That's why 97% of the advertising industry voted to Remain according to polls. . We were indisputably the second most successful advertising industry in the world and probably rated the most creative. British crews and production were in demand everywhere which had knock on effects all over the place.
The film business flourished as did British studios which meant model making special effects music studios construction etc. Germany always had the best equiptment but we had a hugely successful service industry
In 2016 we wantonly committed harakiri. I still find it unbelievable
Really?
According to the film and TV industry itself the UK now has the fastest growing film and TV sector in the world with a massive growth in inward investment. It was worth $7.6 billion in 2021 and is predicted to be worth $9.4 billion in 2025.
The idea that post Brexit we are losing market share or that the film and TV industry is failing is utter garbage.
9.4 billion in 2025 being the price of a Mars bar.
You think the value of the dollar is going to collapse? Brave suggestion.
When I took a "grand tour" all over Britain in 1962 on my Norton ES2 500 cc motorbike, I would often visit churches, large and small. During the day they were invariably open, but during week days the lesser ones usually deserted. I never confuse Gypsys with Travelers.
Mrs Stodge in far from a happy mood after the fortnightly shop at our local Sainsbury's, Not the prices so much - an occasional seethe but as I pay for the scoff, that's my problem.
What irritated her was the 25 minutes it took from joining one of the checkout queues to actually paying.
Just three tills open on a busy Sunday - it seems as with so many other places there is a desperate shortage of staff and those left cannot cope with the customer demand.
It did occur to me one way to alleviate the problem was to suspend the Sunday Trading Laws for 6 months to allow businesses to adapt, adjust and recruit.
It also occurred to me we could all cope with having a quieter day to each week - perhaps a winning message for a social conservative (or perhaps not).
Where have all the workers gone?
Back home to the EU?
Seriously though, don't Sainsbury's do self-check as you shop, like Waitrose?
Edit: is this the same Sainsbury's who have rejected a proposal to pay all staff at least the Living Wage?
I think this is starting to shape up very, very badly for the conservatives.
The members are going to get a choice of tweedle dum or tweedle dee from the left of the party. Sunak plus one.
However a Sunday Times poll today had Sunak, Mordaunt and Tugendhat polling equal best in the redwall seats of the Tory leadership contenders in terms of net approval.
Even though Starmer polls better than all the Tory contenders now in the redwall with Boris gone
Do you ever have a view independent from your choice of polls
Half the point of this site is polls
Surely that poll is essentially driven by recognition. Most voters can name very few politicos, much less what they stand for.
Nobody knows what Mordaunt and Tugendhat stand for. Not even the Spectator. They tried to find Mordaunt's policies in vain through the vacuous bullsh8t of her launch.
I made that point earlier today, HYUFD didn't accept it.
She laid out her ideas in her recent book. Not everything I would agree with, but a coherent philosophy.
Sorry not the point I was referring to. My mistake for not making clear. I was referring to polls being driven by recognition. Actually as I have said as a LD she is my biggest fear as Tory leader.
You are wrong on that.
If you were correct Sunak followed by Hunt and Truss would be doing best on the net approval rating polls as the most well known candidates. Not Mordaunt and Tugendhat.
Instead Hunt and Patel do worst on the net approval rating polls despite being amongst the best known candidates being a former Foreign Secretary and final round leadership contender and the current Home Secretary
No I am not. You can't deduce that at all. You are making assumptions, which you shouldn't do. As I posted earlier today recognition can work both ways. So for example Boris compared to A N Other may get a good score because he is recognised or a bad score because people don't like him, whereas they don't know the other person. Or it can be a mix of both. The numbers can be anything so you can deduce nothing.
When carrying out a statistical test for say light bulb longevity you only have the MOE and the probability that it will be within the MOE to worry about. So typically 95% sure it will be within 5% of the result.
However as soon as you poll people you have other variables with regard to the sample you select and the question you ask. Both can completely bugger up a result. Hence polling companies do so much work on this, and still get it wrong.
A question on popularity when some are significantly more well known than others is intrinsically flawed and you don't know in which direction the flaws are going to apply, so your assumption about the results above is worthless.
It is fun, hence they are done, and maybe you can make a gut deduction from it, from what you perceive as commonsense. as you have done, but you must be aware it is mathematically useless.
Mrs Stodge in far from a happy mood after the fortnightly shop at our local Sainsbury's, Not the prices so much - an occasional seethe but as I pay for the scoff, that's my problem.
What irritated her was the 25 minutes it took from joining one of the checkout queues to actually paying.
Just three tills open on a busy Sunday - it seems as with so many other places there is a desperate shortage of staff and those left cannot cope with the customer demand.
It did occur to me one way to alleviate the problem was to suspend the Sunday Trading Laws for 6 months to allow businesses to adapt, adjust and recruit.
It also occurred to me we could all cope with having a quieter day to each week - perhaps a winning message for a social conservative (or perhaps not).
That's why 97% of the advertising industry voted to Remain according to polls. . We were indisputably the second most successful advertising industry in the world and probably rated the most creative. British crews and production were in demand everywhere which had knock on effects all over the place.
The film business flourished as did British studios which meant model making special effects music studios construction etc. Germany always had the best equiptment but we had a hugely successful service industry
In 2016 we wantonly committed harakiri. I still find it unbelievable
Really?
According to the film and TV industry itself the UK now has the fastest growing film and TV sector in the world with a massive growth in inward investment. It was worth $7.6 billion in 2021 and is predicted to be worth $9.4 billion in 2025.
The idea that post Brexit we are losing market share or that the film and TV industry is failing is utter garbage.
9.4 billion in 2025 being the price of a Mars bar.
You think the value of the dollar is going to collapse? Brave suggestion.
💥 NEW: Senior Tories want to rapidly thin out the field of leadership candidates
One senior MP close to 1922 committee it was “likely” candidates must secure the support of at least 10% of the parliamentary party to get on to the ballot paper - 36 MPs
Apologies if I have missed this while being a long way up a misty moody Norwegian fjord but has the timetable been set yet?
It will be announced tomorrow. Sounds like it may be formal nominations in by Weds, get it down to the final 2 by the end of July, and a new leader in place for early September.
Thanks but, Jeez, why so long?
By the end of August the leading candidates will be promising tax cuts equal to twice the GDP, all refugees to be packed off the the British Antarctic Territory before they leave France, and the Magna Carta to be repealed (rules created by nasty foreign barons from Normandy).
It will take probably a couple of weeks to print and dispatch all the postal ballots to the the membership (they seem to be able to arrange it faster than me though), and they want to give them a reasonable amount of time to hear from the candidates, but I'd agree with you.
Even taking it slow, I'd say
11 July - rules announced 13 July - closing date of nominations 18 July - First ballot 20 July - second ballot 22 July - third and subsequent ballots as needed - final two announced 1 August - postal ballots out 19 August - closing date 22 August - new leader announced, takes over
Gives them a couple of weeks to prepare ahead of the first PMQs
Why not daily or twice-daily MP ballots?
Go full papal conclave on them? It has its appeal - lock them in a room with two ballots a day, and they'd narrow it down quickly.
I suspect they'll want a bit longer because maybe 6-8 will actually even get on the ballot. If they provide a threshold at each stage (rather than just next one out) then you should only need 3.
The huge tax pledges of Liz Truss, Jeremy Hunt and Sajid Javid are going to be expensive - with few explanations of how it’s going to be paid for. All part of their plans to win MPs.
They are going to trash each other to try and get the gig. Labour will just watch and laugh
First it was "Party before Country" as the Tories used Brexit to get the UKIP tanks off their lawn.
Now it is just naked, personal ambition which comes ahead of Party interests with the country in a poor 3rd place. They will promise anything to become PM, even if the result of their promises is massively increasing the national debt or just trashing their Party's chances in the next election.
