And did you see the supportive tweets he got from people of colour saying he shouldn't have deleted it?
Cards on the table, I think it was unwise to have tweeted what he did, in part because it was easy for people to vexatiously construe it as racist. There was a good question in there. Is there a significant amount of racism in the Conservative membership? I don't know the answer to that question, but having two people of colour being presented to to the membership would hardly answer that question.
People don't generally vexatiously construe things as obvious as that. He provoked the reaction he got because his comments were unacceptable. No amount of after the fact justification changes that.
Your "analysis" does not account for the large amount of support he got. You have to dismiss a lot of voices of people of colour in order to get to the conclusion that the tweet was obviously wrong. Are you ready to do that?
Absolutely. I am quite happy to hold my own views about the acceptability of his tweet and his all-round berkishness. And for what it's worth I don't think that "a lot of voices of people of colour" agreeing with him makes him right, or the opinions of any other group for that matter. Not that his Twitter followers or the opinion of Twitter users in general is even remotely representative of anything useful.
I think the pressure on labour to eventually replace Keir with a woman will be overwhelming.
Betting tip:
Lay all the men in the next labour leader market. Close to free money.
The fallacy of altruism exposed by Dawkins in Selfish Gene: individuals are not motivated by what would benefit the group overall. Ignore this advice.
I'm not sure this does justice to a really tricky problem in ethics and behavioural studies.
Dawkins's backing is scant recommendation outside his field of actual expertise, wholly unrelated to what he is famous for. To say the least other arguments are available.
He also writes "Power has many lens of which colour is only one."
WTF does that mean?
And does he think the plural of lens is lens?
Well power does have many Lens. There's the leader of the TUC. The head judge off Strictly, he was very powerful. Lenny Henry is powerful in the world of comedy. Perhaps he's on to something.
"How Penny Mordaunt fell foul of the nostalgia lobby An unlikely row about It Ain’t Half Hot Mum shows some in Tory ranks feel assailed by any critique of the past David Aaronovitch" (£)
Seattle Times ($) - Danny Westneat: ‘A debacle’: Our troubled citizen initiative process is in a record drought
. . . . No one is quite sure why, but this fall will mark the third year in a row voters will find zero statewide citizens’ initiatives on their ballots. For this once insanely popular form of “direct democracy,” it’s the longest drought going back nearly a century, to the 1920s.
For the past three decades, through 2019, we averaged three issue initiatives on the ballot per year (either initiatives to the people or to the Legislature). There was only one year during those decades that had none.
What’s going on? The initiative was once a populist relief valve, so that hacked-off citizens could take their ideas around the stranglehold of the powerful and straight to the people. Later, the tool was itself hijacked by corporations and special interests, as well as twisted into a rent-seeking factory by mercenaries like Eyman.
Now it seems, the whole concept is momentarily defunct.
Last week the ACLU of Washington announced it had failed to collect enough signatures to qualify a big-ticket drug decriminalization initiative for this fall’s ballot. This was no longshot effort by scrappy volunteers — the group spent $2.7 million on consultants and pro signature-gatherers, and has racked up an additional $669,000 in debts, according to state records. . . .
Another high-stakes measure, to repeal the state’s new capital gains tax, was amply backed by superrich people but also folded last month after spending $510,000.
. . . There’s a labor shortage among itinerant canvassers, which — combined with voters not wanting to engage with clipboard-toting strangers during COVID — led to soaring costs of more than $10 per signature.
Bottom line: No direct democracy again this year — not even the bought and paid for kind. . . .
It could also be that this is the calm before the storm — a big storm, if a new initiative-promoting gambit gets its way.
. . .[T]wo outfits have risen on the right. One is called Restore Washington, the other Let’s Go Washington. Their joint drive is bankrolled mostly by a Kirkland businessman named Brian Heywood.
“I came here from the People’s Republic of California,” Heywood introduced himself to a conservative crowd recently at a Marysville church. “I’m an economic refugee. I came here to make money, and to be free.”
Unlike Eyman, Heywood isn’t trying to make bank off his initiatives — he’s already rich. He’s given more than $750,000 to GOP causes in the past five years, including $150,000 last year to try to repeal the state’s long-term care program (that also failed to get enough signatures).
But now Heywood is taking his make-money-and-be-free bravado and amping it all the way up to 11. In an environment where $3 million just failed to get a single measure on the ballot, his outfit, Let’s Go Washington, has started collecting signatures for 11 initiatives simultaneously. . . .
I want it to be Sunak v Badenoch, just to see if Jolyon's head would explode.
Why would that make his head explode?
He thinks Sunak is too brown to lead the Tories
I don't think that represents his position at all. He did a pretty thoughtful thread about that tweet. Did you read it?
Only after he took down his first tweet which he obviously thought sounded a bit racist. And that's me being very generous.
I too like to carefully explain my position after I make a damn fool of myself.
Watching some of the Twitter lefties go full racist, is one of the most amusing parts of the last few days. They really don’t like the idea that ethnic minorities might be conservative.
Agreed, but it is also pretty unedifying of those on the right that are making statements that to me seem to be saying "hahaha, we have got you here: look at the colour of our candidates. That's got you in a pickle eh?" There is definitely an undercurrent of patronising racism.
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
He also writes "Power has many lens of which colour is only one."
WTF does that mean?
And does he think the plural of lens is lens?
Well power does have many Lens. There's the leader of the TUC. The head judge off Strictly, he was very powerful. Lenny Henry is powerful in the world of comedy. Perhaps he's on to something.
I think the pressure on labour to eventually replace Keir with a woman will be overwhelming.
Betting tip:
Lay all the men in the next labour leader market. Close to free money.
The fallacy of altruism exposed by Dawkins in Selfish Gene: individuals are not motivated by what would benefit the group overall. Ignore this advice.
I'm not sure this does justice to a really tricky problem in ethics and behavioural studies.
Dawkins's backing is scant recommendation outside his field of actual expertise, wholly unrelated to what he is famous for. To say the least other arguments are available.
