- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
Putting a bloke being investigated by HMRC in charge of the Treasury surely tops everything else Boris has done by a country mile, doesn't it?
Edit:
Makes Zahawi's behaviour entirely explicable.
What's Rishi Rich allegedly said about "the poor" ?
He said, in a clip from his student days, that he didn’t know any working class people.
That’s not exactly disqualifying.
Indeed. I very much doubt any of us can be certain that we didn't say some foolish things in our student days.
People are allowed to have had lives that were less than perfect before entering politics.
If the best they can do is dig up 20 year old stuff like that, they don't have a lot of dirt.
Let's also remember that the new leader will be facing two knights as leaders on the opposition benches...
Starmer is the son of a nurse and a factory worker, something he needs to make more of tbh. I’d caution that according to a couple of trustworthy posters on here Sunak has a less than clean past in the backing sector. 20 year old dirt is whatever. It’s the 14 year old dirt that could sting him.
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
Well realistic, he went to Winchester and Oxford, was a Goldman Sachs banker and his parents were middle class professionals. How many working class friends is he likely to have?
Whether he can get any working class voters to stick with him now Boris is going is the more relevant question
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
If you’re Shapps, you sort of have to stand to keep a seat in Cabinet afterwards I think.
Is that fair? Shapps's main problem is he looks about 12, rather than any egregious cock-ups in government that I can recall. Good enough to be a minister but not PM material.
He is one of three ministers who has misled the House under Johnson.
“Protestors stormed the Palace of Westminister and 10 Downing Street today looking for the PM, who is rumoured to have moved to Dartmoor barracks several days ago.”
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
Putting a bloke being investigated by HMRC in charge of the Treasury surely tops everything else Boris has done by a country mile, doesn't it?
Edit:
Makes Zahawi's behaviour entirely explicable.
What's Rishi Rich allegedly said about "the poor" ?
He said, in a clip from his student days, that he didn’t know any working class people.
That’s not exactly disqualifying.
Indeed. I very much doubt any of us can be certain that we didn't say some foolish things in our student days.
People are allowed to have had lives that were less than perfect before entering politics.
If the best they can do is dig up 20 year old stuff like that, they don't have a lot of dirt.
Let's also remember that the new leader will be facing two knights as leaders on the opposition benches...
Politics is often about emotion. It’s not just the magnitude or the verifiabiIity of criticisms that matters, but whether they resonate with the public’s existing suspicions.
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
My concern for Mordaunt would be over her non-married status. It wouldn't bother me but it would be an issue for a fair number of ordinary voters.
I would rather have an unmarried Mordaunt than another Cherie type spouse....
ah time for the PB misogynists to come out and play
A prime example of the PB gammon-dressed-as-woke. Mordaunt is straight so any spouse would be male, so where does misogyny come in to that? Cherie Blair was a ghastly human being in her own right, but you secretly think that it's just not on to have a go at the memsahibs, do you hear, because you can't apply the same high standards to the laydeez as the chaps. Weaker sex, what?
Believe that Miss Penny is well-trained & quite capable of bashing incoming boarders with a boat oar.
Give the lass fair play. So say I. More to the point, so will say the Great British Public.
Beyond that, who knows? Except that, it is NOT unknown for a party suffering from disgrace, esp, with significant sexual dimensions but even without, to select a female replacement.
Not fail safe, but still a proven way of helping take the stink off scandal.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Twitter Andrew Neil@afneil·4m Great quote from tomorrow’s Sunday Times - Boris Johnson is the 3rd Tory prime minister to be brought down by Boris Johnson.
Have any of the candidates actually put forth policies on the issues that brought down Boris? A statement that they won’t tolerate sexual harassment and will support a new code of conduct? Something about reforming 10 Downing St’s drinking culture?
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
Putting a bloke being investigated by HMRC in charge of the Treasury surely tops everything else Boris has done by a country mile, doesn't it?
Edit:
Makes Zahawi's behaviour entirely explicable.
What's Rishi Rich allegedly said about "the poor" ?
He said, in a clip from his student days, that he didn’t know any working class people.
That’s not exactly disqualifying.
Indeed. I very much doubt any of us can be certain that we didn't say some foolish things in our student days.