Do we know the latest tory membership figures? It seems to me that an ageing, Brexit-obsessed cohort whose prime political memory is of Thatcher's time of what maybe 150k people will decide the next PM?
Yes, but there is a sort of gap in the reasoning. Let's say 150,000 people get to choose the next PM. If this is terrible the reason is nothing whatever to do with those people. They are the only people not responsible for the problem.
100% of the responsibility (which is not the same as blame) lies with the other 58,000,000 (or whatever number) who could be members but are not.
So it is partly my fault for not joining the Tory party? It is not free to join and I disagree profoundly with their aims and policies.
Am I also supposed to be a member of the LibDems and of Labour to make sure that I can shape their policies?
When am I allowed to stop joining parties?
Read it more carefully. I am not making a moral point, and said so clearly.
But you do seem to be saying that everyone in the country should join every party so that policy and leaders is controlled better.
I thought that was rationale behind General Elections rather than Party membership
No seeming, no shoulds. Read what I said.
You said: "100% of the responsibility (which is not the same as blame) lies with the other 58,000,000 (or whatever number) who could be members but are not."
So according to you, we all have a responsibility to be Tory members. That is exactly what that says. What other interpretation is there?
algakirk is saying that the rest of us are responsible for the outcome, not that we have a responsibility to change it. There's no judgement in the post as I read it, just a statement of fact. Though I'd argue we don't have 100% of the responsibility - the Conservative party could choose to ballot us even though we're not members. That would be fun.
Mrs Stodge in far from a happy mood after the fortnightly shop at our local Sainsbury's, Not the prices so much - an occasional seethe but as I pay for the scoff, that's my problem.
What irritated her was the 25 minutes it took from joining one of the checkout queues to actually paying.
Just three tills open on a busy Sunday - it seems as with so many other places there is a desperate shortage of staff and those left cannot cope with the customer demand.
It did occur to me one way to alleviate the problem was to suspend the Sunday Trading Laws for 6 months to allow businesses to adapt, adjust and recruit.
It also occurred to me we could all cope with having a quieter day to each week - perhaps a winning message for a social conservative (or perhaps not).
Where have all the workers gone?
Delivering groceries to those of us who fell out the habit of actually visiting supermarkets a long time ago.
Key moment in the Tory leadership contest tomorrow - which looks to the quickest of recent times.
New 1922 committee exec will decide timetable, expected to be down to final two before recess, and threshold - with calls for it to be 20-25 in first ballot to whittle down fast.
First ballot planned for weds morning, even before any hustings can be held, to directly compare candidates.
Further rounds of votes expected this coming week, if the final two are to be decided by July 21.
Let me sketch again what I witnessed in Rose, Montenegro
It’s a sizeable, very pretty seaside village, with one large resort hotel, several smaller hotels, a little marina, water sports, half a dozen bustling bars and restaurants. I imagine in winter it is deeply quiet but on a summer Sunday it was rammed with tourists, with people parked all the way up the hill behind
The beaches were crowded but I wasn’t on a beach, I was 20 metres away in a big well-known seafood restaurant which was also rammed with lunchers and drinkers, mainly Montenegrin/Croatian/Serb tourists but I heard some Germans, French etc
The table next to me was hosting a crowd of people in their late 20s. One by one they got up to head off, mostly to go swimming (I saw them). They were gone 40 minutes at least (by that time I had to go myself, so they might have been gone for much longer), they left behind everything, quite casually: phones, bags, purses, money, sunnies, everything (as the picture shows)
I do not believe you would do this in a big pub in a crowded holiday village anywhere in the UK, nor anywhere I know in the rest of Western Europe, with the POSSIBLE exception of Switzerland. No one leaves behind their phone in a big bustling bar for 40 minutes (minimum). It is not a thing
The Wikipedia article you posted says that there are only 10 people who live in Rose off season, (Montenegro is pretty small, of course) which may not challenge your thinking, but which does suggest that the village is mostly incomers at this time of year. Estonia is also pretty small (though more than twice the size of MNE) and similar levels of trust seem to apply here. Trust societies are so much more pleasent to live in.
Eastern Europe is doing much better at retaining that high trust cohesiveness. And it’s not *just* smallness. It helps to be ethnically and culturally homogenous. If you know everyone around and they all know you, it is much harder to get away with crime. And if you are also probably related to the person you steal from or reliant on them in some way, that is another big disincentive for crime
Big transient individualistic multicultural “western” societies have much more crime
The one outlier is possibly Switzerland? Which has very low crime, yet is not smal, and is quite individualistic (but also officious) and multicultural and multiracial. Perhaps it is so rich no one needs to steal? or maybe it is Calvinism
I can absolutely assure you that you would never leave your belongings unattended in a bar or cafe in Geneva - even though supremely Calvinistic.
You have to be careful with your belongings in your pockets there yet alone on the table.
All my female friends there would have to be very careful with their bags whilst out to ensure they were safely under the table even when we were sitting there.
It’s the only place I’ve ever been mugged (attempted as my friend and I delivered a beating to the two muggers) and I had a friend there who had been mugged five times in three years living there.
I would think that other larger cities in Switzerland are similar so it’s not the bucolic land of people respecting the law you might think.
Fair enough!
I have been to Switzerland a lot and always felt remarkably safe, but that's interesting to hear
There's a massive rural / urban split in most countries. If you are in a small village in Switzerland, then you could probably leave your possessions on a table in a restaraunt for hours without worry. But at a crowded bar in Geneva, not a chance.
It's exactly the same here: I'm 15 miles from Oxford in a (very) small rural town and would happily leave my phone/wallet on the table in the pub while I went to the toilet. When people lock their bikes up outside the pub they get laughed at.
Last time I locked my bike outside the pub in Oxford, I came out half an hour later to find someone wheeling it up the road, bolt-cutters in the other arm.
But you wouldn’t leave your phone on the table for FORTY MINUTES in a big busy pub, even in rural Oxon, would you?
That’s what marks out my experience
Having spent last night in Banbury, I would avoid busy pubs there period. The one I was staying in, with rooms, was hosting a private party for some middle aged people celebrating a wedding anniversary; the Birdie Song and Agadoo pumped out at maximum volume from the marquee behind the hotel was enough to send me out into the town in search of a quiet drink; Banbury, contrary to first impressions, on a Saturday night is host to large groups of younger people staggering about drunk and urinating in the street, with pubs that open to 2 am and lots of them pumping out party music. Who knew?
I feel sorry for any foreign tourists who imagine they might be wandering the streets of a historic English town, taking in the atmosphere and stopping by a quiet bar or restaurant, as I was in similar sized places in Italy last month.
Anyone visiting England needs to know, in advance, that except for touristic hotspots kept for their expensive purposes of fleecing the innocent, England has a long history of barbaric, popular working class culture derived from paganism, Vikings, Anglo Saxons, Celts, with recent exotic additions and fuelled by multiple forms of drug abuse. It also has public sanitation services that rival those of Lagos and Mariupol.
And curiously we love it that way, and the world keeps complaining it is getting harder to join our number. 29% of UK babies are born to foreign born mothers, while Italy's birthrate is approximately zero.
Mrs Stodge in far from a happy mood after the fortnightly shop at our local Sainsbury's, Not the prices so much - an occasional seethe but as I pay for the scoff, that's my problem.
What irritated her was the 25 minutes it took from joining one of the checkout queues to actually paying.
Just three tills open on a busy Sunday - it seems as with so many other places there is a desperate shortage of staff and those left cannot cope with the customer demand.
It did occur to me one way to alleviate the problem was to suspend the Sunday Trading Laws for 6 months to allow businesses to adapt, adjust and recruit.
It also occurred to me we could all cope with having a quieter day to each week - perhaps a winning message for a social conservative (or perhaps not).