Dawkins is simply adducing a widely known issue in game theory; and his application of it is most certainly part of what he is famous for. Unless one is a religious type.
"How Penny Mordaunt fell foul of the nostalgia lobby An unlikely row about It Ain’t Half Hot Mum shows some in Tory ranks feel assailed by any critique of the past David Aaronovitch" (£)
What doea Mourdant stand for. A week or so on I’m none the wiser. Union Jack, Thatcher reference, digs against Labour and some vague stuff about ships. Seems like a Cameronesque PR person and not much more to it. Tories like her because they think she’ll be effective against Labour.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
What doea Mourdant stand for. A week or so on I’m none the wiser. Union Jack, Thatcher reference, digs against Labour and some vague stuff about ships. Seems like a Cameronesque PR person and not much more too it. Tories like her because they think she’ll be effective against Labour.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
Not as far as I can see. But I'll give credit - people have been talkign up Mordaunt for ages for reasons I could not really see, and lo and behold she does appear to be chiming well with the selectorate, despite the reasons not being apparent to me still.
I think the pressure on labour to eventually replace Keir with a woman will be overwhelming.
Betting tip:
Lay all the men in the next labour leader market. Close to free money.
The fallacy of altruism exposed by Dawkins in Selfish Gene: individuals are not motivated by what would benefit the group overall. Ignore this advice.
I'm not sure this does justice to a really tricky problem in ethics and behavioural studies.
Dawkins's backing is scant recommendation outside his field of actual expertise, wholly unrelated to what he is famous for. To say the least other arguments are available.
Bold, trying to confine RD to "his field of actual expertise" when he invented the word and idea of the meme in his spare time. Reminiscent of some pinwitted bishop who said that Dawkins didn't understand what a metaphor was, given that Dawkins wrote a book about natural selection and called it The Blind Watchmaker.
If you want to leave Dawkins out of it you could think about the tragedy of the commons, or about Prisoner's Dilemma, to see the utter wrongness of the proposition under discussion.
"How Penny Mordaunt fell foul of the nostalgia lobby An unlikely row about It Ain’t Half Hot Mum shows some in Tory ranks feel assailed by any critique of the past David Aaronovitch" (£)
Can't read cos paywall, but I assume that any such critique of Mordaunt that may exist emanates from the fraction of very elderly supporters who also couldn't see anything wrong with the Black and White Minstrel Show, and insist that there's been nothing worth watching on the BBC since they made the (in their view inexplicable) decision to cancel Last of the Summer Wine.
And did you see the supportive tweets he got from people of colour saying he shouldn't have deleted it?
Cards on the table, I think it was unwise to have tweeted what he did, in part because it was easy for people to vexatiously construe it as racist. There was a good question in there. Is there a significant amount of racism in the Conservative membership? I don't know the answer to that question, but having two people of colour being presented to to the membership would hardly answer that question.
People don't generally vexatiously construe things as obvious as that. He provoked the reaction he got because his comments were unacceptable. No amount of after the fact justification changes that.
Your "analysis" does not account for the large amount of support he got. You have to dismiss a lot of voices of people of colour in order to get to the conclusion that the tweet was obviously wrong. Are you ready to do that?
Doesn't work as a defence because he deleted his original post. It's like Brown calling that woman a bigot, then claiming she wasn't, only for some of his defenders to say she was a bigot after all. Even if it was true, it didn't work because his own actions argued otherwise.
He obviously was worried enough that he felt he had to remove it, even if he tried to caveat why. He's regretted it, clearly, but that he took the step shows he knows the point he was making was not the thoughtful point he now claims it was.
I think people generally mean what they say. His actions show he meant the more inflammatory interpretation, rather than some point about ethnic minority representation. His reactions since, focusing on the original point, have shown his dishonesty in claiming he meant something deeper.
If he wanted to make a blunt point, and he has so many people supporting him, he need not have taken down the first tweet. He is very proud of not backing down from a righteous fight, yet he did initially back down on this one - that I find very telling indeed, since this is not someone who would casually do that, he is not one to be bullied away from his opinion.
More than that, he dismissed and blocked people who disagreed with him, assuming they are just partisans. I don't have a problem with him launching legal challenges, and plenty of others who disagreed with him were not Tory partisans either - so that this intelligent lawyer launched into such a defence shows he was on shaky grounds. He was not confident of defending his point, so instead he just whined that Tories were after him.
He might be right on so many issues and on the government, people will disagree about that, but at the very least his behaviour was that of a right arse, being dishonest about his intention and in his reaction to criticism on it, as well as evasive. He made a comment and then divert from it by pointing at some group that is even worse - maybe they are, but that doesn't speak to what he said, and how he has been dishonest about it.
Now I never said the original tweet was a "thoughtful point", take care not to put words in my mouth. I agree with you that the original tweet was inflammatory and deliberately so.
But I do dispute that backing down is always evidence of mens rea. Far from it. We live in a culture of hair trigger outrage, and it's tempting often to acquiesce to the reaction rather than fight every fight. Now all this is sort of besides the point because in his longer thread he says "I can do better" and it's really interesting to see why. The "imputed prejudice" point is important to understand here, I think. It's a good thread. You don't have to agree with it all to see that.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman combined came to 122 votes, just over 1/3 of Tory MPs. So if they all combined behind one of them they would get a candidate in the final 2. However if the supporters of any of the 3 go to Sunak or Mordaunt that no longer applies and the Right’s candidate gets knocked out.
So they cannot afford any leakage, unless Zahawi’s support mainly goes to that block not Sunak and Mordaunt
Are you suggesting therefore there are three roughly equal "factions" within the Parliamentary Party - supporters of Sunak, supporters of Mordaunt and supporters of the best placed "right" candidate?
This seems reminiscent of 2001 when it was alleged some MPs voted tactically to ensure Portillo wouldn't make it through to the membership voting which opened the door for Iain Duncan Smith to face and defeat Clarke.
I begin to wonder whether Sunak might end up the Portillo of this leadership election.
