What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
It does raise an interesting question though as to how come the Conservative Party, without all female/minority shortlists have been able to get so many women and minorities right to the very top of the party (and not just padding out the backbenches) . . . but how come the union leaders are all '[white] male and wealthy'.
Why are the unions so unrepresentative?
PS "they didn't".
Door after door after door after door. Talking to white voters in an almost entirely white British area being told there are too many foreigners. As I said - a "nasty insular whiter Britain". You can say that I didn't have those appalling conversations all you like. I did. And there is reams of evidence and reportage from the time backing that up.
Its just that people don't want to be associated with racism and their petty bigotry and jingoist friends. I can understand that. Its not so much that people are racist - reality is far more subtle than that. Its that they dislike the other. Whether that is Europeans or non-whites or people not born in Yorkshire or people who like ballet or whatever. I - like you - am a white man who voted to leave. I - like you did not do so for any of the reasons I just listed. We are not racist or bigoted or bitter. But all the people who are voted leave. That doesn't mean that all leavers are racist, just that all racists voted leave. Why is that hard to grasp?
Because it isn't true?
I know of Remain voters who voted Remain because they were comfortable with free movement of Europeans filling labour voids but not Commonwealth/whole world.
Your anecdote assumes it was bigotry that was meant rather than volume.
Kind of think that if the growth figure had been 0 or negative there would be more comment on here. Bunch of doomsayers the lot of you.
It's a mechanical effect driven by the loss of a Bank Holiday in May, which means one extra working day. We will see a bigger negative effect in June when there are two fewer working days. We saw the same thing in 2002 and 2012. For some reason (because they're crap?) most forecasters missed this. The number was actually a bit weaker than I had expected. Q2 GDP will probably be negative because of this working day effect.
The ONS adjusted for that…..
I'm not sure about that. I have read the accompanying commentary several times and it's still not clear to me, as is unfortunately often the way with the ONS. They say that they have followed their "usual practice" and in 2002 and 2012 you saw exactly the same pattern.
Seasonal adjustment and special events Previous experience in 2002 and 2012 highlighted that the Jubilee and the timing of bank holidays might lead to more volatile movements in the monthly path of gross domestic product (GDP) in May and June. As part of our usual practice, prior adjustments are made for calendar effects (where statistically significant) such as returns that do not comply with the standard trading period, bank holidays, Easter and the day of the week Christmas occurs. Adjustments for repeating and predictable effects are estimated and removed from the final seasonally adjusted series, for example, a permanent change in the seasonal pattern. Adjustments for effects that do not repeat are estimated and removed during the seasonal adjustment process but are then put back in to the final seasonally adjusted series, for example, the effect of extreme weather. We will continue to review these adjustments on a regular basis.
If you're "not sure about this" how can you be confident that "It's a mechanical effect driven by the loss of a Bank Holiday in May, which means one extra working day. We will see a bigger negative effect in June when there are two fewer working days.?
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
We’re not counting Disraeli then?
Disraeli was not Jewish in religious terms, as his family had switched to Christianity. The extent to which Jewishness or Judaism counts as an ethnicity is not straightforward: you might remember there was a bit of a fuss around the census. How Disraeli self-identified — no idea. You'd need to ask a top historian of the Victorian era, like Jacob Rees-Mogg.
JRM isn’t a historian of the Victorian era, he’s a living eyewitness.
Sitcoms: Coupling, written by Steven Moffatt of Press Gang and Doctor Who fame, is very good.
Given this is pb, it is surprising no-one has mentioned Hot Metal (newspapers) and Drop the Dead Donkey (television) for sending up the news business.
Derry Girls, of course, set against The Troubles and with the Good Friday Agreement as its finale, complete with voter ID cards. For some reason they are streaming a clip reel from series 2 on Youtube, rather than just uploading it as a normal video; does any Youtube expert know why they should do this?
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Perhaps war with Russia too. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
It does raise an interesting question though as to how come the Conservative Party, without all female/minority shortlists have been able to get so many women and minorities right to the very top of the party (and not just padding out the backbenches) . . . but how come the union leaders are all '[white] male and wealthy'.
Why are the unions so unrepresentative?
PS "they didn't".
By definition if the Conservative Party MPs and its members elect Kemi Badenoch (who, yes, is a black woman originally from Nigeria) then we really should hear the end of arguments that the party and its members are racist.
Of course, we don't. There will be some dickheads like Femi who will try and argue the opposite.
If Mordaunt wins I guess the strategists at CCHQ can forget the planned 'What is a Woman?' GE.
They'll be free to bin plenty of stuff that was planned for a Boris election campaign.
Although it would be funny to see Penny drive through a polystyrene wall with a JCB. About as much "continuity Boris" as the country needs.
She's going to dye her hair? Huge if true. (Not a reflection on the lady, but an allusion to the blond mop that was a key element of Tory electoral strategy. Though, on further thought, just combing it would be sufficient distinction.)
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Perhaps war with Russia too. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
It shows how out of touch I have become. I didn't realise until the last few days how far Truss has moved on her views and that your (I assume tongue in cheek) comments are not far from the truth, although war with Russia is hopefully just getting really silly. That cabinet though would be fun.
Mr. HYUFD, caught a tiny bit of BBC News yesterday. The ConHome survey they showed had Sunak ahead of Truss, but some way behind the very close pair of Mordaunt (narrowly leading) and Badenoch.
Mordaunt versus Badenoch seems very unlikely but if it did happen that could be a close contest.
No, Truss beat Sunak 51% to 34% in yesterday's ConHome survey.
Femi is literally what I was talking about with regards to Labour's problem.
Two options. Should we: a) Eradicate racism in the Metropolitan Police and thus fix the problem, or b) Teach kids that the policeman is racist and thus embed the problem?
Femi and his ilk want victims to "protect". Its all they have.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Perhaps war with Russia too. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
This is not a judgement about policy content, but as pure performance and for coherence of argument, @KemiBadenoch was impressive today, possibly the best performance by any candidate so far."
It may be Badenoch misses this one but wins to become LOTO in 3 years time.