Where have all the workers gone?
Back home to the EU?
Some have, and others have decided to retire early.
Does anyone else find it odd, that Tory leadership contest as commenced, without any actual rules yet being established to govern it?
The fix is already in? Or just in process of being put in?
I don't know why you'd assume a fix on the basis they've started their campaigning before knowing the timetable or entry criteria (it's not like other rules are going to be changed much).
They know it is happening, and they know they will need the support of fellow MPs to get on the ballot, they can start that process before knowing anything else.
Minimum number of nominators of more than nominally interesting methinks.
Esp. to those with way more than minimal interests & stakes.
Nicola Sturgeon on Instagram: “📚 Time for a mid-year book review. My top ten novels of 2022 so far 📚”
Val McDermid, 1989 Douglas Stuart, Young Mungo Jenni Fagan, Hex Ali Smith, Companion piece Emilie Pine, Ruth & Pen etc
Perhaps they're too busy running their countries?
Huh? What country is Keir Starmer running?!
So she's even less busy than somebody who has nothing to do?
Only people with “nothing to do” read books?
That would certainly explain the number of complete ignorants in public life.
Read my first ever P G Wodehouse earlier today. It was fairly entertaining, but more importantly I can now rest easy should I ever meet Hugh Laurie or Stephen Fry.
“Mr. Wodehouse's idyllic world can never stale. He will continue to release future generations from captivity that may be more irksome than our own."
Evelyn Waugh 1961. Exactly right. The question that hasn't been seriously addressed (lit crit being snobbish about very popular stuff) is whether in fact the Wodehouse oeuvre has a deeper message or sub-text. It's too good to be without meaning.
I’ll give it a stab: the aristocracy are an economic burden on the rest of society… except for members of the Junior Ganymede Club.
That's a big endorsement. It will be interesting to see how the voting pans out.
Well that I was not expecting.
I like what I've seen of her so far (obviously). I wouldn't mind at all if she won - still a bit of a mountain to climb, but Gove's endorsement is an important one.
The huge tax pledges of Liz Truss, Jeremy Hunt and Sajid Javid are going to be expensive - with few explanations of how it’s going to be paid for. All part of their plans to win MPs.
They are going to trash each other to try and get the gig. Labour will just watch and laugh
First it was "Party before Country" as the Tories used Brexit to get the UKIP tanks off their lawn.
Now it is just naked, personal ambition which comes ahead of Party interests with the country in a poor 3rd place. They will promise anything to become PM, even if the result of their promises is massively increasing the national debt or just trashing their Party's chances in the next election.
Do we know the latest tory membership figures? It seems to me that an ageing, Brexit-obsessed cohort whose prime political memory is of Thatcher's time of what maybe 150k people will decide the next PM?
Yes, but there is a sort of gap in the reasoning. Let's say 150,000 people get to choose the next PM. If this is terrible the reason is nothing whatever to do with those people. They are the only people not responsible for the problem.
100% of the responsibility (which is not the same as blame) lies with the other 58,000,000 (or whatever number) who could be members but are not.
So it is partly my fault for not joining the Tory party? It is not free to join and I disagree profoundly with their aims and policies.
Am I also supposed to be a member of the LibDems and of Labour to make sure that I can shape their policies?
When am I allowed to stop joining parties?
Read it more carefully. I am not making a moral point, and said so clearly.
But you do seem to be saying that everyone in the country should join every party so that policy and leaders is controlled better.
I thought that was rationale behind General Elections rather than Party membership
No seeming, no shoulds. Read what I said.
You said: "100% of the responsibility (which is not the same as blame) lies with the other 58,000,000 (or whatever number) who could be members but are not."
So according to you, we all have a responsibility to be Tory members. That is exactly what that says. What other interpretation is there?
algakirk is saying that the rest of us are responsible for the outcome, not that we have a responsibility to change it. There's no judgement in the post as I read it, just a statement of fact. Though I'd argue we don't have 100% of the responsibility - the Conservative party could choose to ballot us even though we're not members. That would be fun.
This is absolutely a correct reading of what I said.
Let me sketch again what I witnessed in Rose, Montenegro
It’s a sizeable, very pretty seaside village, with one large resort hotel, several smaller hotels, a little marina, water sports, half a dozen bustling bars and restaurants. I imagine in winter it is deeply quiet but on a summer Sunday it was rammed with tourists, with people parked all the way up the hill behind
The beaches were crowded but I wasn’t on a beach, I was 20 metres away in a big well-known seafood restaurant which was also rammed with lunchers and drinkers, mainly Montenegrin/Croatian/Serb tourists but I heard some Germans, French etc
The table next to me was hosting a crowd of people in their late 20s. One by one they got up to head off, mostly to go swimming (I saw them). They were gone 40 minutes at least (by that time I had to go myself, so they might have been gone for much longer), they left behind everything, quite casually: phones, bags, purses, money, sunnies, everything (as the picture shows)
I do not believe you would do this in a big pub in a crowded holiday village anywhere in the UK, nor anywhere I know in the rest of Western Europe, with the POSSIBLE exception of Switzerland. No one leaves behind their phone in a big bustling bar for 40 minutes (minimum). It is not a thing
The Wikipedia article you posted says that there are only 10 people who live in Rose off season, (Montenegro is pretty small, of course) which may not challenge your thinking, but which does suggest that the village is mostly incomers at this time of year. Estonia is also pretty small (though more than twice the size of MNE) and similar levels of trust seem to apply here. Trust societies are so much more pleasent to live in.
Eastern Europe is doing much better at retaining that high trust cohesiveness. And it’s not *just* smallness. It helps to be ethnically and culturally homogenous. If you know everyone around and they all know you, it is much harder to get away with crime. And if you are also probably related to the person you steal from or reliant on them in some way, that is another big disincentive for crime
Big transient individualistic multicultural “western” societies have much more crime
The one outlier is possibly Switzerland? Which has very low crime, yet is not smal, and is quite individualistic (but also officious) and multicultural and multiracial. Perhaps it is so rich no one needs to steal? or maybe it is Calvinism
I can absolutely assure you that you would never leave your belongings unattended in a bar or cafe in Geneva - even though supremely Calvinistic.
You have to be careful with your belongings in your pockets there yet alone on the table.
All my female friends there would have to be very careful with their bags whilst out to ensure they were safely under the table even when we were sitting there.
It’s the only place I’ve ever been mugged (attempted as my friend and I delivered a beating to the two muggers) and I had a friend there who had been mugged five times in three years living there.
I would think that other larger cities in Switzerland are similar so it’s not the bucolic land of people respecting the law you might think.
Fair enough!
I have been to Switzerland a lot and always felt remarkably safe, but that's interesting to hear
There's a massive rural / urban split in most countries. If you are in a small village in Switzerland, then you could probably leave your possessions on a table in a restaraunt for hours without worry. But at a crowded bar in Geneva, not a chance.
It's exactly the same here: I'm 15 miles from Oxford in a (very) small rural town and would happily leave my phone/wallet on the table in the pub while I went to the toilet. When people lock their bikes up outside the pub they get laughed at.
Last time I locked my bike outside the pub in Oxford, I came out half an hour later to find someone wheeling it up the road, bolt-cutters in the other arm.
But you wouldn’t leave your phone on the table for FORTY MINUTES in a big busy pub, even in rural Oxon, would you?
That’s what marks out my experience
Having spent last night in Banbury, I would avoid busy pubs there period. The one I was staying in, with rooms, was hosting a private party for some middle aged people celebrating a wedding anniversary; the Birdie Song and Agadoo pumped out at maximum volume from the marquee behind the hotel was enough to send me out into the town in search of a quiet drink; Banbury, contrary to first impressions, on a Saturday night is host to large groups of younger people staggering about drunk and urinating in the street, with pubs that open to 2 am and lots of them pumping out party music. Who knew?