Different to 2001 though as Tugendhat is closest to Clarke ideologically of those left, Sunak and Mordaunt could be seen as closest to Portillo, Badenoch, Truss and Braverman closest to IDS of the last 6 remaining
Setting aside your own preference, who do you see making the final 2 now?
Truss and Mordaunt, just. However could be Sunak v Mordaunt if not all Badenoch and Braverman votes transfer to Truss
What’s the chances of a grand Stop Truss coronation after tomorrows vote? Tommy Tug falls behind PM in exchange for foreign sec. Rishi realises he isn’t going to win and just wants his old job back. Kemi bought off with Home Sec, which might be Gove’s plan for her all along. Or are we sure this is really going to Members…?
What doea Mourdant stand for. A week or so on I’m none the wiser. Union Jack, Thatcher reference, digs against Labour and some vague stuff about ships. Seems like a Cameronesque PR person and not much more to it. Tories like her because they think she’ll be effective against Labour.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
I don’t think you’ve missed much, or anything. It’s a shift in tone and messaging, basically:
1. Trust me I’m nice and not too contaminated by Boris 2. I still stand for the 2019 manifesto (I.e, I won’t rock the boat too much and I don’t want an early election) 3. I can take the fight to Labour because I come across well on the telly 4. I believe in more collaborative leadership i.e I’m going to try and build a big tent.
Agreed, but it is also pretty unedifying of those on the right that are making statements that to me seem to be saying "hahaha, we have got you here: look at the colour of our candidates. That's got you in a pickle eh?" There is definitely an undercurrent of patronising racism.
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
The thing is even if the Tory party has a lot of racists, which is possible, they are far more likely to vote for candidates because of the faction they represent, or how they voted on Brexit, or what they think about totemic issues like grammar schools, only once a candidate has demonstrated to think the "right way" will it get down to things like who they are. Then sexism, racism, sectarianism, and plain old snobbery will come into play. And that is what happens in every other political party.
They were PM with a majority before they lost it at the election they led their party in
Yes, but unless you have secretly become a Corbynite May still won the 2017 election. Went backwards, did not get a majority, but stayed as PM. That's a win, just not a very good one.
If you want to point out she was not a very good election winner you're on firm ground.
And I know I'm right because if Boris had stayed on as PM, and fought the next election and gotten a 2017 style result, you would have correctly noted that that was a decent result for the 5th election since 2010, and that as he stayed as PM he won it.
"How Penny Mordaunt fell foul of the nostalgia lobby An unlikely row about It Ain’t Half Hot Mum shows some in Tory ranks feel assailed by any critique of the past David Aaronovitch" (£)
Can't read cos paywall, but I assume that any such critique of Mordaunt that may exist emanates from the fraction of very elderly supporters who also couldn't see anything wrong with the Black and White Minstrel Show, and insist that there's been nothing worth watching on the BBC since they made the (in their view inexplicable) decision to cancel Last of the Summer Wine.
Not as far as I can see. But I'll give credit - people have been talkign up Mordaunt for ages for reasons I could not really see, and lo and behold she does appear to be chiming well with the selectorate, despite the reasons not being apparent to me still.
She’s one of these packaged slick politicians that conveniently emerges at the right moment without seemingly having actually done anything.
Truss , who imagine could be electoral marmite, does seem to have a brain and a track record.
I want it to be Sunak v Badenoch, just to see if Jolyon's head would explode.
Why would that make his head explode?
He thinks Sunak is too brown to lead the Tories
I don't think that represents his position at all. He did a pretty thoughtful thread about that tweet. Did you read it?
Only after he took down his first tweet which he obviously thought sounded a bit racist. And that's me being very generous.
I too like to carefully explain my position after I make a damn fool of myself.
Watching some of the Twitter lefties go full racist, is one of the most amusing parts of the last few days. They really don’t like the idea that ethnic minorities might be conservative.
Agreed, but it is also pretty unedifying of those on the right that are making statements that to me seem to be saying "hahaha, we have got you here: look at the colour of our candidates. That's got you in a pickle eh?" There is definitely an undercurrent of patronising racism.
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
Oh I agree, the Conservative Party has been a fantastic example of treating people according to the content of their character.
But when the likes of Jolyon and Femi start going on about this bunch of coconuts and choc-ices, they need to be reminded about which party elects women and minorities on merit.
I am rather impressed by @hyufd ‘s analysis of the race into Clarke-Portillo-Smith (europhile liberal - eurosceptic libertarian - hard rightwinger)
Can anyone remind me how IDS managed to slip through the middle? That’s the nightmare scenario - that a Truss/Badenoch Unity Right Candidate slips through.
(Even I’m not pessimistic enough to imagine fortune favouring the Braverman.)
One of the first bills put to parliament by Emmanuel Macron’s new government was defeated on Wednesday, raising major doubts over the president’s ability to pass new laws.
Opposition MPs rejected a proposal to reinstate the health pass for travellers entering France, requiring them to show proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test in the event of the emergence of a new Covid variant.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman combined came to 122 votes, just over 1/3 of Tory MPs. So if they all combined behind one of them they would get a candidate in the final 2. However if the supporters of any of the 3 go to Sunak or Mordaunt that no longer applies and the Right’s candidate gets knocked out.
So they cannot afford any leakage, unless Zahawi’s support mainly goes to that block not Sunak and Mordaunt
Are you suggesting therefore there are three roughly equal "factions" within the Parliamentary Party - supporters of Sunak, supporters of Mordaunt and supporters of the best placed "right" candidate?
This seems reminiscent of 2001 when it was alleged some MPs voted tactically to ensure Portillo wouldn't make it through to the membership voting which opened the door for Iain Duncan Smith to face and defeat Clarke.
I begin to wonder whether Sunak might end up the Portillo of this leadership election.
Different to 2001 though as Tugendhat is closest to Clarke ideologically of those left, Sunak and Mordaunt could be seen as closest to Portillo, Badenoch, Truss and Braverman closest to IDS of the last 6 remaining
Setting aside your own preference, who do you see making the final 2 now?