And she could then defeat a one-term Starmer government.
That is definitely plausible. If Labour come to power in 2024 they will have a very shitty inheritance to deal with. It will make 2010 look like nirvana.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
Boris was of course a wet liberal. Just a wet liberal with zero morals who lied for personal advancement.
That's the point, though. Boris did not only lie for personal advancement. He just lied. When he was not lying, he was bullshitting. That is what makes him so hard to evaluate in normal political terms.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
You are for Tugendhat I believe.
Can you tell us how you rate them after that in descending order.
So
1. Tugendhat 2. ???
etc.
Thx
1. Tugendhat 2. ??? 3. Profit
(although not for me, as I haven't backed Tommy Tugs )
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
You are for Tugendhat I believe.
Can you tell us how you rate them after that in descending order.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
You are for Tugendhat I believe.
Can you tell us how you rate them after that in descending order.
Kind of think that if the growth figure had been 0 or negative there would be more comment on here. Bunch of doomsayers the lot of you.
It's a mechanical effect driven by the loss of a Bank Holiday in May, which means one extra working day. We will see a bigger negative effect in June when there are two fewer working days. We saw the same thing in 2002 and 2012. For some reason (because they're crap?) most forecasters missed this. The number was actually a bit weaker than I had expected. Q2 GDP will probably be negative because of this working day effect.
The ONS adjusted for that…..
I'm not sure about that. I have read the accompanying commentary several times and it's still not clear to me, as is unfortunately often the way with the ONS. They say that they have followed their "usual practice" and in 2002 and 2012 you saw exactly the same pattern.
Seasonal adjustment and special events Previous experience in 2002 and 2012 highlighted that the Jubilee and the timing of bank holidays might lead to more volatile movements in the monthly path of gross domestic product (GDP) in May and June. As part of our usual practice, prior adjustments are made for calendar effects (where statistically significant) such as returns that do not comply with the standard trading period, bank holidays, Easter and the day of the week Christmas occurs. Adjustments for repeating and predictable effects are estimated and removed from the final seasonally adjusted series, for example, a permanent change in the seasonal pattern. Adjustments for effects that do not repeat are estimated and removed during the seasonal adjustment process but are then put back in to the final seasonally adjusted series, for example, the effect of extreme weather. We will continue to review these adjustments on a regular basis.
If you're "not sure about this" how can you be confident that "It's a mechanical effect driven by the loss of a Bank Holiday in May, which means one extra working day. We will see a bigger negative effect in June when there are two fewer working days.?
Because I hadn't read that passage when I made that comment - I was anticipating a high number before it was published and assumed that it was the BH effect driving it as in 2002 and 2012 when the number came out. I then read that passage following your comment and wasn't much the wiser. Since the jubilee isn't a repeating event I would assume still that the effect is in there, especially as the ONS says it is following its usual practice which would suggest the same as 2002/12. But the ONS statement is pretty vague and could be read the other way. Journalists still seem to be expecting a drop in activity in June because of the extra two bank holidays.
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
No likes.
You really haven't a clue, have you?
I disagree. I think there is a lot of sense in that post. That said, if I were still a member I would vote for Mordaunt even though she claims to believe in the stupidity aka Brexit (not sure whether she also believes in Father Christmas and The Little People, but there we are).
We have to move on from Brexit. It was stupid and pointless, and yes lots of people voted for it because they hated foreigners, and a few didn't. To claim otherwise is naive. Brexit is settled and we have to make the most of it. I am not yet convinced that a Starmer led Labour/LD coalition is the best route. There are a few candidates on the list that would make me vote LD if they become leader, but over all I am just relieved we no longer have a Clown for a leader.
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
And she certainly understands PR. You have managed to paint this daughter of a well to do middle class family as someone close to a refugee. Even the touch about working in Macdonalds as though it was that which paid her way through University.
She also happens to be a rabid right winger but if you simply judge someone by the colour of their skin this is something that I imagine is easy to overlook
Femi is literally what I was talking about with regards to Labour's problem.
Two options. Should we: a) Eradicate racism in the Metropolitan Police and thus fix the problem, or b) Teach kids that the policeman is racist and thus embed the problem?
Femi and his ilk want victims to "protect". Its all they have.
Just for (possible) interest, an honest comment on how the leadership race looks from this Labour corner, focusing on the ones with a plausible chance.
Sunak is a serious contender. If the economic problems prove short-lived (e.g. an early cease-fire in Ukraine or a clear dwindling of Covid could help), I can see the year-on-year stats next year looking pretty positive, with inflation well down, and he'd get credit for that. On the other hand, he's not a fresh face and plenty of people already have a settled view of him. A fairly safe choice to avoid disaster, but probably not a winning one.
Mordaunt is hard to call. Most people don't know her, and her fresh, frank personality would be a plus. But I think she'd be seen as a surprise and she seems accident-prone, not least with the botched video that had to be edited twice to remove people she'd forgotten to ask. She might cut through, or stumble and not recover. It may be in her best interest to have a high-profile job like Chancellor first.
Truss is something of a Marmite candidate - perhaps the clearest ideological profile apart from Badenoch, which must attract serious supply-side conservatives, but she annoys a lot of people for no reason that I can pin down. Would probably poll better once actually PM, but I'd be more worried about what she'd do politically than about her election-winning potential.
Badenoch: people misunderstand the left about black Tories - they think we're totally nonplussed, but anyone who's been canvassing has met plenty from every ethnicity. Lucid and pleasant, but suspect she's too preoccupied with culture wars - as with saving trees or cutting corporation tax, people may agree, but it's not their first priority. Would shift the Overton window but lose.
Hunt: probably our most dangerous opponent - consummate politician, few obviously fixed views. We'd find him hard to pin down. But starts with bad poll ratings and his time may possibly have passed.
Tugendhat: has an old-fashioned air, which may not be a bad thing in these troubled times. I think he'd do well in the Blue Wall, but fail to make a dent further north. Not really a big threat.
My guess is that it'll be Sunak vs Truss, and personally I'm fairly relaxed about either.