I feel sorry for any foreign tourists who imagine they might be wandering the streets of a historic English town, taking in the atmosphere and stopping by a quiet bar or restaurant, as I was in similar sized places in Italy last month.
Isn't that bog standard for Banbury-like towns anyway?
@hyufd. My apologies. I asked you a question this morning and then I buggered off before your reply. I didn't mean to ignore you.
To reiterate I was commenting on the reports today of senior constitution experts and senior Conservatives who were very worried about Boris breaking the constitution apart. Gillian Shepherd relieved it survived. They were particularly concerned about him asking for a dissolution.
I asked you whether you were concerned about this. You replied that we don't have a written constitution. I don't think I can let you get away with that. Written or not we do have a constitution and of all the people who post here I expect you to be the greatest defender of such. You post frequently such.
So what do you think of these senior experts and Conservatives who were so worried about his behaviour. Surely they are your type of Conservative.
As I posted we have a constitution based on crown in Parliament. Technically Boris was only the Queen’s chief minister, he had no power in government without the Queen's consent and no power to call a general election if the Queen disagreed.
If he had asked for a general election it was still up to the Queen. Had she agreed that would have been within the constitution, had she disagreed and asked Parliament to confirm a snap general election that would also have been within the constitution
"constitution" = whatever Tories make up on the spur of the moment. Usually drawn from '1066 and all that', sorry pardon me I mean 'Our Island Story'.
Mrs Stodge in far from a happy mood after the fortnightly shop at our local Sainsbury's, Not the prices so much - an occasional seethe but as I pay for the scoff, that's my problem.
What irritated her was the 25 minutes it took from joining one of the checkout queues to actually paying.
Just three tills open on a busy Sunday - it seems as with so many other places there is a desperate shortage of staff and those left cannot cope with the customer demand.
It did occur to me one way to alleviate the problem was to suspend the Sunday Trading Laws for 6 months to allow businesses to adapt, adjust and recruit.
It also occurred to me we could all cope with having a quieter day to each week - perhaps a winning message for a social conservative (or perhaps not).
Where have all the workers gone?
I haven't used the check out for years
Mind you we do have a weekly delivery so the self check outs are quicker and easier
@hyufd. My apologies. I asked you a question this morning and then I buggered off before your reply. I didn't mean to ignore you.
To reiterate I was commenting on the reports today of senior constitution experts and senior Conservatives who were very worried about Boris breaking the constitution apart. Gillian Shepherd relieved it survived. They were particularly concerned about him asking for a dissolution.
I asked you whether you were concerned about this. You replied that we don't have a written constitution. I don't think I can let you get away with that. Written or not we do have a constitution and of all the people who post here I expect you to be the greatest defender of such. You post frequently such.
So what do you think of these senior experts and Conservatives who were so worried about his behaviour. Surely they are your type of Conservative.
As I posted we have a constitution based on crown in Parliament. Technically Boris was only the Queen’s chief minister, he had no power in government without the Queen's consent and no power to call a general election if the Queen disagreed.
If he had asked for a general election it was still up to the Queen. Had she agreed that would have been within the constitution, had she disagreed and asked Parliament to confirm a snap general election that would also have been within the constitution
OK but there is still my initial question which seems even more pertinent now: Why were constitutional experts and senior Tories so worried then that Boris has been destroying the constitution? Lord Peter Hennessy and Baroness Gillian Shephard are both highly respected and are both conservative with a big and little 'c' and they both disagree with you.
Also and related surely the Queen should never be put into such a position. She does not do politics. As soon as she does you are on the slippery slope to republicanism surely which is not what you want.
Of course the Monarch does politics to at least a minimal degree, as would even a ceremonial President. The Monarch is Head of State not the PM it is for the Monarch to decide when to call a general election and who to appoint as her PM who can command the confidence of Parliament.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with any argument for a republic eg the Monarch vetoing bills passed by Parliament
Maggie Throup for Zahawi who is now astonishingly in 4th place - though it's very close and numbers are all incredibly low compared to what will be needed.
@hyufd. My apologies. I asked you a question this morning and then I buggered off before your reply. I didn't mean to ignore you.
To reiterate I was commenting on the reports today of senior constitution experts and senior Conservatives who were very worried about Boris breaking the constitution apart. Gillian Shepherd relieved it survived. They were particularly concerned about him asking for a dissolution.
I asked you whether you were concerned about this. You replied that we don't have a written constitution. I don't think I can let you get away with that. Written or not we do have a constitution and of all the people who post here I expect you to be the greatest defender of such. You post frequently such.
So what do you think of these senior experts and Conservatives who were so worried about his behaviour. Surely they are your type of Conservative.
As I posted we have a constitution based on crown in Parliament. Technically Boris was only the Queen’s chief minister, he had no power in government without the Queen's consent and no power to call a general election if the Queen disagreed.
If he had asked for a general election it was still up to the Queen. Had she agreed that would have been within the constitution, had she disagreed and asked Parliament to confirm a snap general election that would also have been within the constitution
OK but there is still my initial question which seems even more pertinent now: Why were constitutional experts and senior Tories so worried then that Boris has been destroying the constitution? Lord Peter Hennessy and Baroness Gillian Shephard are both highly respected and are both conservative with a big and little 'c' and they both disagree with you.
Also and related surely the Queen should never be put into such a position. She does not do politics. As soon as she does you are on the slippery slope to republicanism surely which is not what you want.
Of course the Monarch does politics to at least a minimal degree, as would even a ceremonial President. The Monarch is Head of State not the PM it is for the Monarch to decide when to call a general election and who to appoint as her PM who can command the confidence of Parliament.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with any argument for a republic eg the Monarch vetoing bills passed by Parliament
YOu said the other week HMTQ doesn't interfere in politics, but she did in the referendum in 2014, and she and her son do in legislation affecting their interests.
Mind you we do have a weekly delivery so the self check outs are quicker and easier
Mrs Stodge had a couple of bad experiences with deliveries during lockdown and quite enjoys going round the supermarket to see what's available and looking at what's on discount.
Looking at the other comments, I don't know what Sainsbury's pay their till-trained staff but I do agree this is not a good climate to be paying less than the competition.
As for "not going to the supermarket", all I can evidence is a lot of people still do at least at the weekend. During the week, it is quieter and much more pleasant but unfortunately for many including families the weekend shop remains the only option.
💥 NEW: Senior Tories want to rapidly thin out the field of leadership candidates
One senior MP close to 1922 committee it was “likely” candidates must secure the support of at least 10% of the parliamentary party to get on to the ballot paper - 36 MPs
I think this is starting to shape up very, very badly for the conservatives.
The members are going to get a choice of tweedle dum or tweedle dee from the left of the party. Sunak plus one.
However a Sunday Times poll today had Sunak, Mordaunt and Tugendhat polling equal best in the redwall seats of the Tory leadership contenders in terms of net approval.
Even though Starmer polls better than all the Tory contenders now in the redwall with Boris gone
Do you ever have a view independent from your choice of polls
Half the point of this site is polls
Surely that poll is essentially driven by recognition. Most voters can name very few politicos, much less what they stand for.
Nobody knows what Mordaunt and Tugendhat stand for. Not even the Spectator. They tried to find Mordaunt's policies in vain through the vacuous bullsh8t of her launch.
I made that point earlier today, HYUFD didn't accept it.
She laid out her ideas in her recent book. Not everything I would agree with, but a coherent philosophy.
Sorry not the point I was referring to. My mistake for not making clear. I was referring to polls being driven by recognition. Actually as I have said as a LD she is my biggest fear as Tory leader.
You are wrong on that.
If you were correct Sunak followed by Hunt and Truss would be doing best on the net approval rating polls as the most well known candidates. Not Mordaunt and Tugendhat.