Truss and Mordaunt, just. However could be Sunak v Mordaunt if not all Badenoch and Braverman votes transfer to Truss
What’s the chances of a grand Stop Truss coronation after tomorrows vote? Tommy Tug falls behind PM in exchange for foreign sec. Rishi realises he isn’t going to win and just wants his old job back. Kemi bought off with Home Sec, which might be Gove’s plan for her all along. Or are we sure this is really going to Members…?
Unless it is Sunak v Mordaunt, in which case Sunak may drop out in return for a Cabinet post given members polls show Mordaunt trouncing him, the ERG will ensure it goes to the members as their candidate would also beat Sunak and has more of a chance v Mordaunt then Rishi does
What doea Mourdant stand for. A week or so on I’m none the wiser. Union Jack, Thatcher reference, digs against Labour and some vague stuff about ships. Seems like a Cameronesque PR person and not much more too it. Tories like her because they think she’ll be effective against Labour.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
Not as far as I can see. But I'll give credit - people have been talkign up Mordaunt for ages for reasons I could not really see, and lo and behold she does appear to be chiming well with the selectorate, despite the reasons not being apparent to me still.
Penny is the new David Cameron. But is the Party currently one that could elect Cameron today?
What doea Mourdant stand for. A week or so on I’m none the wiser. Union Jack, Thatcher reference, digs against Labour and some vague stuff about ships. Seems like a Cameronesque PR person and not much more to it. Tories like her because they think she’ll be effective against Labour.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
She wants to free our u's. Mordaunt's u can go anywhere it likes - after the a is usual, giving a 'Britannia rules the waves' feeling to the surname, but it can also be seen before the a, re-assigning the whole name as a sort of adjective. Still more exotic, it can slip into the first syllable, giving a saucy, French, frisson of 'amour' to the name, getting remainers a little hot under the collar. The fluidity of this u has got traditionalists worried, and caused Mordaunt to insist there's only one spelling of her name, but strict spelling die-hards remain unconvinced.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman combined came to 122 votes, just over 1/3 of Tory MPs. So if they all combined behind one of them they would get a candidate in the final 2. However if the supporters of any of the 3 go to Sunak or Mordaunt that no longer applies and the Right’s candidate gets knocked out.
So they cannot afford any leakage, unless Zahawi’s support mainly goes to that block not Sunak and Mordaunt
Are you suggesting therefore there are three roughly equal "factions" within the Parliamentary Party - supporters of Sunak, supporters of Mordaunt and supporters of the best placed "right" candidate?
This seems reminiscent of 2001 when it was alleged some MPs voted tactically to ensure Portillo wouldn't make it through to the membership voting which opened the door for Iain Duncan Smith to face and defeat Clarke.
I begin to wonder whether Sunak might end up the Portillo of this leadership election.
Different to 2001 though as Tugendhat is closest to Clarke ideologically of those left, Sunak and Mordaunt could be seen as closest to Portillo, Badenoch, Truss and Braverman closest to IDS of the last 6 remaining
Setting aside your own preference, who do you see making the final 2 now?
Truss and Mordaunt, just. However could be Sunak v Mordaunt if not all Badenoch and Braverman votes transfer to Truss
What’s the chances of a grand Stop Truss coronation after tomorrows vote? Tommy Tug falls behind PM in exchange for foreign sec. Rishi realises he isn’t going to win and just wants his old job back. Kemi bought off with Home Sec, which might be Gove’s plan for her all along. Or are we sure this is really going to Members…?
Tugendhat and Hunt’s supporters I expect to break heavily for Mordaunt in the final 3, remember Penny backed Hunt for the leadership in 2019.
However as said only chance then of a coronation is a Mordaunt v Sunak last 2
God knows if anyone knows them all well enough to say if this is right or not
So, because this is my idea of having a good time on holiday, I did a chart of where the Conservative leadership candidates *appear* to sit on left/right economic issues or liberal/authoritarian social values.
It's clear that Braverman is the most right-wing on all counts.
I think there is a great mistake in putting right wing and authoritarian in the same bloc in this instance. I would suggest that David Davis is regarded as Right Wing on some cultural war issues but he is certainly not authoritarian - exactly the opposite in fact.
Liberal or authoritarian doesn't make sense in any of those four subjects in the way its been used and rather betrays the instincts of the author I suspect.
Fiscal policy is left/right not liberal or authoritarian. Brexit is neither a liberal nor an authoritarian issue. Climate change the most authoritarian side is the Green extremes, while the most sceptical people have a more liberal attitude.
And as you say, culture wars are too complicated to put as authoritarian like that.
There was a problem with the documentary, though, which was that it left many questions unanswered. Perhaps the film-makers thought viewers would be so gripped by the main story, the awkward detail could be skipped over. The woman who took in Farah was first introduced as the mother of a school friend, but later – oddly – revealed to have much closer ties. It was quite bizarre when, towards the end, she announced that she had contacted Farah’s namesake via Facebook before introducing them to one another on a WhatsApp call.
What happened to the man of the house, who met Farah at the airport and was apparently expecting his real son to come through the arrivals gate rather than this boy he had never seen? What role did Farah’s uncle play?
And did you see the supportive tweets he got from people of colour saying he shouldn't have deleted it?
Cards on the table, I think it was unwise to have tweeted what he did, in part because it was easy for people to vexatiously construe it as racist. There was a good question in there. Is there a significant amount of racism in the Conservative membership? I don't know the answer to that question, but having two people of colour being presented to to the membership would hardly answer that question.
People don't generally vexatiously construe things as obvious as that. He provoked the reaction he got because his comments were unacceptable. No amount of after the fact justification changes that.
Your "analysis" does not account for the large amount of support he got. You have to dismiss a lot of voices of people of colour in order to get to the conclusion that the tweet was obviously wrong. Are you ready to do that?
Doesn't work as a defence because he deleted his original post. It's like Brown calling that woman a bigot, then claiming she wasn't, only for some of his defenders to say she was a bigot after all. Even if it was true, it didn't work because his own actions argued otherwise.