Comedy dates. That’s my takeaway from this. It dates faster than milk on a hot sunny doorstep
Father Ted is maybe an exception. Blackadder (in part). Bits of Fawlty Towers
All filmed drama or comedy is really about two times. The time it was set, and the time it was made. That is why it often ages so poorly.
So Dad's Army is an early Seventies look at WW2 Britain, by people who largely remembered it, hence its gentle nostalgia and comedy focus on issues of social class. It just didn't mean much to a primary school age me. I preferred the silliness of the Goodies, which has aged even worse.
That's a good assessment, to be fair.
Yet some comedy transcends this age-limit entirely
I’ve mentioned Wodehouse but I’ll put in a word for Byron’s Beppo. Still genuinely funny. 200 years old!
It’s like finding a wine you can still drink after 2 centuries
Movie wise, Airplane and Life of Brian have endured 40-50 years and remain funny, so they too might be around for centuries
This is not a judgement about policy content, but as pure performance and for coherence of argument, @KemiBadenoch was impressive today, possibly the best performance by any candidate so far."
Ok, so we've now all established she must definitely be in the next Cabinet. Can she fold now and let us get this race out of the way urgently and get Johnson out of No 10?
The timing appears to be fixed though I think the members section is far too long. Over 6 weeks.
It would be nice if they'd shortened it a little so Johnson could leave during the silly season.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Perhaps war with Russia too. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
Midsummer Night's Nightmare!
She has certainly been on a political journey, from LD to the support of Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees Mogg. She has done almost as big a volte face as @williamglenn
Just for (possible) interest, an honest comment on how the leadership race looks from this Labour corner, focusing on the ones with a plausible chance.
Sunak is a serious contender. If the economic problems prove short-lived (e.g. an early cease-fire in Ukraine or a clear dwindling of Covid could help), I can see the year-on-year stats next year looking pretty positive, with inflation well down, and he'd get credit for that. On the other hand, he's not a fresh face and plenty of people already have a settled view of him. A fairly safe choice to avoid disaster, but probably not a winning one.
Mordaunt is hard to call. Most people don't know her, and her fresh, frank personality would be a plus. But I think she'd be seen as a surprise and she seems accident-prone, not least with the botched video that had to be edited twice to remove people she'd forgotten to ask. She might cut through, or stumble and not recover. It may be in her best interest to have a high-profile job like Chancellor first.
Truss is something of a Marmite candidate - perhaps the clearest ideological profile apart from Badenoch, which must attract serious supply-side conservatives, but she annoys a lot of people for no reason that I can pin down. Would probably poll better once actually PM, but I'd be more worried about what she'd do politically than about her election-winning potential.
Badenoch: people misunderstand the left about black Tories - they think we're totally nonplussed, but anyone who's been canvassing has met plenty from every ethnicity. Lucid and pleasant, but suspect she's too preoccupied with culture wars - as with saving trees or cutting corporation tax, people may agree, but it's not their first priority. Would shift the Overton window but lose.
Hunt: probably our most dangerous opponent - consummate politician, few obviously fixed views. We'd find him hard to pin down. But starts with bad poll ratings and his time may possibly have passed.
Tugendhat: has an old-fashioned air, which may not be a bad thing in these troubled times. I think he'd do well in the Blue Wall, but fail to make a dent further north. Not really a big threat.
My guess is that it'll be Sunak vs Truss, and personally I'm fairly relaxed about either.
Agree broadly on most, but think you are wrong on Hunt, he would be leading a divided party as too many won't have forgiven him for being a remainer. Which makes it all moot anyway, can't win.
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
It does raise an interesting question though as to how come the Conservative Party, without all female/minority shortlists have been able to get so many women and minorities right to the very top of the party (and not just padding out the backbenches) . . . but how come the union leaders are all '[white] male and wealthy'.
Why are the unions so unrepresentative?
PS "they didn't".
Door after door after door after door. Talking to white voters in an almost entirely white British area being told there are too many foreigners. As I said - a "nasty insular whiter Britain". You can say that I didn't have those appalling conversations all you like. I did. And there is reams of evidence and reportage from the time backing that up.
Its just that people don't want to be associated with racism and their petty bigotry and jingoist friends. I can understand that. Its not so much that people are racist - reality is far more subtle than that. Its that they dislike the other. Whether that is Europeans or non-whites or people not born in Yorkshire or people who like ballet or whatever. I - like you - am a white man who voted to leave. I - like you did not do so for any of the reasons I just listed. We are not racist or bigoted or bitter. But all the people who are voted leave. That doesn't mean that all leavers are racist, just that all racists voted leave. Why is that hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp that some people are racists, but they are a minority. If only racists had voted Leave then Remain would have won a mammoth landslide.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Perhaps war with Russia too. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
Midsummer Night's Nightmare!
She has certainly been on a political journey, from LD to the support of Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees Mogg. She has done almost as big a volte face as @williamglenn
The sane MPs have a dilemma. Do they present 2 electable candidates and risk the one they don't want being elected by the members.
Or do they present 1 electable and 1 impossible (Truss et al) candidate and risk the impossible one getting it?
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
It does raise an interesting question though as to how come the Conservative Party, without all female/minority shortlists have been able to get so many women and minorities right to the very top of the party (and not just padding out the backbenches) . . . but how come the union leaders are all '[white] male and wealthy'.
Why are the unions so unrepresentative?
PS "they didn't".
Door after door after door after door. Talking to white voters in an almost entirely white British area being told there are too many foreigners. As I said - a "nasty insular whiter Britain". You can say that I didn't have those appalling conversations all you like. I did. And there is reams of evidence and reportage from the time backing that up.
Its just that people don't want to be associated with racism and their petty bigotry and jingoist friends. I can understand that. Its not so much that people are racist - reality is far more subtle than that. Its that they dislike the other. Whether that is Europeans or non-whites or people not born in Yorkshire or people who like ballet or whatever. I - like you - am a white man who voted to leave. I - like you did not do so for any of the reasons I just listed. We are not racist or bigoted or bitter. But all the people who are voted leave. That doesn't mean that all leavers are racist, just that all racists voted leave. Why is that hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp that some people are racists, but they are a minority. If only racists had voted Leave then Remain would have won a mammoth landslide.