Instead Hunt and Patel do worst on the net approval rating polls despite being amongst the best known candidates being a former Foreign Secretary and final round leadership contender and the current Home Secretary
No I am not. You can't deduce that at all. You are making assumptions, which you shouldn't do. As I posted earlier today recognition can work both ways. So for example Boris compared to A N Other may get a good score because he is recognised or a bad score because people don't like him, whereas they don't know the other person. Or it can be a mix of both. The numbers can be anything so you can deduce nothing.
When carrying out a statistical test for say light bulb longevity you only have the MOE and the probability that it will be within the MOE to worry about. So typically 95% sure it will be within 5% of the result.
However as soon as you poll people you have other variables with regard to the sample you select and the question you ask. Both can completely bugger up a result. Hence polling companies do so much work on this, and still get it wrong.
A question on popularity when some are significantly more well known than others is intrinsically flawed and you don't know in which direction the flaws are going to apply, so your assumption about the results above is worthless.
It is fun, hence they are done, and maybe you can make a gut deduction from it, from what you perceive as commonsense. as you have done, but you must be aware it is mathematically useless.
No it isn't at all as it is not a favourable or popularity poll which would be name recognition but a NET favourable poll ie comparing positive and negative ratings of each candidate which is relevant however many have heard of them in showing how actually popular they are.
The huge tax pledges of Liz Truss, Jeremy Hunt and Sajid Javid are going to be expensive - with few explanations of how it’s going to be paid for. All part of their plans to win MPs.
They are going to trash each other to try and get the gig. Labour will just watch and laugh
First it was "Party before Country" as the Tories used Brexit to get the UKIP tanks off their lawn.
Now it is just naked, personal ambition which comes ahead of Party interests with the country in a poor 3rd place. They will promise anything to become PM, even if the result of their promises is massively increasing the national debt or just trashing their Party's chances in the next election.
Do we know the latest tory membership figures? It seems to me that an ageing, Brexit-obsessed cohort whose prime political memory is of Thatcher's time of what maybe 150k people will decide the next PM?
Yes, but there is a sort of gap in the reasoning. Let's say 150,000 people get to choose the next PM. If this is terrible the reason is nothing whatever to do with those people. They are the only people not responsible for the problem.
100% of the responsibility (which is not the same as blame) lies with the other 58,000,000 (or whatever number) who could be members but are not.
So it is partly my fault for not joining the Tory party? It is not free to join and I disagree profoundly with their aims and policies.
Am I also supposed to be a member of the LibDems and of Labour to make sure that I can shape their policies?
When am I allowed to stop joining parties?
Read it more carefully. I am not making a moral point, and said so clearly.
But you do seem to be saying that everyone in the country should join every party so that policy and leaders is controlled better.
I thought that was rationale behind General Elections rather than Party membership
No seeming, no shoulds. Read what I said.
You said: "100% of the responsibility (which is not the same as blame) lies with the other 58,000,000 (or whatever number) who could be members but are not."
So according to you, we all have a responsibility to be Tory members. That is exactly what that says. What other interpretation is there?
algakirk is saying that the rest of us are responsible for the outcome, not that we have a responsibility to change it. There's no judgement in the post as I read it, just a statement of fact. Though I'd argue we don't have 100% of the responsibility - the Conservative party could choose to ballot us even though we're not members. That would be fun.
I disagree. If we have a responsibility for something then that implies that we have a responsibility to act upon it to ensure the correct result or outcome.
Conversely, if we have no responsibility for the outcome of something then we are not responsible for it in any way at all.
Mrs Stodge in far from a happy mood after the fortnightly shop at our local Sainsbury's, Not the prices so much - an occasional seethe but as I pay for the scoff, that's my problem.
What irritated her was the 25 minutes it took from joining one of the checkout queues to actually paying.
Just three tills open on a busy Sunday - it seems as with so many other places there is a desperate shortage of staff and those left cannot cope with the customer demand.
It did occur to me one way to alleviate the problem was to suspend the Sunday Trading Laws for 6 months to allow businesses to adapt, adjust and recruit.
It also occurred to me we could all cope with having a quieter day to each week - perhaps a winning message for a social conservative (or perhaps not).
Where have all the workers gone?
Did you explain to Mrs Stodge that unfortunately when you voted for Brexit you hadn't thought that when all the bright young things that came to England to learn the language and have fun wouldn't be allowed to come anymore so we'd have a hollowed out workforce so she'd have to wait 25 minutes. If you ever take her out for a meal she'll probably find it even worse
@hyufd. My apologies. I asked you a question this morning and then I buggered off before your reply. I didn't mean to ignore you.
To reiterate I was commenting on the reports today of senior constitution experts and senior Conservatives who were very worried about Boris breaking the constitution apart. Gillian Shepherd relieved it survived. They were particularly concerned about him asking for a dissolution.
I asked you whether you were concerned about this. You replied that we don't have a written constitution. I don't think I can let you get away with that. Written or not we do have a constitution and of all the people who post here I expect you to be the greatest defender of such. You post frequently such.
So what do you think of these senior experts and Conservatives who were so worried about his behaviour. Surely they are your type of Conservative.
As I posted we have a constitution based on crown in Parliament. Technically Boris was only the Queen’s chief minister, he had no power in government without the Queen's consent and no power to call a general election if the Queen disagreed.
If he had asked for a general election it was still up to the Queen. Had she agreed that would have been within the constitution, had she disagreed and asked Parliament to confirm a snap general election that would also have been within the constitution
OK but there is still my initial question which seems even more pertinent now: Why were constitutional experts and senior Tories so worried then that Boris has been destroying the constitution? Lord Peter Hennessy and Baroness Gillian Shephard are both highly respected and are both conservative with a big and little 'c' and they both disagree with you.
Also and related surely the Queen should never be put into such a position. She does not do politics. As soon as she does you are on the slippery slope to republicanism surely which is not what you want.
Of course the Monarch does politics to at least a minimal degree, as would even a ceremonial President. The Monarch is Head of State not the PM it is for the Monarch to decide when to call a general election and who to appoint as her PM who can command the confidence of Parliament.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with any argument for a republic eg the Monarch vetoing bills passed by Parliament
YOu said the other week HMTQ doesn't interfere in politics, but she did in the referendum in 2014, and she and her son do in legislation affecting their interests.
Telling people to think before voting is common sense advice. It isn't interfering in politics.
@hyufd. My apologies. I asked you a question this morning and then I buggered off before your reply. I didn't mean to ignore you.
To reiterate I was commenting on the reports today of senior constitution experts and senior Conservatives who were very worried about Boris breaking the constitution apart. Gillian Shepherd relieved it survived. They were particularly concerned about him asking for a dissolution.
I asked you whether you were concerned about this. You replied that we don't have a written constitution. I don't think I can let you get away with that. Written or not we do have a constitution and of all the people who post here I expect you to be the greatest defender of such. You post frequently such.
So what do you think of these senior experts and Conservatives who were so worried about his behaviour. Surely they are your type of Conservative.
As I posted we have a constitution based on crown in Parliament. Technically Boris was only the Queen’s chief minister, he had no power in government without the Queen's consent and no power to call a general election if the Queen disagreed.
If he had asked for a general election it was still up to the Queen. Had she agreed that would have been within the constitution, had she disagreed and asked Parliament to confirm a snap general election that would also have been within the constitution
OK but there is still my initial question which seems even more pertinent now: Why were constitutional experts and senior Tories so worried then that Boris has been destroying the constitution? Lord Peter Hennessy and Baroness Gillian Shephard are both highly respected and are both conservative with a big and little 'c' and they both disagree with you.
Also and related surely the Queen should never be put into such a position. She does not do politics. As soon as she does you are on the slippery slope to republicanism surely which is not what you want.