He obviously was worried enough that he felt he had to remove it, even if he tried to caveat why. He's regretted it, clearly, but that he took the step shows he knows the point he was making was not the thoughtful point he now claims it was.
I think people generally mean what they say. His actions show he meant the more inflammatory interpretation, rather than some point about ethnic minority representation. His reactions since, focusing on the original point, have shown his dishonesty in claiming he meant something deeper.
If he wanted to make a blunt point, and he has so many people supporting him, he need not have taken down the first tweet. He is very proud of not backing down from a righteous fight, yet he did initially back down on this one - that I find very telling indeed, since this is not someone who would casually do that, he is not one to be bullied away from his opinion.
More than that, he dismissed and blocked people who disagreed with him, assuming they are just partisans. I don't have a problem with him launching legal challenges, and plenty of others who disagreed with him were not Tory partisans either - so that this intelligent lawyer launched into such a defence shows he was on shaky grounds. He was not confident of defending his point, so instead he just whined that Tories were after him.
He might be right on so many issues and on the government, people will disagree about that, but at the very least his behaviour was that of a right arse, being dishonest about his intention and in his reaction to criticism on it, as well as evasive. He made a comment and then divert from it by pointing at some group that is even worse - maybe they are, but that doesn't speak to what he said, and how he has been dishonest about it.
Now I never said the original tweet was a "thoughtful point", take care not to put words in my mouth. I agree with you that the original tweet was inflammatory and deliberately so.
But I do dispute that backing down is always evidence of mens rea. Far from it. We live in a culture of hair trigger outrage, and it's tempting often to acquiesce to the reaction rather than fight every fight. Now all this is sort of besides the point because in his longer thread he says "I can do better" and it's really interesting to see why. The "imputed prejudice" point is important to understand here, I think. It's a good thread. You don't have to agree with it all to see that.
It's a highly disingenuous thread.
He dismisses the charge of racism against Sunak on the grounds that he is just speaking Truth to Power. He then construes the potential offence of his remark as having been that it might discourage other Black or Brown candidates from standing, but then says that what will discourage them is the "racism" of the Conservative party selectorate. The fact that they were evidently not put off from standing seems to pass him by.
God knows if anyone knows them all well enough to say if this is right or not
So, because this is my idea of having a good time on holiday, I did a chart of where the Conservative leadership candidates *appear* to sit on left/right economic issues or liberal/authoritarian social values.
It's clear that Braverman is the most right-wing on all counts.
I think there is a great mistake in putting right wing and authoritarian in the same bloc in this instance. I would suggest that David Davis is regarded as Right Wing on some cultural war issues but he is certainly not authoritarian - exactly the opposite in fact.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman combined came to 122 votes, just over 1/3 of Tory MPs. So if they all combined behind one of them they would get a candidate in the final 2. However if the supporters of any of the 3 go to Sunak or Mordaunt that no longer applies and the Right’s candidate gets knocked out.
So they cannot afford any leakage, unless Zahawi’s support mainly goes to that block not Sunak and Mordaunt
Are you suggesting therefore there are three roughly equal "factions" within the Parliamentary Party - supporters of Sunak, supporters of Mordaunt and supporters of the best placed "right" candidate?
This seems reminiscent of 2001 when it was alleged some MPs voted tactically to ensure Portillo wouldn't make it through to the membership voting which opened the door for Iain Duncan Smith to face and defeat Clarke.
I begin to wonder whether Sunak might end up the Portillo of this leadership election.
Different to 2001 though as Tugendhat is closest to Clarke ideologically of those left, Sunak and Mordaunt could be seen as closest to Portillo, Badenoch, Truss and Braverman closest to IDS of the last 6 remaining
Setting aside your own preference, who do you see making the final 2 now?
Truss and Mordaunt, just. However could be Sunak v Mordaunt if not all Badenoch and Braverman votes transfer to Truss
What’s the chances of a grand Stop Truss coronation after tomorrows vote? Tommy Tug falls behind PM in exchange for foreign sec. Rishi realises he isn’t going to win and just wants his old job back. Kemi bought off with Home Sec, which might be Gove’s plan for her all along. Or are we sure this is really going to Members…?
Unless it is Sunak v Mordaunt, in which case Sunak may drop out in return for a Cabinet post given members polls show Mordaunt trouncing him, the ERG will ensure it goes to the members as their candidate would also beat Sunak and has more of a chance v Mordaunt then Rishi does
Would the ERG be prepared for civil war over it though? That’s quite a Brexity top table I’ve just postulated between Kemi, Sunak and PM herself. Sticking a Steve Baker in Cabinet, retaining Gove etc… wouldn’t they have sufficient comfort from that?
And did you see the supportive tweets he got from people of colour saying he shouldn't have deleted it?
Cards on the table, I think it was unwise to have tweeted what he did, in part because it was easy for people to vexatiously construe it as racist. There was a good question in there. Is there a significant amount of racism in the Conservative membership? I don't know the answer to that question, but having two people of colour being presented to to the membership would hardly answer that question.
People don't generally vexatiously construe things as obvious as that. He provoked the reaction he got because his comments were unacceptable. No amount of after the fact justification changes that.
Your "analysis" does not account for the large amount of support he got. You have to dismiss a lot of voices of people of colour in order to get to the conclusion that the tweet was obviously wrong. Are you ready to do that?
Absolutely. I am quite happy to hold my own views about the acceptability of his tweet and his all-round berkishness. And for what it's worth I don't think that "a lot of voices of people of colour" agreeing with him makes him right, or the opinions of any other group for that matter. Not that his Twitter followers or the opinion of Twitter users in general is even remotely representative of anything useful.
"Not that his Twitter followers or the opinion of Twitter users in general is even remotely representative of anything useful." Indeed. The same goes for people who reflexively see the worst possibly interpretation in what he says. Jolyon Maugham is a lightning rod for proxy Brexit wars, so the condemnation and support should be taken to be partially representative of that delightful front in the culture wars.
The fact that some people are shouting "racist" who also put in their Twitter bios that "Enoch Powell was right" ought to make one think twice about it.