And if no racists had voted Leave then Remain would have won, too.
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
It does raise an interesting question though as to how come the Conservative Party, without all female/minority shortlists have been able to get so many women and minorities right to the very top of the party (and not just padding out the backbenches) . . . but how come the union leaders are all '[white] male and wealthy'.
Why are the unions so unrepresentative?
PS "they didn't".
Door after door after door after door. Talking to white voters in an almost entirely white British area being told there are too many foreigners. As I said - a "nasty insular whiter Britain". You can say that I didn't have those appalling conversations all you like. I did. And there is reams of evidence and reportage from the time backing that up.
Its just that people don't want to be associated with racism and their petty bigotry and jingoist friends. I can understand that. Its not so much that people are racist - reality is far more subtle than that. Its that they dislike the other. Whether that is Europeans or non-whites or people not born in Yorkshire or people who like ballet or whatever. I - like you - am a white man who voted to leave. I - like you did not do so for any of the reasons I just listed. We are not racist or bigoted or bitter. But all the people who are voted leave. That doesn't mean that all leavers are racist, just that all racists voted leave. Why is that hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp that some people are racists, but they are a minority. If only racists had voted Leave then Remain would have won a mammoth landslide.
You clearly know very little about racism! It is nothing like as bad as it was in generations past, but study after study has shown high levels of racism in everyone, including those who are non-white. Xenophobia was most certainly a major motivator for Leave. You just don't want to admit it. You would have more cred if you accepted that for many this was one of their prime motivations, a little like you accept that Putin wanted us to Leave (even though you are extremely naive in your belief that he didn't assist the campaign.
Anyway get over it. You *won* your pyrrhic and totally pointless victory. The fact that you keep banging on about it is as though you have buyers remorse.
"Why does Penny Mordaunt hate Dad’s Army? This is no laughing matter for the leadership contender"
I pointed this out the other day.
That's a good article.
I read Ms Morduant's book. Well, more like I skimmed it, but still, I reckon that's more than most. And IIRC, the only show she actually calls out by name is It Ain't Half Hot Mum*, so the article is a little misleading.
* Which, I would note, I was not allowed to watch as a child because my parents decided it had racist stereotypes. Watching it later, I discovered it was simply bleh: it's nowhere near as funny as Dad's Army or early seasons of Hi-de-Hi.
The article does call out It Ain't Half Hot Mum, though: "Hilariously Mordaunt describes It Ain’t Half Hot Mum as “a full-house bingo card of… casual racism, homophobia, white privilege, colonialism, transphobia, bullying, misogyny and sexual harassment”.
And her book ends there. There's no nuance or caveats. David Croft and Jimmy Perry were comedy geniuses - not bigots who wanted us all to laugh at minorities.
I think the article's conclusion is right: it's common amongst trendy politicians desperate to "display their progressive credentials — making a confident pronouncement of hate or love about some cultural artefact in the mistaken belief it will make you look hip. David Cameron’s toe-curling profession of love of The Smiths, Gordon Brown’s for the Arctic Monkeys, or Jeremy Corbyn pretending to watch Eastenders."
To be, the most serious failing is it shows Mordaunt hasn't thought deeply about this- she just accepts the orthodox shibboleths.
I think the opposite, that she has thought deeply about LBGT issues, perhaps not least because her twin brother is gay. She was Equalities Minister too for some time under May.
Her interview with Pink News in which she says "Trans-women are women" is here. She is really just trying to find a way forward on some difficult issues. In particular to take the bureaucracy away from the GRC process.
It's not really for me to say but I think @Cyclefree has publicly stated on here on more than one occasion that she has a gay son. I'm not sure having one or not in the family validates one's views or not on either side of the ledger, although it gives you closer first-hand experience.
We used to have a poster on here called John McDonnell (not that one) who was trans and had zero time for the Pink News/Stonewall agenda.
My issue with Penny Mordaunt is that she clearly hasn't thought through some of these big issues as well as she thinks she has, which makes me wonder if her intellect is just skin-deep - there's no doubt she's brave and a hard worker.
Having been involved in some research on transgender health provision, including PPI with panels of people who are/were referred to gender clinics, all I can say is that - like any other group - the views are too diverse to be neatly summarised.
The one, more or less common, thread is that many (not all - there are some with very strong, fixed, views) would prefer a bit more light and a bit less heat in the debate and certainly a lot more tolerance of different opinions. Another is that there's a fair group who would rather we weren't so hung up about gender at all, that are not men wanting to be women or vice-versa, but whom just don't feel they fit society's view of either of the genders - not really caring whether that much whether 'he' or 'she' but wanting to be able to behave and dress etc in a way more commonly matching the opposite gender to their birth sex without being abused or judged. Some felt forced into socially changing gender as that was a more socially acceptable way of behaving/dressing as they wished.
(The above is all anecdote, not the subject of the research - PPI is with a convenience sample, so may not be representative etc. The research was whole population using healthcare data, but that doesn't get to individual opinions of course).
Whole population research doesn't necessarily tell the story either.
A significant number of trans individuals, for example, won't declare their status on the Census form, as they simply don't trust government.
Some avoid getting Gender Recognition Certificates for the same reason.
The Saj’s use of this clause in the Gender Recognition Act, to open the medical records, un-anonymised, of every individual treated at the Tavistock clinic to researchers (for the Cass Review) provoked a similar reaction. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22 The Secretary of State may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which the disclosure of protected information is not to constitute an offence under this section.
In 2019/20, the government spent £1,598 per head in England on the state pension. In the same year, it spent just £17 per head on unemployment benefits. (Incapacity, disability and injury benefits in total came in at £644 per capita.) In fact, the UK spends more every year on the state pension (£113 billion) than it does on education (£96 billion) and more than it does on defence (£45 billion), law and order (£39 billion), housing (£14 billion) and environmental protection (£13 billion) combined.