People are allowed to have had lives that were less than perfect before entering politics.
If the best they can do is dig up 20 year old stuff like that, they don't have a lot of dirt.
Let's also remember that the new leader will be facing two knights as leaders on the opposition benches...
Politics is often about emotion. It’s not just the magnitude or the verifiabiIity of criticisms that matters, but whether they resonate with the public’s existing suspicions.
Yes but here the suspicion is Rishi is a posho which is precisely what the public expects of a Conservative prime minister, just like Cameron and Boris. I can't see this affecting a single vote.
The government of Sri Lanka made other mistakes, for instance: "Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange." source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
In general, Green superstition does not harm rich Western nations much -- but it can be deadly in poorer nations.
If you’re Shapps, you sort of have to stand to keep a seat in Cabinet afterwards I think.
Is that fair? Shapps's main problem is he looks about 12, rather than any egregious cock-ups in government that I can recall. Good enough to be a minister but not PM material.
He is one of three ministers who has misled the House under Johnson.
The others being Patel and Johnson himself.
A new criteria re: availability to be Tory leader and PM? As service in at least one Great Office of State once was?
My concern for Mordaunt would be over her non-married status. It wouldn't bother me but it would be an issue for a fair number of ordinary voters.
I would rather have an unmarried Mordaunt than another Cherie type spouse....
ah time for the PB misogynists to come out and play
A prime example of the PB gammon-dressed-as-woke. Mordaunt is straight so any spouse would be male, so where does misogyny come in to that? Cherie Blair was a ghastly human being in her own right, but you secretly think that it's just not on to have a go at the memsahibs, do you hear, because you can't apply the same high standards to the laydeez as the chaps. Weaker sex, what?
The government of Sri Lanka made other mistakes, for instance: "Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange." source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
In general, Green superstition does not harm rich Western nations much -- but it can be deadly in poorer nations.
It’s like those strict vegetarians that feed their cats veggies - cats which then die
Have any of the candidates actually put forth policies on the issues that brought down Boris? A statement that they won’t tolerate sexual harassment and will support a new code of conduct? Something about reforming 10 Downing St’s drinking culture?
Well realistic, he went to Winchester and Oxford, was a Goldman Sachs banker and his parents were middle class professionals. How many working class friends is he likely to have?
Whether he can get any working class voters to stick with him now Boris is going is the more relevant question
My problem with Rishi Sunak is he looks like a man who has never experienced a failure or a setback. His life, as far as I can tell, has been a continual success if we consider the accumulation of wealth and status to be markers of success.
I prefer a Prime Minister who has experienced failure - as I said earlier, failure can often be character building (ask any Lib Dem) and at the very least it becomes a test of your personal strength and character.
Cameron, May and Johnson were all unsuccessful candidates at an election - May in 1992 and Cameron and Johnson in 1997. Let's not forget Churchill, Thatcher and even Blair fought elections and lost. Sunak just walked into the Richmond seat and has a majority of 27,000. How you deal with defeat is as important as how you deal with victory (again, ask any Lib Dem) and it gives you an understanding of what it is and how it is to fail.
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
Putting a bloke being investigated by HMRC in charge of the Treasury surely tops everything else Boris has done by a country mile, doesn't it?
Edit:
Makes Zahawi's behaviour entirely explicable.
What's Rishi Rich allegedly said about "the poor" ?
He said, in a clip from his student days, that he didn’t know any working class people.
That’s not exactly disqualifying.
Indeed. I very much doubt any of us can be certain that we didn't say some foolish things in our student days.
People are allowed to have had lives that were less than perfect before entering politics.
If the best they can do is dig up 20 year old stuff like that, they don't have a lot of dirt.
Let's also remember that the new leader will be facing two knights as leaders on the opposition benches...
Politics is often about emotion. It’s not just the magnitude or the verifiabiIity of criticisms that matters, but whether they resonate with the public’s existing suspicions.
Yes but here the suspicion is Rishi is a posho which is precisely what the public expects of a Conservative prime minister, just like Cameron and Boris. I can't see this affecting a single vote.