What doea Mourdant stand for. A week or so on I’m none the wiser. Union Jack, Thatcher reference, digs against Labour and some vague stuff about ships. Seems like a Cameronesque PR person and not much more to it. Tories like her because they think she’ll be effective against Labour.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
I don’t think you’ve missed much, or anything. It’s a shift in tone and messaging, basically:
1. Trust me I’m nice and not too contaminated by Boris 2. I still stand for the 2019 manifesto (I.e, I won’t rock the boat too much and I don’t want an early election) 3. I can take the fight to Labour because I come across well on the telly 4. I believe in more collaborative leadership i.e I’m going to try and build a big tent.
Yeah, and depending on the cabinet, that could be a real improvement on the Boris years. Opens up talking to the EU in a constructive way too. It is a step in the right direction and towards a return to normality (will still take the Tories the best part of a decade or so to get back to normal, but one step at a time and all that).
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman combined came to 122 votes, just over 1/3 of Tory MPs. So if they all combined behind one of them they would get a candidate in the final 2. However if the supporters of any of the 3 go to Sunak or Mordaunt that no longer applies and the Right’s candidate gets knocked out.
So they cannot afford any leakage, unless Zahawi’s support mainly goes to that block not Sunak and Mordaunt
I'm not 100% convinced Sunak will be in the top 2. It could be Mordaunt and Truss, or Mordaunt and Badenoch.
Sunak or Truss or Mordaunt or Tugendhat or Badenoch or Braverman.
Maybe not Braverman
In a way, if she ends up as Home Secretary in a Truss cabinet, that looks plausible to me, Braverman is a big winner, and proves justified for standing.
She’d make Patel look like bleeding heart most reasonable headed liberal. 🫢
What doea Mourdant stand for. A week or so on I’m none the wiser. Union Jack, Thatcher reference, digs against Labour and some vague stuff about ships. Seems like a Cameronesque PR person and not much more to it. Tories like her because they think she’ll be effective against Labour.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
She wants to free our u's. Mordaunt's u can go anywhere it likes - after the a is usual, giving a 'Britannia rules the waves' feeling to the surname, but it can also be seen before the a, re-assigning the whole name as a sort of adjective. Still more exotic, it can slip into the first syllable, giving a saucy, French, frisson of 'amour' to the name, getting remainers a little hot under the collar. The fluidity of this u has got traditionalists worried, and caused Mordaunt to insist there's only one spelling of her name, but strict spelling die-hards remain unconvinced.
I think I shall favour Mordantu. Said in a Vic Reeves voice.
I want it to be Sunak v Badenoch, just to see if Jolyon's head would explode.
Why would that make his head explode?
He thinks Sunak is too brown to lead the Tories
I don't think that represents his position at all. He did a pretty thoughtful thread about that tweet. Did you read it?
Only after he took down his first tweet which he obviously thought sounded a bit racist. And that's me being very generous.
I too like to carefully explain my position after I make a damn fool of myself.
Watching some of the Twitter lefties go full racist, is one of the most amusing parts of the last few days. They really don’t like the idea that ethnic minorities might be conservative.
Agreed, but it is also pretty unedifying of those on the right that are making statements that to me seem to be saying "hahaha, we have got you here: look at the colour of our candidates. That's got you in a pickle eh?" There is definitely an undercurrent of patronising racism.
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
Oh I agree, the Conservative Party has been a fantastic example of treating people according to the content of their character.
But when the likes of Jolyon and Femi start going on about this bunch of coconuts and choc-ices, they need to be reminded about which party elects women and minorities on merit.
Unfortunately it's a fact of life that sometimes you cede the moral high ground by pointing out that you're occupying it. But what fun is occupying it unless your opponents know?
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 35m MP points out that Jeremy Hunt should endorse Penny Mordaunt because of their history. She backed him in 2019, then he quit the cabinet rather than take her job as defence sec when she was sacked by Johnson.
And did you see the supportive tweets he got from people of colour saying he shouldn't have deleted it?
Cards on the table, I think it was unwise to have tweeted what he did, in part because it was easy for people to vexatiously construe it as racist. There was a good question in there. Is there a significant amount of racism in the Conservative membership? I don't know the answer to that question, but having two people of colour being presented to to the membership would hardly answer that question.
People don't generally vexatiously construe things as obvious as that. He provoked the reaction he got because his comments were unacceptable. No amount of after the fact justification changes that.
Your "analysis" does not account for the large amount of support he got. You have to dismiss a lot of voices of people of colour in order to get to the conclusion that the tweet was obviously wrong. Are you ready to do that?
Doesn't work as a defence because he deleted his original post. It's like Brown calling that woman a bigot, then claiming she wasn't, only for some of his defenders to say she was a bigot after all. Even if it was true, it didn't work because his own actions argued otherwise.
He obviously was worried enough that he felt he had to remove it, even if he tried to caveat why. He's regretted it, clearly, but that he took the step shows he knows the point he was making was not the thoughtful point he now claims it was.
I think people generally mean what they say. His actions show he meant the more inflammatory interpretation, rather than some point about ethnic minority representation. His reactions since, focusing on the original point, have shown his dishonesty in claiming he meant something deeper.
If he wanted to make a blunt point, and he has so many people supporting him, he need not have taken down the first tweet. He is very proud of not backing down from a righteous fight, yet he did initially back down on this one - that I find very telling indeed, since this is not someone who would casually do that, he is not one to be bullied away from his opinion.
More than that, he dismissed and blocked people who disagreed with him, assuming they are just partisans. I don't have a problem with him launching legal challenges, and plenty of others who disagreed with him were not Tory partisans either - so that this intelligent lawyer launched into such a defence shows he was on shaky grounds. He was not confident of defending his point, so instead he just whined that Tories were after him.
He might be right on so many issues and on the government, people will disagree about that, but at the very least his behaviour was that of a right arse, being dishonest about his intention and in his reaction to criticism on it, as well as evasive. He made a comment and then divert from it by pointing at some group that is even worse - maybe they are, but that doesn't speak to what he said, and how he has been dishonest about it.