Of course the Monarch does politics to at least a minimal degree, as would even a ceremonial President. The Monarch is Head of State not the PM it is for the Monarch to decide when to call a general election and who to appoint as her PM who can command the confidence of Parliament.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with any argument for a republic eg the Monarch vetoing bills passed by Parliament
YOu said the other week HMTQ doesn't interfere in politics, but she did in the referendum in 2014, and she and her son do in legislation affecting their interests.
No she didn't, she didn't even tell people to vote No.
The fact far left Scottish Nationalist Republicans with an anti monarchy agenda like you think she did is irrelevant.
The Monarch is perfectly entitled to request amendments affecting her personal property, it is up to Parliament to agree
@hyufd. My apologies. I asked you a question this morning and then I buggered off before your reply. I didn't mean to ignore you.
To reiterate I was commenting on the reports today of senior constitution experts and senior Conservatives who were very worried about Boris breaking the constitution apart. Gillian Shepherd relieved it survived. They were particularly concerned about him asking for a dissolution.
I asked you whether you were concerned about this. You replied that we don't have a written constitution. I don't think I can let you get away with that. Written or not we do have a constitution and of all the people who post here I expect you to be the greatest defender of such. You post frequently such.
So what do you think of these senior experts and Conservatives who were so worried about his behaviour. Surely they are your type of Conservative.
As I posted we have a constitution based on crown in Parliament. Technically Boris was only the Queen’s chief minister, he had no power in government without the Queen's consent and no power to call a general election if the Queen disagreed.
If he had asked for a general election it was still up to the Queen. Had she agreed that would have been within the constitution, had she disagreed and asked Parliament to confirm a snap general election that would also have been within the constitution
OK but there is still my initial question which seems even more pertinent now: Why were constitutional experts and senior Tories so worried then that Boris has been destroying the constitution? Lord Peter Hennessy and Baroness Gillian Shephard are both highly respected and are both conservative with a big and little 'c' and they both disagree with you.
Also and related surely the Queen should never be put into such a position. She does not do politics. As soon as she does you are on the slippery slope to republicanism surely which is not what you want.
Of course the Monarch does politics to at least a minimal degree, as would even a ceremonial President. The Monarch is Head of State not the PM it is for the Monarch to decide when to call a general election and who to appoint as her PM who can command the confidence of Parliament.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with any argument for a republic eg the Monarch vetoing bills passed by Parliament
YOu said the other week HMTQ doesn't interfere in politics, but she did in the referendum in 2014, and she and her son do in legislation affecting their interests.
Telling people to think before voting is common sense advice. It isn't interfering in politics.
The way it was - as the PAlace knew - presented in the UNionist media? Come off it.
Mrs Stodge in far from a happy mood after the fortnightly shop at our local Sainsbury's, Not the prices so much - an occasional seethe but as I pay for the scoff, that's my problem.
What irritated her was the 25 minutes it took from joining one of the checkout queues to actually paying.
Just three tills open on a busy Sunday - it seems as with so many other places there is a desperate shortage of staff and those left cannot cope with the customer demand.
It did occur to me one way to alleviate the problem was to suspend the Sunday Trading Laws for 6 months to allow businesses to adapt, adjust and recruit.
It also occurred to me we could all cope with having a quieter day to each week - perhaps a winning message for a social conservative (or perhaps not).
Where have all the workers gone?
Quite a few have retired. Others are not interested in shit jobs that that pay, minimum wage. Or use piece work pay to get round minimum wages. The phenomenon is being seen round the developed world.
The future of food shopping, by the way, is Amazon Fresh - one person managing a medium sized store, with automated tech taking an inventory of what you are packing in tote shopping back.
Maggie Throup for Zahawi who is now astonishingly in 4th place - though it's very close and numbers are all incredibly low compared to what will be needed.
@hyufd. My apologies. I asked you a question this morning and then I buggered off before your reply. I didn't mean to ignore you.
To reiterate I was commenting on the reports today of senior constitution experts and senior Conservatives who were very worried about Boris breaking the constitution apart. Gillian Shepherd relieved it survived. They were particularly concerned about him asking for a dissolution.
I asked you whether you were concerned about this. You replied that we don't have a written constitution. I don't think I can let you get away with that. Written or not we do have a constitution and of all the people who post here I expect you to be the greatest defender of such. You post frequently such.
So what do you think of these senior experts and Conservatives who were so worried about his behaviour. Surely they are your type of Conservative.
As I posted we have a constitution based on crown in Parliament. Technically Boris was only the Queen’s chief minister, he had no power in government without the Queen's consent and no power to call a general election if the Queen disagreed.
If he had asked for a general election it was still up to the Queen. Had she agreed that would have been within the constitution, had she disagreed and asked Parliament to confirm a snap general election that would also have been within the constitution
OK but there is still my initial question which seems even more pertinent now: Why were constitutional experts and senior Tories so worried then that Boris has been destroying the constitution? Lord Peter Hennessy and Baroness Gillian Shephard are both highly respected and are both conservative with a big and little 'c' and they both disagree with you.
Also and related surely the Queen should never be put into such a position. She does not do politics. As soon as she does you are on the slippery slope to republicanism surely which is not what you want.
Of course the Monarch does politics to at least a minimal degree, as would even a ceremonial President. The Monarch is Head of State not the PM it is for the Monarch to decide when to call a general election and who to appoint as her PM who can command the confidence of Parliament.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with any argument for a republic eg the Monarch vetoing bills passed by Parliament
YOu said the other week HMTQ doesn't interfere in politics, but she did in the referendum in 2014, and she and her son do in legislation affecting their interests.
No she didn't, she didn't even tell people to vote No.
The fact far left Scottish Nationalist Republicans with an anti monarchy agenda like you think she did is irrelevant.
The Monarch is perfectly entitled to request amendments affecting her personal property, it is up to Parliament to agree
But she's in a different position from the rest of us. She can refuse. Think about that. As for republicanism, I'm actrually *complaining* about the sort of behaviour which gives royalism a bad name. And I'm a centrist dad, I can't help it if you are so far to the right of Genghis Khan you are falling off the graph paper.
I think JRM supports her too - he spoke of 'no baggage' earlier, and judging from another MP's endorsement Tweet, 'no baggage' is a Kemi campaign theme. It's a pre-attack defence to make up for 'lack of experience'.
IF they put the threshold at 36 MP's, then who doesn't make the starting line? Javid, Shapps, Braverman. Possibly one or two others? I don't like this. A high threshold on the first ballot is much fairer.
I was at a media lunch last week where the guest speaker was ITV's Deputy Political Editor. She said TT impressed the NRG MPs by stepping into BJ's place at short notice and even more so by giving a great speech. Many of those present were apparently very like ' wow'.
We know enough already. When even Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat - supposed to be the sane wing of the party - feel they have to continue with the looniest Boris policies such as the NI Protocol Bill and Rwanda, it's clear that the party isn't yet on speaking terms with reality. Labour can safely sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
Zahawi’s support mystifies me. Unless it is some kind of crypto-Boris gambit.
He is the continuity BoZo candidate
Him and Shapps.
The other fascinating thing is how factions can’t even decide on a single unifying candidate.
Zahawi v Shapps Patel v Braverman Hunt v Tugendhat
Etc
They can’t all win into member vote Its how the factions eventually line up as candidates eliminated in a Sunak v stop Sunak (with Mordant or Truss).
Fair play for outsiders in the race, for the new leader will feel obliged to offer them a favourable cabinet position now, as the party unites to turn its firepower on crushing Labour.
My Dad is sticking with Rishi, my mum is sticking with Truss. My Dad seems certain Truss tops the first ballot, and is not too happy about her winning the whole thing.