Being a bit of a posho is survivable; not understanding the challenges many of the electorate face or being seen to look down on them is more problematic,
(I say this as someone who went to public schools and Oxbridge, and has always lived a comfortable middle class existence, so I cannot perhaps offer the authentic voice of the non-posh…)
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
Well realistic, he went to Winchester and Oxford, was a Goldman Sachs banker and his parents were middle class professionals. How many working class friends is he likely to have?
Whether he can get any working class voters to stick with him now Boris is going is the more relevant question
All OVERWHELMINGLY middle class milieus with probably (given the existence of bursaries and such) as many working class as genuinely "aristocratic" players around. So namechecking two different subspecies of toff, nobody at all mc, and denying the working classes like Peter at Gethsemane, looks profoundly odd.
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
The government of Sri Lanka made other mistakes, for instance: "Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange." source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
In general, Green superstition does not harm rich Western nations much -- but it can be deadly in poorer nations.
It’s like those strict vegetarians that feed their cats veggies - cats which then die
The problem with that old clip is that it matches all the other data we have about Rishi.
I think that's the key point. That clip wouldn't be an issue if everyone thought Rishi genuinely cared about people. However, it backs up everything else we know about him.
A source who is very close to Johnson said: “He hates the Tory party. He absolutely hates them. He sees them as thwarting him. He’s convinced the British public is still behind him. He sees everything still through the prism of Brexit. It’s the centrepiece of his legacy.”
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 17m Spectator summer party Thursday (full disclosure - I’m joint host with the editor), Johnson’s people indignant about his fate. To which I said if just one of you had stood up to his denials, obfuscations, downright lies he might still be there. So angry I left early. My own party
My concern for Mordaunt would be over her non-married status. It wouldn't bother me but it would be an issue for a fair number of ordinary voters.
I would rather have an unmarried Mordaunt than another Cherie type spouse....
ah time for the PB misogynists to come out and play
A prime example of the PB gammon-dressed-as-woke. Mordaunt is straight so any spouse would be male, so where does misogyny come in to that? Cherie Blair was a ghastly human being in her own right, but you secretly think that it's just not on to have a go at the memsahibs, do you hear, because you can't apply the same high standards to the laydeez as the chaps. Weaker sex, what?
how many bottles is it for you today?
Deffo stick with the ad hominem approach, it's working a treat.
The government of Sri Lanka made other mistakes, for instance: "Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange." source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
In general, Green superstition does not harm rich Western nations much -- but it can be deadly in poorer nations.
The Green movement has regrettably always had a side to it that is anti-science and believes in prelapsarian romantic pastoral fantasies. Superstition as you call it. Organic farming is a symptom of that. It’s why I would be reluctant to ever vote for the Green Party, while being supportive of much of the science-based parts of their agenda.
The belief in ideology over science that led to this disastrous approach in Sri Lanka has more to do with antivax Republicans or Erdogan’s eclectic approach to inflation than it has to do with the sensible Green policies of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and combatting climate change.
Egged on by what one insider called the “lunatics”, Johnson also began to voice the view that Sunak had been engaged in a plot lasting months to destabilise him, in cahoots with Dominic Cummings, his former aide, and Gove. “He observed that there was a lot to come out about that,” a witness said. “Someone has filled his head with it. He won’t say who he wants to succeed him, but Rishi is the one he doesn’t want to succeed him.”
The government of Sri Lanka made other mistakes, for instance: "Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange." source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
In general, Green superstition does not harm rich Western nations much -- but it can be deadly in poorer nations.
It’s like those strict vegetarians that feed their cats veggies - cats which then die
Aides expect Johnson to remain as an MP until at least the next election. Before that, he has the opportunity to reward his allies with a resignation honours list, something that is already causing grave concern in the royal household. The Palace is very anxious about the number of gongs, particularly the number of peerages” — sources suggest Johnson wants to hand out 20 or more. David Cameron ennobled eight in his resignation honours, Theresa May created 13 peers. “They are extremely concerned it is going to be Uncle Tom Cobley and all. There seem to be lots of unsuitable people. The list is going to be pages and pages,” said a source close to the royal household.