Now I never said the original tweet was a "thoughtful point", take care not to put words in my mouth. I agree with you that the original tweet was inflammatory and deliberately so.
But I do dispute that backing down is always evidence of mens rea. Far from it. We live in a culture of hair trigger outrage, and it's tempting often to acquiesce to the reaction rather than fight every fight. Now all this is sort of besides the point because in his longer thread he says "I can do better" and it's really interesting to see why. The "imputed prejudice" point is important to understand here, I think. It's a good thread. You don't have to agree with it all to see that.
It's a highly disingenuous thread.
He dismisses the charge of racism against Sunak on the grounds that he is just speaking Truth to Power. He then construes the potential offence of his remark as having been that it might discourage other Black or Brown candidates from standing, but then says that what will discourage them is the "racism" of the Conservative party selectorate. The fact that they were evidently not put off from standing seems to pass him by.
There's nothing disingenuous about that. Pressure against action can exist to the extent that it puts some people off and not others. In the same way that most people don't steal from Tesco because the dissuasive pressure of being detected and punished is enough for them, but other people do it because the pressure is not enough for them, or overbalanced by persuasive pressure.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 46m Will Woodhams of @Fitzdares : "We've seen a surge of flutters on Mordaunt today as true blue punters lash themselves to the good ship Penny. She's nailed on favourite now as Sunak seems to be stuttering and the rest of the right still look like a rabble."
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman combined came to 122 votes, just over 1/3 of Tory MPs. So if they all combined behind one of them they would get a candidate in the final 2. However if the supporters of any of the 3 go to Sunak or Mordaunt that no longer applies and the Right’s candidate gets knocked out.
So they cannot afford any leakage, unless Zahawi’s support mainly goes to that block not Sunak and Mordaunt
Are you suggesting therefore there are three roughly equal "factions" within the Parliamentary Party - supporters of Sunak, supporters of Mordaunt and supporters of the best placed "right" candidate?
This seems reminiscent of 2001 when it was alleged some MPs voted tactically to ensure Portillo wouldn't make it through to the membership voting which opened the door for Iain Duncan Smith to face and defeat Clarke.
I begin to wonder whether Sunak might end up the Portillo of this leadership election.
Different to 2001 though as Tugendhat is closest to Clarke ideologically of those left, Sunak and Mordaunt could be seen as closest to Portillo, Badenoch, Truss and Braverman closest to IDS of the last 6 remaining
Setting aside your own preference, who do you see making the final 2 now?
Truss and Mordaunt, just. However could be Sunak v Mordaunt if not all Badenoch and Braverman votes transfer to Truss
What’s the chances of a grand Stop Truss coronation after tomorrows vote? Tommy Tug falls behind PM in exchange for foreign sec. Rishi realises he isn’t going to win and just wants his old job back. Kemi bought off with Home Sec, which might be Gove’s plan for her all along. Or are we sure this is really going to Members…?
Unless it is Sunak v Mordaunt, in which case Sunak may drop out in return for a Cabinet post given members polls show Mordaunt trouncing him, the ERG will ensure it goes to the members as their candidate would also beat Sunak and has more of a chance v Mordaunt then Rishi does
Would the ERG be prepared for civil war over it though? That’s quite a Brexity top table I’ve just postulated between Kemi, Sunak and PM herself. Sticking a Steve Baker in Cabinet, retaining Gove etc… wouldn’t they have sufficient comfort from that?
Agreed, now Sunak is effectively a walking corpse as far as the leadership is concerned it seems the ERG would have achieved their aim of destroying his campaign. They could live with Mordaunt as PM if Sunak got to the last 2 with Penny and dropped out as long as some key ERG figures in Cabinet
"How Penny Mordaunt fell foul of the nostalgia lobby An unlikely row about It Ain’t Half Hot Mum shows some in Tory ranks feel assailed by any critique of the past David Aaronovitch" (£)
Can't read cos paywall, but I assume that any such critique of Mordaunt that may exist emanates from the fraction of very elderly supporters who also couldn't see anything wrong with the Black and White Minstrel Show, and insist that there's been nothing worth watching on the BBC since they made the (in their view inexplicable) decision to cancel Last of the Summer Wine.
This is not the pool in which she is fishing.
But is the pool she is fishing in big enough?
Hard to tell, isn't it? One imagines that the average Tory member is probably getting on a bit, but I'm sure that the out-and-out reactionary dinosaur wing isn't that large. Rather, I suspect that the outcome of a Mordaunt candidacy depends on what mood the party is in at the moment, and someone who actually moves in Tory circles would clearly have a better idea of that than I do.
I reckon that Mordaunt would end up beating a candidate from further to the right in a run-off if the members are still interested in trying to win the next election, but that she wouldn't stand a chance if the post-Johnson party thinks it is doomed to defeat, has given in to the "opposition as chance for renewal" theory, or simply wishes to indulge itself by refusing to compromise its principles if that means compromising with the electorate.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 46m Will Woodhams of @Fitzdares : "We've seen a surge of flutters on Mordaunt today as true blue punters lash themselves to the good ship Penny. She's nailed on favourite now as Sunak seems to be stuttering and the rest of the right still look like a rabble."
It’s rather odd. Lots of ramping. Truss wasn’t that far behind Mordaunt.
Surprised to see even Guido thinks Rishi will be very happy with 88. Not sure anything is helping with Members though.
I don’t think he will be. Penny and Kemi have the momentum, Rishi could be 4th tomorrow, deserted by those who were only backing him because he was the winner.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman combined came to 122 votes, just over 1/3 of Tory MPs. So if they all combined behind one of them they would get a candidate in the final 2. However if the supporters of any of the 3 go to Sunak or Mordaunt that no longer applies and the Right’s candidate gets knocked out.
So they cannot afford any leakage, unless Zahawi’s support mainly goes to that block not Sunak and Mordaunt
I disagree HY.