I suppose she has been fizzing with Liz for a long time, so would be surprise the Johnson loyalist Foreign Secretary bombs so quickly. Worse, as the little factions get mopped up, how do they break between Rishi, Truss and Mourdant?
Quite a few have retired. Others are not interested in shit jobs that that pay, minimum wage. Or use piece work pay to get round minimum wages. The phenomenon is being seen round the developed world.
The future of food shopping, by the way, is Amazon Fresh - one person managing a medium sized store, with automated tech taking an inventory of what you are packing in tote shopping back.
Well, In East Ham High Street there are plenty of small to medium sized stores which look like they have only one person - not much sign of automated tech in all honesty.
I was at a media lunch last week where the guest speaker was ITV's Deputy Political Editor. She said TT impressed the NRG MPs by stepping into BJ's place at short notice and even more so by giving a great speech. Many of those present were apparently very like ' wow'.
Maggie Throup for Zahawi who is now astonishingly in 4th place - though it's very close and numbers are all incredibly low compared to what will be needed.
We know enough already. When even Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat - supposed to be the sane wing of the party - feel they have to continue with the looniest Boris policies such as the NI Protocol Bill and Rwanda, it's clear that the party isn't yet on speaking terms with reality. Labour can safely sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
We know enough already. When even Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat - supposed to be the sane wing of the party - feel they have to continue with the looniest Boris policies such as the NI Protocol Bill and Rwanda, it's clear that the party isn't yet on speaking terms with reality. Labour can safely sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
I back the NI protocol revisit, it’s not entirely bonkers. But has hunt and Tom really backed the Rwanda madness?
Rwanda is a right of the party stitch up in this situation really, because if in the contest you say you don’t, you are instantly challenged then what?
Politics is about managing delicate situations, where it’s better to be on side of a simple argument than a complicated one.
What I would say to you Richard is don’t take it at face value? Both you and I would say what was needed to get the crown, and then retire the stupid policies inherited?
Zahawi’s support mystifies me. Unless it is some kind of crypto-Boris gambit.
He is the continuity BoZo candidate
Him and Shapps.
The other fascinating thing is how factions can’t even decide on a single unifying candidate.
Zahawi v Shapps Patel v Braverman Hunt v Tugendhat
Etc
They can’t all win into member vote Its how the factions eventually line up as candidates eliminated in a Sunak v stop Sunak (with Mordant or Truss).
Fair play for outsiders in the race, for the new leader will feel obliged to offer them a favourable cabinet position now, as the party unites to turn its firepower on crushing Labour.
My Dad is sticking with Rishi, my mum is sticking with Truss. My Dad seems certain Truss tops the first ballot, and is not too happy about her winning the whole thing.
I suppose she has been fizzing with Liz for a long time, so would be surprise the Johnson loyalist Foreign Secretary bombs so quickly. Worse, as the little factions get mopped up, how do they break between Rishi, Truss and Mourdant?
We know enough already. When even Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat - supposed to be the sane wing of the party - feel they have to continue with the looniest Boris policies such as the NI Protocol Bill and Rwanda, it's clear that the party isn't yet on speaking terms with reality. Labour can safely sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
I back the NI protocol revisit, it’s not entirely bonkers. But has hunt and Tom really backed the Rwanda madness?
Rwanda is a right of the party stitch up in this situation really, because if in the contest you say you don’t, you are instantly challenged then what?
Politics is about managing delicate situations, where it’s better to be on side of a simple argument than a complicated one.
What I would say to you Richard is don’t take it at face value? Both you and I would say what was needed to get the crown, and then retire the stupid policies inherited?
Hunt backed Rwanda policy live on BBC this morning
We know enough already. When even Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat - supposed to be the sane wing of the party - feel they have to continue with the looniest Boris policies such as the NI Protocol Bill and Rwanda, it's clear that the party isn't yet on speaking terms with reality. Labour can safely sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
I back the NI protocol revisit, it’s not entirely bonkers. But has hunt and Tom really backed the Rwanda madness?
Rwanda is a right of the party stitch up in this situation really, because if in the contest you say you don’t, you are instantly challenged then what?
Politics is about managing delicate situations, where it’s better to be on side of a simple argument than a complicated one.
What I would say to you Richard is don’t take it at face value? Both you and I would say what was needed to get the crown, and then retire the stupid policies inherited?
Hunt backed Rwanda policy live on BBC this morning
Like most of them, what every they say will be ditched the minute they win and start to think about GE 2024/5
Maggie Throup for Zahawi who is now astonishingly in 4th place - though it's very close and numbers are all incredibly low compared to what will be needed.
Spent the day discussing cabbages and Kings with a friend. He surprised me by his enthusiasm for Badenoch. His least favoured candidate Rishi, whom he feels 'hates SMEs'.
Professor John Curtice says Scottish independence won't be hurt by resignation of Boris Johnson
THE resignation of Boris Johnson will not impact on support for independence as his Brexit legacy will not disappear with him, Scotland’s leading pollster has said.
As the Prime Minister who was dubbed the “best recruiting sergeant” for independence, questions have been raised over whether Johnson’s departure will make a difference to the campaign to leave the UK.
Professor John Curtice says Scottish independence won't be hurt by resignation of Boris Johnson
THE resignation of Boris Johnson will not impact on support for independence as his Brexit legacy will not disappear with him, Scotland’s leading pollster has said.
As the Prime Minister who was dubbed the “best recruiting sergeant” for independence, questions have been raised over whether Johnson’s departure will make a difference to the campaign to leave the UK.
(The National; €)
It won't affect the UK government's refusal of an official indyref2 either!!
Jesus Christ, Gove’s getting some good shit. He’s off his tits.
I know Badenoch is unlikely to get through to the membership, but I’m worried she will by some fluke, and if she does the batshit crazy membership might just give it to her.
On a positive note, it would be great to see a black woman as PM.
That’s the only positive I can see. Well, maybe the other one would be to make the Tories unelectable. Nothing to do with her gender, or colour. Entirely to do with the fact that she’s absolutely fucking mental.
She’s the Tory id personified, right there before our eyes. Reduce the state to its bare essentials? I wonder what she sees as essential and what can be happily sacrificed as non-essential. You can guess, can’t you?
Johnson’s done his job for the Tories. The conventional wisdom is that he has used the party simply to achieve power. Perhaps with time we’ll come to think that it was the party that has used Johnson. An unconventional politician who appealed to Leavers across the traditional spectrum and got us out of the EU. Jettisoned when his magic started to fade along, perhaps, with any pretence of levelling up; the party can bin all the Brexit ‘benefits’ the Red Wall seem to think is their due, that Johnson is the hapless face of, and shamelessly return to cutting and slashing and reducing the services that mean so much to the Red Wallers.
Tragic, really, and completely amoral. But, hey, Tories gonna Tory.
We know enough already. When even Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat - supposed to be the sane wing of the party - feel they have to continue with the looniest Boris policies such as the NI Protocol Bill and Rwanda, it's clear that the party isn't yet on speaking terms with reality. Labour can safely sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
[snip!] What I would say to you Richard is don’t take it at face value? Both you and I would say what was needed to get the crown, and then retire the stupid policies inherited?
The end justifies the means? Promise one thing and then do something else?
Comments
I never confuse Gypsys with Travelers.
For instance:
"The Boyhood of W. R. Grace"
"Baden-Powell on Football"
"Queer Adventure on an Italian Lake"
"Old English Sports and Pastimes"
"Scouting for Girls" by His Majesty Edward VII
Seriously though, don't Sainsbury's do self-check as you shop, like Waitrose?
Edit: is this the same Sainsbury's who have rejected a proposal to pay all staff at least the Living Wage?
https://news.sky.com/story/sainsburys-can-breathe-sigh-of-relief-as-real-living-wage-motion-is-rejected-12647626
When carrying out a statistical test for say light bulb longevity you only have the MOE and the probability that it will be within the MOE to worry about. So typically 95% sure it will be within 5% of the result.