A political official in No 10 last week contacted a veteran Tory and asked whether it was possible that Stanley Johnson, the PM’s father, could be given a knighthood on the basis that he was “once an MEP”. The senior Conservative advised against it.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
The claim that this is bigotry seems to me to be an attempt to put transpeople on a par with other oppressed minorities. But being black or Jewish or Chinese aren't relevant to sexual attractiveness. Whereas someone's sex & body are: they're fundamental to it. You're not oppressed because people with a different sexuality to yours don't want to have sex with you. To claim so is fundamentally dishonest.
Some people may well be willing to have intimate relationships with a trans person but that needs to be their choice. A trans person would be better advised, IMO, to be open about who they are & persuade a potential partner in the normal way not by making factually untrue claims, hurling abuse or trying to bully someone into sex.
@Cyclefree thanks for such a considered reply - I really appreciate learning more about this. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to respond to the comments you make specifically about the trans debate - I'll think and read your post referred to.
More generally, I can see the question and your response stimulated a lot of debate about whether sexual preferences can correlate with a societal prejudice. Having read yours and lots of other comments, I think I fall down on the side of sexual preferences being significantly informed by societal norms (though of course there is a lot of innate preference in there too).
I am sure that it is true that some just innately prefer certain physical characteristics, but I suspect there is also a healthy dose of absorbing the prejudices of those around you which mean some people just wouldn't consider e.g. having sex with someone with a skin colour that is different to theirs, or having sex with someone of the same sex or gender as them, even if it would arouse them if they put themselves in that situation.
I am still not sure whether or not any of these ideas can be applied to biological men with penises identifying as women - I'll keep reading.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Channel 4 @Channel4 · 2h Also joining Andrew on this week’s special edition, are Westminster insiders Stephen Bush, Madeline Grant, Pippa Crerar and Noa Hoffman, bringing us all of their political insights. Tune in Sunday, from 5.30 #AndrewNeilShow @afneil
A source who is very close to Johnson said: “He hates the Tory party. He absolutely hates them. He sees them as thwarting him. He’s convinced the British public is still behind him. He sees everything still through the prism of Brexit. It’s the centrepiece of his legacy.”
He’s free to set up his own party. That would be amusing.
Egged on by what one insider called the “lunatics”, Johnson also began to voice the view that Sunak had been engaged in a plot lasting months to destabilise him, in cahoots with Dominic Cummings, his former aide, and Gove. “He observed that there was a lot to come out about that,” a witness said. “Someone has filled his head with it. He won’t say who he wants to succeed him, but Rishi is the one he doesn’t want to succeed him.”
I wonder whether Boris being viscerally anti Rishi will hurt Rishi, as HYUFD clearly is following, or perversely will help him instead?
Egged on by what one insider called the “lunatics”, Johnson also began to voice the view that Sunak had been engaged in a plot lasting months to destabilise him, in cahoots with Dominic Cummings, his former aide, and Gove. “He observed that there was a lot to come out about that,” a witness said. “Someone has filled his head with it. He won’t say who he wants to succeed him, but Rishi is the one he doesn’t want to succeed him.”
But he’s right.
Cummings was Gove’s man and then transferred his allegiance, such as it is, to Rishi and the rather shadowy group of incredibly wealthy nutters clustered around Great Smith Street.
Aides expect Johnson to remain as an MP until at least the next election. Before that, he has the opportunity to reward his allies with a resignation honours list, something that is already causing grave concern in the royal household. The Palace is very anxious about the number of gongs, particularly the number of peerages” — sources suggest Johnson wants to hand out 20 or more. David Cameron ennobled eight in his resignation honours, Theresa May created 13 peers. “They are extremely concerned it is going to be Uncle Tom Cobley and all. There seem to be lots of unsuitable people. The list is going to be pages and pages,” said a source close to the royal household.
A political official in No 10 last week contacted a veteran Tory and asked whether it was possible that Stanley Johnson, the PM’s father, could be given a knighthood on the basis that he was “once an MEP”. The senior Conservative advised against it.
The Queen retains the right to refuse a peerage I think?
Egged on by what one insider called the “lunatics”, Johnson also began to voice the view that Sunak had been engaged in a plot lasting months to destabilise him, in cahoots with Dominic Cummings, his former aide, and Gove. “He observed that there was a lot to come out about that,” a witness said. “Someone has filled his head with it. He won’t say who he wants to succeed him, but Rishi is the one he doesn’t want to succeed him.”