Pensioners, not those on incapacity or unemployment benefits, are the primary beneficiaries of welfare spending. They are the sole and exclusive beneficiaries of 10 per cent of total managed expenditure across government. They are, you might say, choosing to rely on benefits, on taxpayers’ money, on your money, on Suella Braverman’s money, to get by.
Baby boomers don’t think of their state pensions as benefits. Benefits are something lazy, feckless, workshy people receive and they are none of those things. They worked hard all their lives, remember. They deserve their pensions. Unlike benefit claimants, who are undeserving. Why undeserving? Because they claim benefits, of course.
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
This is a consequence of two party politics (only two parties can lead a government). Those two parties have to be coalitions of such scale that there is nothing whatsoever that universally characterises party X which is not also true of party Y .
The effect of this on political clarity is of course devastating. This morning one of the candidates characterised 'Conservatism' as 'Freedom and opportunity'.
As if SKS might characterise Labour as 'Enslavement and disadvantage'.
It was a pretty good interview, though. Amol Rajan gave Zahawi a thorough grilling, and pointed out the vapidity of some of his slogans - "semantically meaningless".
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
It does raise an interesting question though as to how come the Conservative Party, without all female/minority shortlists have been able to get so many women and minorities right to the very top of the party (and not just padding out the backbenches) . . . but how come the union leaders are all '[white] male and wealthy'.
Why are the unions so unrepresentative?
PS "they didn't".
Door after door after door after door. Talking to white voters in an almost entirely white British area being told there are too many foreigners. As I said - a "nasty insular whiter Britain". You can say that I didn't have those appalling conversations all you like. I did. And there is reams of evidence and reportage from the time backing that up.
Its just that people don't want to be associated with racism and their petty bigotry and jingoist friends. I can understand that. Its not so much that people are racist - reality is far more subtle than that. Its that they dislike the other. Whether that is Europeans or non-whites or people not born in Yorkshire or people who like ballet or whatever. I - like you - am a white man who voted to leave. I - like you did not do so for any of the reasons I just listed. We are not racist or bigoted or bitter. But all the people who are voted leave. That doesn't mean that all leavers are racist, just that all racists voted leave. Why is that hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp that some people are racists, but they are a minority. If only racists had voted Leave then Remain would have won a mammoth landslide.
But if racists had voted Leave and Remain in equal numbers Remain would have won by a lansdslide
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
I think Labour's problem is the unions. When it comes to election planning it becomes a beauty contest - who can attract the most cash from their trade union. And too many unions are very white male and wealthy. Yes I know the Tories are heavily that as well, but they get outside funding. Labour candidates need cash and that cash comes from unions who advance their own people.
Its not as if the first BAME PM and/or third female PM will make a positive difference to the Tories if it is Zahawi or Braverman or Truss. Pick a mentalist, or better still continuity Boris and the party is doomed. But what opportunity there is within the selection process to actually have choice!
I still want the party removed from power, regardless of who wins. But a Badenoch government excites me - and I literally didn't know who she was until yesterday - because she would modernise the political discourse massively.
Brexit was - in a significant part - a vote to send the foreigners home, to remove the outsiders who had brought the country down. And here is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who returned to her native UK from her ancestral Nigeria age 16 to escape the situation over there, did A-Levels whilst working in McDonalds, before going on to work in IT and Finance. Now Kemi Badenoch she represents everything that is the *opposite* of the nasty insular whiter Britain that so many voted for. And don't tell this leave voter that they didn't. They bloody did.
It does raise an interesting question though as to how come the Conservative Party, without all female/minority shortlists have been able to get so many women and minorities right to the very top of the party (and not just padding out the backbenches) . . . but how come the union leaders are all '[white] male and wealthy'.
Why are the unions so unrepresentative?
PS "they didn't".
Door after door after door after door. Talking to white voters in an almost entirely white British area being told there are too many foreigners. As I said - a "nasty insular whiter Britain". You can say that I didn't have those appalling conversations all you like. I did. And there is reams of evidence and reportage from the time backing that up.
Its just that people don't want to be associated with racism and their petty bigotry and jingoist friends. I can understand that. Its not so much that people are racist - reality is far more subtle than that. Its that they dislike the other. Whether that is Europeans or non-whites or people not born in Yorkshire or people who like ballet or whatever. I - like you - am a white man who voted to leave. I - like you did not do so for any of the reasons I just listed. We are not racist or bigoted or bitter. But all the people who are voted leave. That doesn't mean that all leavers are racist, just that all racists voted leave. Why is that hard to grasp?
Because it isn't true?
I know of Remain voters who voted Remain because they were comfortable with free movement of Europeans filling labour voids but not Commonwealth/whole world.
Your anecdote assumes it was bigotry that was meant rather than volume.
My anecdote says that all the bigots voted leave but not everyone who voted leave is a bigot. Its not that difficult to grasp. Unless you are so closed-minded as to think that what you think is what all right-minded people think because you are always right.
In 2019/20, the government spent £1,598 per head in England on the state pension. In the same year, it spent just £17 per head on unemployment benefits. (Incapacity, disability and injury benefits in total came in at £644 per capita.) In fact, the UK spends more every year on the state pension (£113 billion) than it does on education (£96 billion) and more than it does on defence (£45 billion), law and order (£39 billion), housing (£14 billion) and environmental protection (£13 billion) combined.
Pensioners, not those on incapacity or unemployment benefits, are the primary beneficiaries of welfare spending. They are the sole and exclusive beneficiaries of 10 per cent of total managed expenditure across government. They are, you might say, choosing to rely on benefits, on taxpayers’ money, on your money, on Suella Braverman’s money, to get by.
Baby boomers don’t think of their state pensions as benefits. Benefits are something lazy, feckless, workshy people receive and they are none of those things. They worked hard all their lives, remember. They deserve their pensions. Unlike benefit claimants, who are undeserving. Why undeserving? Because they claim benefits, of course.