However as soon as you poll people you have other variables with regard to the sample you select and the question you ask. Both can completely bugger up a result. Hence polling companies do so much work on this, and still get it wrong.
A question on popularity when some are significantly more well known than others is intrinsically flawed and you don't know in which direction the flaws are going to apply, so your assumption about the results above is worthless.
It is fun, hence they are done, and maybe you can make a gut deduction from it, from what you perceive as commonsense. as you have done, but you must be aware it is mathematically useless.
Why does everyone miss out the obvious solution?
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1638367/Tom-Tugendhat-conservative-party-next-prime-minister
I suspect they'll want a bit longer because maybe 6-8 will actually even get on the ballot. If they provide a threshold at each stage (rather than just next one out) then you should only need 3.
Sunak: 30 MPs (+12)
Mordaunt: 18 (+11)
Hunt: 12 (+10)
Truss: 12 (+6)
Tugendhat: 12 (+6)
Badenoch: 11 (+5)
Zahawi: 10 (+7)
Braverman: 9 (-)
Chgs. w/ 24hrs ago
New 1922 committee exec will decide timetable, expected to be down to final two before recess, and threshold - with calls for it to be 20-25 in first ballot to whittle down fast.
First ballot planned for weds morning, even before any hustings can be held, to directly compare candidates.
Further rounds of votes expected this coming week, if the final two are to be decided by July 21.
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1546225018400563203
And curiously we love it that way, and the world keeps complaining it is getting harder to join our number. 29% of UK babies are born to foreign born mothers, while Italy's birthrate is approximately zero.
Anyone got a plan to deal with that?
Esp. to those with way more than minimal interests & stakes.
I've reconsidered
Dickson's maniacal malice against long lamented poster SeanT is somewhat stranger
Says a lot.
I like what I've seen of her so far (obviously). I wouldn't mind at all if she won - still a bit of a mountain to climb, but Gove's endorsement is an important one.
Mind you we do have a weekly delivery so the self check outs are quicker and easier
Amazing how well the “unknowns” (TT, KB, PM) are doing.
Unless it is some kind of crypto-Boris gambit.
So here’s one I made earlier… https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1546226346539483136/video/1
That has nothing whatsoever to do with any argument for a republic eg the Monarch vetoing bills passed by Parliament
Sunak - 34
Mordaunt - 21
Tugendhat - 16
Zahawi - 14
Truss - 13
Hunt - 13
Badenoch - 13
Patel -12
Braverman - 10
Javid - 10
Shapps - 8
It seems to me that it's going to boil down to who will be more transfer friendly - Mordaunt or Truss.
The other fascinating thing is how factions can’t even decide on a single unifying candidate.
Zahawi v Shapps
Patel v Braverman
Hunt v Tugendhat
Etc
That's it.
Kate Ferguson
@kateferguson4
TOP EXCL in today's Paper
Tory big beast (and king maker?) @michaelgove BACKS @KemiBadenoch to be the next Tory leader and PM.
Writing for @TheSun he says Kemi has the "right stuff" to lead the UK
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1546219768411209729
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19155009/gove-backs-badenoch-tory-leadership/
Didn’t see that coming.
Looking at the other comments, I don't know what Sainsbury's pay their till-trained staff but I do agree this is not a good climate to be paying less than the competition.
As for "not going to the supermarket", all I can evidence is a lot of people still do at least at the weekend. During the week, it is quieter and much more pleasant but unfortunately for many including families the weekend shop remains the only option.
Conversely, if we have no responsibility for the outcome of something then we are not responsible for it in any way at all.
Responsibility implies the need for action
The fact far left Scottish Nationalist Republicans with an anti monarchy agenda like you think she did is irrelevant.
The Monarch is perfectly entitled to request amendments affecting her personal property, it is up to Parliament to agree
The future of food shopping, by the way, is Amazon Fresh - one person managing a medium sized store, with automated tech taking an inventory of what you are packing in tote shopping back.
Draw 4.2
Norway 5.9
Group match
Tomorrow
Brighton & Hove Community Stadium
Form:
E WWWWW
N WWWWW
As in Penny Mordant Tory
I’d previously laid Raab for next PM @ absurdly low odds. Finally managed to re-back @ >500/1 to release my stake money.
I got money in my BF bank again. Whose odds are most wrong, PB’ers? Where is the value?
(Truss is a looney.)
Javid, Shapps, Braverman. Possibly one or two others?
I don't like this. A high threshold on the first ballot is much fairer.
(I was a Wallace man until yesterday.)
Still don't rate his chances but...
Fair play for outsiders in the race, for the new leader will feel obliged to offer them a favourable cabinet position now, as the party unites to turn its firepower on crushing Labour.
My Dad is sticking with Rishi, my mum is sticking with Truss. My Dad seems certain Truss tops the first ballot, and is not too happy about her winning the whole thing.
I suppose she has been fizzing with Liz for a long time, so would be surprise the Johnson loyalist Foreign Secretary bombs so quickly. Worse, as the little factions get mopped up, how do they break between Rishi, Truss and Mourdant?
Hope this helps.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1546228243916881923
https://twitter.com/sam_lister_/status/1546223542685110273
Rwanda is a right of the party stitch up in this situation really, because if in the contest you say you don’t, you are instantly challenged then what?
Politics is about managing delicate situations, where it’s better to be on side of a simple argument than a complicated one.
What I would say to you Richard is don’t take it at face value? Both you and I would say what was needed to get the crown, and then retire the stupid policies inherited?
Got to go now, we are at a party and someone else wants to use the loo.
His least favoured candidate Rishi, whom he feels 'hates SMEs'.
Professor John Curtice says Scottish independence won't be hurt by resignation of Boris Johnson
THE resignation of Boris Johnson will not impact on support for independence as his Brexit legacy will not disappear with him, Scotland’s leading pollster has said.
As the Prime Minister who was dubbed the “best recruiting sergeant” for independence, questions have been raised over whether Johnson’s departure will make a difference to the campaign to leave the UK.
(The National; €)
I know Badenoch is unlikely to get through to the membership, but I’m worried she will by some fluke, and if she does the batshit crazy membership might just give it to her.
On a positive note, it would be great to see a black woman as PM.
That’s the only positive I can see. Well, maybe the other one would be to make the Tories unelectable. Nothing to do with her gender, or colour. Entirely to do with the fact that she’s absolutely fucking mental.
She’s the Tory id personified, right there before our eyes. Reduce the state to its bare essentials? I wonder what she sees as essential and what can be happily sacrificed as non-essential. You can guess, can’t you?
Johnson’s done his job for the Tories. The conventional wisdom is that he has used the party simply to achieve power. Perhaps with time we’ll come to think that it was the party that has used Johnson. An unconventional politician who appealed to Leavers across the traditional spectrum and got us out of the EU. Jettisoned when his magic started to fade along,
perhaps, with any pretence of levelling up; the party can bin all the Brexit ‘benefits’ the Red Wall seem to think is their due, that Johnson is the hapless face of, and shamelessly return to cutting and slashing and reducing the services that mean so much to the Red Wallers.
Tragic, really, and completely amoral. But, hey, Tories gonna Tory.
Ten.
You think that this is acceptable behaviour?
Perhaps you should be PM...
Is she any good?
THREE Tory leadership hopefuls reveal policy plans in @Telegraph
* Liz Truss goes public with bid, vowing “day one” tax cuts
* Zahawi signals cuts to corp tax, income tax, biz rates
* Morduant: *halve* fuel VAT, raise i-tax thresholds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/10/liz-truss-launches-leadership-bid-tax-cut-challenge-rishi-sunak/