I know there are two different answers; who would be easiest to beat, or if you can't beat them who would be best as PM?
As a citizen of the UK, Tugenhadt, Mordaunt or Hunt which means they all fall at the first fence. As a non- Conservative, any of the rest with a particular nod to Truss. Mind you, I wouldn't vote for any of them unless Jeremy Corbyn makes an unwelcome return.
You do realise they're just actresses and NOT actual step-moms?
Incest (or step incest at least) seems a particularly popular porn genre. It is a bit disturbing really.
The term is fauxcest.
It originally started off in Japanese and Korean drama/films then became more mainstream such as in shows like Dexter between Debs and her adopted brother Dexter.
A source who is very close to Johnson said: “He hates the Tory party. He absolutely hates them. He sees them as thwarting him. He’s convinced the British public is still behind him. He sees everything still through the prism of Brexit. It’s the centrepiece of his legacy.”
The flap of white coats is required as Quentin Letts noted the other day.
Well. No wonder they want a coronation with the amount of dirt already aired. This has the potential to go explode if Boris and his loyal whips are so minded.
And Zahawi ought to go. Now. This is grounds enough for a Labour VONC.
Sri Lanka instituted major tax cuts and now it’s about to default on its debts.
A lesson for some Tory leadership candidates?
That’s an excellent point Bondy. It’s reminds off Miss Congeniality “world peace” with this “tax cut” catchphrase.
So they would have to cut taxes.
But firstly, will cutting taxes be the wisest thing in the economic situation they will inherit, or will that only make inflation and debt worse? Does it mean less government spending the non Tory heartlands would rather see? And cut what taxes, Sunak’s 5p off petrol was public relation disaster, tax cuts handing money to the rich would be a political disaster against this climate?
As we must have a Conservative Prime Minister. For comedy value it would have to be the inept buffoon Grant Sh(n)apps (you'd have to pissed to be as terminally stupid as that dimwit. )
In the national interest and by a clear margin for back story, competence, integrity, leadership, force of personality and frightening the opposition witless, the Jack W black spot goes to Penny Mordaunt.
Thus as the Conservatives often act as the stupid party some colourless non-entity will grab the prize. Bet accordingly.
It’s literally a clip of Boris explaining why a job was *not* found for one of his flings, but it’s deeply unsavoury nonetheless. Boris sounds full of pathetic excuses and self-pity.
Well. No wonder they want a coronation with the amount of dirt already aired. This has the potential to go explode if Boris and his loyal whips are so minded.
And Zahawi ought to go. Now. This is grounds enough for a Labour VONC.
Viz. Sri Lanka. Is any of this a surprise? Certainly not to the Tamils. Eventually time runs out on corrupt war criminals. Let’s hope there will be real change in Sri Lanka. The xenophobic Buddhist clergy need to return to their temples.
In the last 48 hours alone we have heard that Boris promised a job to one of his mistresses, met a former KGB operative in Italy in secret - “with a guest”, and appointed a man under investigation by the SFO and HMRC to the Chancellorship.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
The claim that this is bigotry seems to me to be an attempt to put transpeople on a par with other oppressed minorities. But being black or Jewish or Chinese aren't relevant to sexual attractiveness. Whereas someone's sex & body are: they're fundamental to it. You're not oppressed because people with a different sexuality to yours don't want to have sex with you. To claim so is fundamentally dishonest.
Some people may well be willing to have intimate relationships with a trans person but that needs to be their choice. A trans person would be better advised, IMO, to be open about who they are & persuade a potential partner in the normal way not by making factually untrue claims, hurling abuse or trying to bully someone into sex.
@Cyclefree thanks for such a considered reply - I really appreciate learning more about this. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to respond to the comments you make specifically about the trans debate - I'll think and read your post referred to.
More generally, I can see the question and your response stimulated a lot of debate about whether sexual preferences can correlate with a societal prejudice. Having read yours and lots of other comments, I think I fall down on the side of sexual preferences being significantly informed by societal norms (though of course there is a lot of innate preference in there too).
I am sure that it is true that some just innately prefer certain physical characteristics, but I suspect there is also a healthy dose of absorbing the prejudices of those around you which mean some people just wouldn't consider e.g. having sex with someone with a skin colour that is different to theirs, or having sex with someone of the same sex or gender as them, even if it would arouse them if they put themselves in that situation.