Absolutely, spending on old age in this country is why we're going bankrupt. When you count in the cost of care, the NHS, state pension and public sector pensions it outsizes anything else the government does.
As I've said for the past two years since COVID, this is unsustainable and the primary reason for our poor economic outlook. Too much money is going from productive working age people into the hands of the already wealthy old. It's not only a huge disincentive to work, it's also economically unsound to hand millionaire pensioners a huge whack of government subsidy with lower taxes, state pension benefits and defined benefit pension schemes which are ultimately paid out of today's productivity (resulting in lower pay, investment and dividends for companies).
Once again no one in the country is even close to having this discussion around how we fund retirement and why we seem to be giving very wealthy people with high incomes an additional £10k per year in state pension benefits. If someone suggested that working age people on the same income should get that benefit they'd be laughed out of the room.
Even among the 8 candidates no one seems to be brave enough to talk about it and ultimately Labour seem to be in exactly the same boat and can't bring themselves to raise this subject either. For Labour it seems mad because there's probably a lot of votes in it for them to address the generational imbalance in wealth and general prosperity. For the Tories it's probably a bit more difficult as so many of their voters are over 65 and wealthy but that doesn't mean it can be ignored by the 8 candidates.
In 2019/20, the government spent £1,598 per head in England on the state pension. In the same year, it spent just £17 per head on unemployment benefits. (Incapacity, disability and injury benefits in total came in at £644 per capita.) In fact, the UK spends more every year on the state pension (£113 billion) than it does on education (£96 billion) and more than it does on defence (£45 billion), law and order (£39 billion), housing (£14 billion) and environmental protection (£13 billion) combined.
Pensioners, not those on incapacity or unemployment benefits, are the primary beneficiaries of welfare spending. They are the sole and exclusive beneficiaries of 10 per cent of total managed expenditure across government. They are, you might say, choosing to rely on benefits, on taxpayers’ money, on your money, on Suella Braverman’s money, to get by.
Baby boomers don’t think of their state pensions as benefits. Benefits are something lazy, feckless, workshy people receive and they are none of those things. They worked hard all their lives, remember. They deserve their pensions. Unlike benefit claimants, who are undeserving. Why undeserving? Because they claim benefits, of course.
Interesting point of view. But Britain's state pension is about 20% of average earnings, while it's around 70% in the EU overall. And for those pensioners who missed out on the mortgage boom of the 70s and 80s (like those in private rentals at the time) that means real poverty today, getting worse as fuel and food inflation soar faster than almost anything else.
Impossible, of course, for today's privileged middle-class children (and their gullible media mouthpieces) to understand - but most baby boomers grew up in a world where owner-occupancy - like inheritance - was only for the rich, scrounging off your parents after the age of 20 was unspeakable (and impossible anyway), and spending thousands on weddings was just feckless folly (ours cost just $100 - which my wife and I paid entirely).
The problem isn't that "boomers" live in cosseted affluence: it's that some do and some don't. We need to adjust the untaxed privileges affluent pensioners unjustifiably get, the scandalously low level of state pension too many pensioners still have to live off - and the nonsensical barriers to employment too many lazy over 60s are able to use as excuses for sitting around idle.
In 2019/20, the government spent £1,598 per head in England on the state pension. In the same year, it spent just £17 per head on unemployment benefits. (Incapacity, disability and injury benefits in total came in at £644 per capita.) In fact, the UK spends more every year on the state pension (£113 billion) than it does on education (£96 billion) and more than it does on defence (£45 billion), law and order (£39 billion), housing (£14 billion) and environmental protection (£13 billion) combined.
Pensioners, not those on incapacity or unemployment benefits, are the primary beneficiaries of welfare spending. They are the sole and exclusive beneficiaries of 10 per cent of total managed expenditure across government. They are, you might say, choosing to rely on benefits, on taxpayers’ money, on your money, on Suella Braverman’s money, to get by.
Baby boomers don’t think of their state pensions as benefits. Benefits are something lazy, feckless, workshy people receive and they are none of those things. They worked hard all their lives, remember. They deserve their pensions. Unlike benefit claimants, who are undeserving. Why undeserving? Because they claim benefits, of course.
In 2019/20, the government spent £1,598 per head in England on the state pension. In the same year, it spent just £17 per head on unemployment benefits. (Incapacity, disability and injury benefits in total came in at £644 per capita.) In fact, the UK spends more every year on the state pension (£113 billion) than it does on education (£96 billion) and more than it does on defence (£45 billion), law and order (£39 billion), housing (£14 billion) and environmental protection (£13 billion) combined.
Pensioners, not those on incapacity or unemployment benefits, are the primary beneficiaries of welfare spending. They are the sole and exclusive beneficiaries of 10 per cent of total managed expenditure across government. They are, you might say, choosing to rely on benefits, on taxpayers’ money, on your money, on Suella Braverman’s money, to get by.
Baby boomers don’t think of their state pensions as benefits. Benefits are something lazy, feckless, workshy people receive and they are none of those things. They worked hard all their lives, remember. They deserve their pensions. Unlike benefit claimants, who are undeserving. Why undeserving? Because they claim benefits, of course.
Absolutely, spending on old age in this country is why we're going bankrupt. When you count in the cost of care, the NHS, state pension and public sector pensions it outsizes anything else the government does.
As I've said for the past two years since COVID, this is unsustainable and the primary reason for our poor economic outlook. Too much money is going from productive working age people into the hands of the already wealthy old. It's not only a huge disincentive to work, it's also economically unsound to hand millionaire pensioners a huge whack of government subsidy with lower taxes, state pension benefits and defined benefit pension schemes which are ultimately paid out of today's productivity (resulting in lower pay, investment and dividends for companies).
Once again no one in the country is even close to having this discussion around how we fund retirement and why we seem to be giving very wealthy people with high incomes an additional £10k per year in state pension benefits. If someone suggested that working age people on the same income should get that benefit they'd be laughed out of the room.
