite get how.
You've persuaded me, JRM was being traitorous to Boris's government by publicly departing from the agreed position of the Prime Minister.
Because from where I'm sitting, which I admit is one of the nicer parts of LA, you've made up a whole bunch of shit about how people actually hate homosexuality and lie to pollsters, and then are so brainwashed that they vote in favour of gay marriage at the ballot box.
You also wrote about how when you look at gay wedding photos (and I admit, I've never closely stared at the Groom's parents in a gay wedding photo), then there's terrible look behind their eyes.
When did you first develop this obsession?
Mind you, we're quite a "woke" extended family as well, so we have our weaknesses.....
I think a lot of you will have all seen this place on your tv.
Sunak has a target on his back. Can he dominate the right? I doubt it.
And who do they even sound out when half the people you sound out are sounding you out about their own run?
You don't get to choose the timing of your opportunity in politics. You take it, and make the most of it, or you miss out.
How exactly does this targeting work?
And are you saying that actually everyone is gay, and that all that needs to happen is for someone to be targeted and suddenly they're calling up rent boys for orgies?
Who's next on the list?
Without primordial slime, none of us would be here. It was very useful stuff.
And if they don’t get the gig, which is likely the case just on the law of averages, they’ve at least raised their profile.
So why not run ?
His arguments are distinctly queer.
I know theres lots of gays in LA so obviously when you say everyone has gay friends that may be true in LA...its not true in much of the red wall
Also i do think many people think things like Pride month are counterproductive for the gay movement
But mainly im in favour of love
There were other factors involved, but that's at the root of most of it.
Arguably, it's a problem that continues to bedevil us to this day.
It could be true, but always better to seek the win, which makes you look successful.
Or classic 'good election to lose' talk, but ultimately you never know you might be able to manage better than expected - people speculated about it being better to be out of office during austerity.
Rishi and the others may not get another chance, and if they don't and the party loses, they may not get to be PM for 7+ years anyway.
Edit and as @Leon 's is not Galapagos, his too.