I am still not sure whether or not any of these ideas can be applied to biological men with penises identifying as women - I'll keep reading.
No this is complete nonsense
I don’t fancy men. It’s fundamental
I don’t want a penis in my mouth or up my butt. I don’t want to wake up next to someone hairy. It repels me. Reflexively. It would be the opposite of arousal
The idea this is “socially conditioned” is insane. I have the desire to be naked with a naked person of the opposite sex because this is how humans reproduce. It does not get more natural and instinctive than that
I was talking earlier about how my ex wife - with my keen consent - experimented with lesbianism (as long as I could watch). She did it, and she had fun, but at the end she said “Nope, I don’t like pussy, I want cock” - sorry to be so vulgar but it’s hard to avoid it. My ex wife is probably the most experimental, open minded person I’ve met (she married me FFS) but she is hard wired to be hetero. Nothing to do with “absorbed prejudices”
Egged on by what one insider called the “lunatics”, Johnson also began to voice the view that Sunak had been engaged in a plot lasting months to destabilise him, in cahoots with Dominic Cummings, his former aide, and Gove. “He observed that there was a lot to come out about that,” a witness said. “Someone has filled his head with it. He won’t say who he wants to succeed him, but Rishi is the one he doesn’t want to succeed him.”
...but who has been working Boris up into this state of paranoia? Surely suspicion must fall on the only person who sees him once a week with no others ever present :-)
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
Well. No wonder they want a coronation with the amount of dirt already aired. This has the potential to go explode if Boris and his loyal whips are so minded.
And Zahawi ought to go. Now. This is grounds enough for a Labour VONC.
History books will say it was the outrageous handling of pincher wot done it! 🤭
- Hunt - basically out - Sunak - about to get taken down with his comments about the working class already circulating - Zahawi - taken down - Truss - struggling to get momentum - Badenoch - surprisingly getting some momentum from the RW crowd but can it be sustained.
This is going to be a great contest from a betting standpoint
I was talking earlier about how my ex wife - with my keen consent - experimented with lesbianism (as long as I could watch). She did it, and she had fun, but at the end she said “Nope, I don’t like pussy, I want cock” - sorry to be so vulgar but it’s hard to avoid it. My ex wife is probably the most experimental, open minded person I’ve met (she married me FFS) but she is hard wired to be hetero. Nothing to do with “absorbed prejudices”
Gosh, we're getting down to the nitty gritty now aren't we? Get another glass...
Someone asked @rcs1000 what they didn't like about Sunak. Can't answer for him but here's mine.
- Slimy / untrustworthy - Totally wrong policies for what is happening - we are facing a bunch of the population not being able to heat their homes and he talks about cutting costs. How about raising wealth taxes / eliminating loopholes for the wealthy (eg the tax rate on PE investments) to get money from those who benefited off the years of cheap money? - Hypocrisy - he talks about balancing the books and the need to make sacrifices except when it comes to his wife's non-dom's status - Obviously couldn't give a fuck about the poor - Worked for TCI - which, for me, would raise possible red flags
Sunak was also in despair about Johnson’s governance more generally. One close ally said: “The thing that gets his goat most, and what he said most, is that the government was not delivering on the things it said it would. Take the Covid backlogs: we gave the NHS lots of money and took the political pain for the tax rise — but there was no grip. Why weren’t we having a weekly meeting about the backlogs? Why wasn’t there a data dashboard making this a priority? Where are the 40 hospitals and the thousands of new nurses? That’s the thing that’s truly unforgivable.”
Another minister contrasted this record with the Downing Street parties: “Boris couldn’t run a piss-up in a brewery, but he did run a piss-up in Downing Street.”
Sunak was also clear that he would not go out and defend Downing Street disinformation on Pincher — a view widely shared by cabinet ministers. A cabinet source said: “The Tory party has finally come to the realisation that it’s in an abusive relationship with the prime minister.”
Another minister said: “The problem with Boris is his personal pronouns, which are me, me and me.”
The Queen retains the right to refuse a peerage I think?