Even among the 8 candidates no one seems to be brave enough to talk about it and ultimately Labour seem to be in exactly the same boat and can't bring themselves to raise this subject either. For Labour it seems mad because there's probably a lot of votes in it for them to address the generational imbalance in wealth and general prosperity. For the Tories it's probably a bit more difficult as so many of their voters are over 65 and wealthy but that doesn't mean it can be ignored by the 8 candidates.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Perhaps war with Russia too. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
Midsummer Night's Nightmare!
She has certainly been on a political journey, from LD to the support of Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees Mogg. She has done almost as big a volte face as @williamglenn
The sane MPs have a dilemma. Do they present 2 electable candidates and risk the one they don't want being elected by the members.
Or do they present 1 electable and 1 impossible (Truss et al) candidate and risk the impossible one getting it?
The latter will go wrong almost certainly. Members will vote for the unelectable one every time imho, because something, something Our Brexit.
Clear now PM Truss would make PM Boris look like a wet liberal.
With PM Truss it would be full war on Woke, the hardest of Brexits, slashed tax and spend and a scrapping of net zero. Plus a Cabinet dominated by Rees Mogg, Dorries, Francois and IDS
You are for Tugendhat I believe.
Can you tell us how you rate them after that in descending order.
Interesting that with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (XY chromosomes with non-functioning androgen receptor on X chromosome), you have external female genitalia, but no functioning uterus. Brain studies generally show female-type sexual responses suggesting hormones trump chromosomes. I say 'suggest' because numbers are very small, brain studies can be criticised, and psychologists prefer nurture rather than nature.
I lectured briefly on this to an MSc course in environmental toxicology, when there was a fuss about oestrogen-mimetics in the environment. This was of peripheral interest only. Dr Fox is wise to be cautious. Intersex is rare and with small numbers, generalisations are dangerous. I don't claim to be an expert, and to complicate matters, the aromatase enzyme converts testosterone to oestrogens in the brain. This is one part of science where subjective views seem to matter too, but we'll oome to a consensus eventually. It depends on how accurate animal studies are.
True Interex is usually down to genetic faults, and there are many genes involved, and that can include epigenetics if it wasn't complicated enough already. I'd stick with "I'm from Barcelona" for drawing general conclusions.
Science is science, but two scientists can see the same evidence and draw different conclusions. Look at quantum theory.
What is fascinating about this leadership election is the sheer spread of candidates and outlooks and positions.
At one extreme a vision of a fictional past led by Braverman. Break poor people on the wheel. Tax cuts for decent people. Put the gayers and the trannies and the haters back in their box where decent people can look down on them.
At the other extreme a vision of a dynamic future led by Badenoch. 2020s Britain as personified by a female black migrant with braided hair and a clear vision for how to respect people who who they are without having to harang or belittle like equivalent Labour people do.
What is extraordinary is that half the field are BAME, half are women and two are both. Sorry Labour Party, but if this doesn't explode your "we are the party of modern representative politics", nothing will.
It looks as if we will have the first ethnic PM or third woman PM ( all conservatives )
We’re not counting Disraeli then?
Disraeli was not Jewish in religious terms, as his family had switched to Christianity. The extent to which Jewishness or Judaism counts as an ethnicity is not straightforward: you might remember there was a bit of a fuss around the census. How Disraeli self-identified — no idea. You'd need to ask a top historian of the Victorian era, like Jacob Rees-Mogg.
@DecrepiterJohnL 'Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the honourable member were painted blue with woad, mine were Priests in the temples of Solomon.'
Withering O'Connell after an anti-Semitic remark in 1835.
Comments
Although it would be funny to see Penny drive through a polystyrene wall with a JCB. About as much "continuity Boris" as the country needs.
I know of Remain voters who voted Remain because they were comfortable with free movement of Europeans filling labour voids but not Commonwealth/whole world.
Your anecdote assumes it was bigotry that was meant rather than volume.
Previous experience in 2002 and 2012 highlighted that the Jubilee and the timing of bank holidays might lead to more volatile movements in the monthly path of gross domestic product (GDP) in May and June. As part of our usual practice, prior adjustments are made for calendar effects (where statistically significant) such as returns that do not comply with the standard trading period, bank holidays, Easter and the day of the week Christmas occurs. Adjustments for repeating and predictable effects are estimated and removed from the final seasonally adjusted series, for example, a permanent change in the seasonal pattern. Adjustments for effects that do not repeat are estimated and removed during the seasonal adjustment process but are then put back in to the final seasonally adjusted series, for example, the effect of extreme weather. We will continue to review these adjustments on a regular basis.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpmonthlyestimateuk/may2022
If you're "not sure about this" how can you be confident that "It's a mechanical effect driven by the loss of a Bank Holiday in May, which means one extra working day. We will see a bigger negative effect in June when there are two fewer working days.?
I think he knows his stuff, so we can check first round votes against the makers assumptions and take an informed view from that.
Of course, we don't. There will be some dickheads like Femi who will try and argue the opposite.
The assumption is she's everyone's second choice.
I really don't think she is.
https://conservativehome.com/2022/07/12/next-tory-leader-run-offs-third-liz-truss/
Tucker better prepare himself for Penny's brand of "elite liberal wokery".
2. ???
3. Profit
(although not for me, as I haven't backed Tommy Tugs
2 Sunak
3 Hunt
4 Mordaunt
5 Badenoch
6 Truss
7 Braverman
8 Zahawi
I was referring to a first preference graph, not head-to-heads. My mistake.
We have to move on from Brexit. It was stupid and pointless, and yes lots of people voted for it because they hated foreigners, and a few didn't. To claim otherwise is naive. Brexit is settled and we have to make the most of it. I am not yet convinced that a Starmer led Labour/LD coalition is the best route. There are a few candidates on the list that would make me vote LD if they become leader, but over all I am just relieved we no longer have a Clown for a leader.
She also happens to be a rabid right winger but if you simply judge someone by the colour of their skin this is something that I imagine is easy to overlook
Sunak is a serious contender. If the economic problems prove short-lived (e.g. an early cease-fire in Ukraine or a clear dwindling of Covid could help), I can see the year-on-year stats next year looking pretty positive, with inflation well down, and he'd get credit for that. On the other hand, he's not a fresh face and plenty of people already have a settled view of him. A fairly safe choice to avoid disaster, but probably not a winning one.