In theory yes. The monarch is the fountain of all honour. However should a proposed honour pass the scrutiny committee then the likelihood of the Queen refusing is as small as TSE donating his red shoes to the Jeremy Corbyn Fund For Distressed Democratic Socia*ists.
In the last 48 hours alone we have heard that Boris promised a job to one of his mistresses, met a former KGB operative in Italy in secret - “with a guest”, and appointed a man under investigation by the SFO and HMRC to the Chancellorship.
Sexual favours on promise of a job, Weinstein style 😕
It’s literally a clip of Boris explaining why a job was *not* found for one of his flings, but it’s deeply unsavoury nonetheless. Boris sounds full of pathetic excuses and self-pity.
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I know there are two different answers; who would be easiest to beat, or if you can't beat them who would be best as PM?
As it’s likely to be a Leaver I’d go for Sunak as he might be more pragmatic re the EU and won’t want a trade war . I also think he’d be less divisive at home . In terms of more beatable for Labour the rest of the Leavers on show !
Sunak has a pleasant image for those of us who like that - can't see him ranting at PMQs. He has a curiously undefined flavour, though - I find it hard to work out what he's really for. His video shows both sides of that - quite charming, and quite devoid of any clear direction.
The fact that the Chancellor is under investigation by the HMRC (and previously the SFO); and that this was known by Boris, is a new low for the United Kingdom.
The fact that the Chancellor is under investigation by the HMRC (and previously the SFO); and that this was known by Boris, is a new low for the United Kingdom.
Comments
Whether he can get any working class voters to stick with him now Boris is going is the more relevant question
*ponders*
It’s going to be Jacob Rees Mogg, isn’t it?
The others being Patel and Johnson himself.
Truss and Braverman are both mad.
I’m afraid the choice is between Badenoch, Tugendhat and Mordaunt - people largely unsullied by the Boris project for that matter.
Too damn right.
Pass the Port.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1545817571085242370?t=G_EZk9T17kXqqM5wo-HgaA&s=19
Give the lass fair play. So say I. More to the point, so will say the Great British Public.
Beyond that, who knows? Except that, it is NOT unknown for a party suffering from disgrace, esp, with significant sexual dimensions but even without, to select a female replacement.
Not fail safe, but still a proven way of helping take the stink off scandal.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange."
source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
In general, Green superstition does not harm rich Western nations much -- but it can be deadly in poorer nations.
I prefer a Prime Minister who has experienced failure - as I said earlier, failure can often be character building (ask any Lib Dem) and at the very least it becomes a test of your personal strength and character.
Cameron, May and Johnson were all unsuccessful candidates at an election - May in 1992 and Cameron and Johnson in 1997. Let's not forget Churchill, Thatcher and even Blair fought elections and lost. Sunak just walked into the Richmond seat and has a majority of 27,000. How you deal with defeat is as important as how you deal with victory (again, ask any Lib Dem) and it gives you an understanding of what it is and how it is to fail.
(I say this as someone who went to public schools and Oxbridge, and has always lived a comfortable middle class existence, so I cannot perhaps offer the authentic voice of the non-posh…)
https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/facebook-authoritarians-information-war/
Labour would use that clip ad infinitum.
Andrew Neil
@afneil
·
17m
Spectator summer party Thursday (full disclosure - I’m joint host with the editor), Johnson’s people indignant about his fate. To which I said if just one of you had stood up to his denials, obfuscations, downright lies he might still be there. So angry I left early. My own party
Second glass of Malbec rose.
The belief in ideology over science that led to this disastrous approach in Sri Lanka has more to do with antivax Republicans or Erdogan’s eclectic approach to inflation than it has to do with the sensible Green policies of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and combatting climate change.
Egged on by what one insider called the “lunatics”, Johnson also began to voice the view that Sunak had been engaged in a plot lasting months to destabilise him, in cahoots with Dominic Cummings, his former aide, and Gove. “He observed that there was a lot to come out about that,” a witness said. “Someone has filled his head with it. He won’t say who he wants to succeed him, but Rishi is the one he doesn’t want to succeed him.”
Aides expect Johnson to remain as an MP until at least the next election. Before that, he has the opportunity to reward his allies with a resignation honours list, something that is already causing grave concern in the royal household. The Palace is very anxious about the number of gongs, particularly the number of peerages” — sources suggest Johnson wants to hand out 20 or more. David Cameron ennobled eight in his resignation honours, Theresa May created 13 peers. “They are extremely concerned it is going to be Uncle Tom Cobley and all. There seem to be lots of unsuitable people. The list is going to be pages and pages,” said a source close to the royal household.
A political official in No 10 last week contacted a veteran Tory and asked whether it was possible that Stanley Johnson, the PM’s father, could be given a knighthood on the basis that he was “once an MEP”. The senior Conservative advised against it.
More generally, I can see the question and your response stimulated a lot of debate about whether sexual preferences can correlate with a societal prejudice. Having read yours and lots of other comments, I think I fall down on the side of sexual preferences being significantly informed by societal norms (though of course there is a lot of innate preference in there too).
I am sure that it is true that some just innately prefer certain physical characteristics, but I suspect there is also a healthy dose of absorbing the prejudices of those around you which mean some people just wouldn't consider e.g. having sex with someone with a skin colour that is different to theirs, or having sex with someone of the same sex or gender as them, even if it would arouse them if they put themselves in that situation.
I am still not sure whether or not any of these ideas can be applied to biological men with penises identifying as women - I'll keep reading.
Channel 4
@Channel4
·
2h
Also joining Andrew on this week’s special edition, are Westminster insiders Stephen Bush, Madeline Grant, Pippa Crerar and Noa Hoffman, bringing us all of their political insights.
Tune in Sunday, from 5.30
#AndrewNeilShow
@afneil
@stephenkb
@Mads_Grant
@PippaCrerar
@hoffman_noa
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1545825125810970626
Can't think why...
Cummings was Gove’s man and then transferred his allegiance, such as it is, to Rishi and the rather shadowy group of incredibly wealthy nutters clustered around Great Smith Street.
It originally started off in Japanese and Korean drama/films then became more mainstream such as in shows like Dexter between Debs and her adopted brother Dexter.
(The irony is the actors married in real life).
This has the potential to go explode if Boris and his loyal whips are so minded.
And Zahawi ought to go.
Now.
This is grounds enough for a Labour VONC.
So they would have to cut taxes.
But firstly, will cutting taxes be the wisest thing in the economic situation they will inherit, or will that only make inflation and debt worse? Does it mean less government spending the non Tory heartlands would rather see? And cut what taxes, Sunak’s 5p off petrol was public relation disaster, tax cuts handing money to the rich would be a political disaster against this climate?
In the national interest and by a clear margin for back story, competence, integrity, leadership, force of personality and frightening the opposition witless, the Jack W black spot goes to Penny Mordaunt.
Thus as the Conservatives often act as the stupid party some colourless non-entity will grab the prize. Bet accordingly.
In the last 48 hours alone we have heard that Boris promised a job to one of his mistresses, met a former KGB operative in Italy in secret - “with a guest”, and appointed a man under investigation by the SFO and HMRC to the Chancellorship.
I don’t fancy men. It’s fundamental
I don’t want a penis in my mouth or up my butt. I don’t want to wake up next to someone hairy. It repels me. Reflexively. It would be the opposite of arousal
The idea this is “socially conditioned” is insane. I have the desire to be naked with a naked person of the opposite sex because this is how humans reproduce. It does not get more natural and instinctive than that
I was talking earlier about how my ex wife - with my keen consent - experimented with lesbianism (as long as I could watch). She did it, and she had fun, but at the end she said “Nope, I don’t like pussy, I want cock” - sorry to be so vulgar but it’s hard to avoid it. My ex wife is probably the most experimental, open minded person I’ve met (she married me FFS) but she is hard wired to be hetero. Nothing to do with “absorbed prejudices”
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
It is motherfucking gold.
VONC now.
Nobody has come out and say, actually we now need to clean up.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
Our latest poll shows Labour's lead rising from 3 points to 5 points.
Con 33% (-1)
Lab 38% (+1)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (No change)
Fieldwork 6-8 July, changes on 22-24 June. https://t.co/Nu8VqwNPIV
Fieldwork before and after resignation
This poll was posted here about 90 minutes ago, in what Sunil will call a run of luck. 😝