Mordaunt is hard to call. Most people don't know her, and her fresh, frank personality would be a plus. But I think she'd be seen as a surprise and she seems accident-prone, not least with the botched video that had to be edited twice to remove people she'd forgotten to ask. She might cut through, or stumble and not recover. It may be in her best interest to have a high-profile job like Chancellor first.
Truss is something of a Marmite candidate - perhaps the clearest ideological profile apart from Badenoch, which must attract serious supply-side conservatives, but she annoys a lot of people for no reason that I can pin down. Would probably poll better once actually PM, but I'd be more worried about what she'd do politically than about her election-winning potential.
Badenoch: people misunderstand the left about black Tories - they think we're totally nonplussed, but anyone who's been canvassing has met plenty from every ethnicity. Lucid and pleasant, but suspect she's too preoccupied with culture wars - as with saving trees or cutting corporation tax, people may agree, but it's not their first priority. Would shift the Overton window but lose.
Hunt: probably our most dangerous opponent - consummate politician, few obviously fixed views. We'd find him hard to pin down. But starts with bad poll ratings and his time may possibly have passed.
Tugendhat: has an old-fashioned air, which may not be a bad thing in these troubled times. I think he'd do well in the Blue Wall, but fail to make a dent further north. Not really a big threat.
My guess is that it'll be Sunak vs Truss, and personally I'm fairly relaxed about either.
Augustus Carp
It would be nice if they'd shortened it a little so Johnson could leave during the silly season.
Or do they present 1 electable and 1 impossible (Truss et al) candidate and risk the impossible one getting it?
Anyway get over it. You *won* your pyrrhic and totally pointless victory. The fact that you keep banging on about it is as though you have buyers remorse.
A significant number of trans individuals, for example, won't declare their status on the Census form, as they simply don't trust government.
Some avoid getting Gender Recognition Certificates for the same reason.
The Saj’s use of this clause in the Gender Recognition Act, to open the medical records, un-anonymised, of every individual treated at the Tavistock clinic to researchers (for the Cass Review) provoked a similar reaction.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22
The Secretary of State may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which the disclosure of protected information is not to constitute an offence under this section.
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1546412413213462528
In 2019/20, the government spent £1,598 per head in England on the state pension. In the same year, it spent just £17 per head on unemployment benefits. (Incapacity, disability and injury benefits in total came in at £644 per capita.) In fact, the UK spends more every year on the state pension (£113 billion) than it does on education (£96 billion) and more than it does on defence (£45 billion), law and order (£39 billion), housing (£14 billion) and environmental protection (£13 billion) combined.
Pensioners, not those on incapacity or unemployment benefits, are the primary beneficiaries of welfare spending. They are the sole and exclusive beneficiaries of 10 per cent of total managed expenditure across government. They are, you might say, choosing to rely on benefits, on taxpayers’ money, on your money, on Suella Braverman’s money, to get by.
Baby boomers don’t think of their state pensions as benefits. Benefits are something lazy, feckless, workshy people receive and they are none of those things. They worked hard all their lives, remember. They deserve their pensions. Unlike benefit claimants, who are undeserving. Why undeserving? Because they claim benefits, of course.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-suella-braverman-understand-welfare-
Amol Rajan gave Zahawi a thorough grilling, and pointed out the vapidity of some of his slogans - "semantically meaningless".
As I've said for the past two years since COVID, this is unsustainable and the primary reason for our poor economic outlook. Too much money is going from productive working age people into the hands of the already wealthy old. It's not only a huge disincentive to work, it's also economically unsound to hand millionaire pensioners a huge whack of government subsidy with lower taxes, state pension benefits and defined benefit pension schemes which are ultimately paid out of today's productivity (resulting in lower pay, investment and dividends for companies).
Once again no one in the country is even close to having this discussion around how we fund retirement and why we seem to be giving very wealthy people with high incomes an additional £10k per year in state pension benefits. If someone suggested that working age people on the same income should get that benefit they'd be laughed out of the room.
Even among the 8 candidates no one seems to be brave enough to talk about it and ultimately Labour seem to be in exactly the same boat and can't bring themselves to raise this subject either. For Labour it seems mad because there's probably a lot of votes in it for them to address the generational imbalance in wealth and general prosperity. For the Tories it's probably a bit more difficult as so many of their voters are over 65 and wealthy but that doesn't mean it can be ignored by the 8 candidates.
Impossible, of course, for today's privileged middle-class children (and their gullible media mouthpieces) to understand - but most baby boomers grew up in a world where owner-occupancy - like inheritance - was only for the rich, scrounging off your parents after the age of 20 was unspeakable (and impossible anyway), and spending thousands on weddings was just feckless folly (ours cost just $100 - which my wife and I paid entirely).
The problem isn't that "boomers" live in cosseted affluence: it's that some do and some don't. We need to adjust the untaxed privileges affluent pensioners unjustifiably get, the scandalously low level of state pension too many pensioners still have to live off - and the nonsensical barriers to employment too many lazy over 60s are able to use as excuses for sitting around idle.
It's just you have to be at least 65 to get it.
I lectured briefly on this to an MSc course in environmental toxicology, when there was a fuss about oestrogen-mimetics in the environment. This was of peripheral interest only. Dr Fox is wise to be cautious. Intersex is rare and with small numbers, generalisations are dangerous. I don't claim to be an expert, and to complicate matters, the aromatase enzyme converts testosterone to oestrogens in the brain. This is one part of science where subjective views seem to matter too, but we'll oome to a consensus eventually. It depends on how accurate animal studies are.
True Interex is usually down to genetic faults, and there are many genes involved, and that can include epigenetics if it wasn't complicated enough already. I'd stick with "I'm from Barcelona" for drawing general conclusions.
Science is science, but two scientists can see the same evidence and draw different conclusions. Look at quantum theory.
Withering O'Connell after an anti-Semitic remark in 1835.