You don’t have any of the Zahawi vote going to Truss? You don’t have any centre left votes going to truss on basis she has experience? And you don’t factor in, regardless what wing or faction, personality’s, grudges and deals doesn’t swell Truss support either if she looks like the winner once joining Sunak in last two?
In two rounds she could be top even before deals and grudges come into it.
And did you see the supportive tweets he got from people of colour saying he shouldn't have deleted it?
Cards on the table, I think it was unwise to have tweeted what he did, in part because it was easy for people to vexatiously construe it as racist. There was a good question in there. Is there a significant amount of racism in the Conservative membership? I don't know the answer to that question, but having two people of colour being presented to to the membership would hardly answer that question.
People don't generally vexatiously construe things as obvious as that. He provoked the reaction he got because his comments were unacceptable. No amount of after the fact justification changes that.
Your "analysis" does not account for the large amount of support he got. You have to dismiss a lot of voices of people of colour in order to get to the conclusion that the tweet was obviously wrong. Are you ready to do that?
Absolutely. I am quite happy to hold my own views about the acceptability of his tweet and his all-round berkishness. And for what it's worth I don't think that "a lot of voices of people of colour" agreeing with him makes him right, or the opinions of any other group for that matter. Not that his Twitter followers or the opinion of Twitter users in general is even remotely representative of anything useful.
"Not that his Twitter followers or the opinion of Twitter users in general is even remotely representative of anything useful." Indeed. The same goes for people who reflexively see the worst possibly interpretation in what he says. Jolyon Maugham is a lightning rod for proxy Brexit wars, so the condemnation and support should be taken to be partially representative of that delightful front in the culture wars.
The fact that some people are shouting "racist" who also put in their Twitter bios that "Enoch Powell was right" ought to make one think twice about it.
Why is this all so meta? Why can't it be about what he said rather than how, who responded to it?
The taunting of Sunak sounds so de haut en bas, you can tell from his name that Jolyon is one of nature's Etonians but debarred by geography (he's NZ). There's a bit in Styron's Confessions of Nat Turner where a field slave yells at the dolled up house slave Turner "Yo ass as black as mine" and Maugham sounds exactly like that: Hey jumped up brown boi, you think your owners gonna make you PM?
Tory MP's will now start to look for the final two and being seen to back either of those two. It's self interest and jobs for the boys and gals time. Mordaunt had the Big Mo and nothing succeeds like success.
There's going to be plenty of churn. Mordaunt will cruise to the final two. Might Sunak limp over the line or will the terminally dull Truss cobble together enough of the odds and sods to edge him out. Either way Mordaunt will comfortable see off either of Sunak or Truss in the members ballot.
"How Penny Mordaunt fell foul of the nostalgia lobby An unlikely row about It Ain’t Half Hot Mum shows some in Tory ranks feel assailed by any critique of the past David Aaronovitch" (£)
Can't read cos paywall, but I assume that any such critique of Mordaunt that may exist emanates from the fraction of very elderly supporters who also couldn't see anything wrong with the Black and White Minstrel Show, and insist that there's been nothing worth watching on the BBC since they made the (in their view inexplicable) decision to cancel Last of the Summer Wine.
This is not the pool in which she is fishing.
To be honest, pidge, I'm not altogether comfortable with her cultural critiques - not because I hark back to the days of Bernard Manning, but because her cultural critiques are half-baked at best. IAHHM was - and I am fond of a classic sitcom - not a masterpiece at the time and has aged badly. But it is the straight white male who is the butt of the jokes. For the 70s it is actually almost proto-woke. My unease with her critique of IAHHM is that it appears to be driven by her feeling the need to say the right thing and doesn't appear to be that well thought through. It doesn't imply a great critical thinker is about to take over the Conservative Party.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
I want it to be Sunak v Badenoch, just to see if Jolyon's head would explode.
Why would that make his head explode?
He thinks Sunak is too brown to lead the Tories
I don't think that represents his position at all. He did a pretty thoughtful thread about that tweet. Did you read it?
Only after he took down his first tweet which he obviously thought sounded a bit racist. And that's me being very generous.
I too like to carefully explain my position after I make a damn fool of myself.
Watching some of the Twitter lefties go full racist, is one of the most amusing parts of the last few days. They really don’t like the idea that ethnic minorities might be conservative.
Agreed, but it is also pretty unedifying of those on the right that are making statements that to me seem to be saying "hahaha, we have got you here: look at the colour of our candidates. That's got you in a pickle eh?" There is definitely an undercurrent of patronising racism.
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
Oh I agree, the Conservative Party has been a fantastic example of treating people according to the content of their character.
But when the likes of Jolyon and Femi start going on about this bunch of coconuts and choc-ices, they need to be reminded about which party elects women and minorities on merit.
That isn't Femi's critique of Badenoch though. He objects to her policies and politics.
Tory MP's will now start to look for the final two and being seen to back either of those two. It's self interest and jobs for the boys and gals time. Mordaunt had the Big Mo and nothing succeeds like success.
There's going to be plenty of churn. Mordaunt will cruise to the final two. Might Sunak limp over the line or will the terminally dull Truss cobble together enough of the odds and sods to edge him out. Either way Mordaunt will comfortable see off either of Sunak or Truss in the members ballot.
PM4PM ... It's going to happen.
An empty vessel in which Tories can pour their dreams.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
Get your arm in a bucket of the coldest water you can stand, for as long as you can stand it.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
I think only Tugendhat has the establishment creds and the MPs seem pretty ho hum about him. So Mordaunt it probably will be and honestly, I think that is (and should be) the final nail in the coffin of the Tory Party.
Sorry to hear of your scald... Antiseptic Cooling Cream can be your friend here.
As I already said Mordaunt v Truss is the likely final 2 as Mordaunt plus Tugendhat and Hunt’s votes and Truss plus Badenoch and Braverman’s votes are both combined comfortably more than Sunak’s 1st round vote even if Sunak picks up a few Zahawi votes.
I now expect Sunak to get squeezed a la Portillo 2001. Hunt will join Tugendhat but if and when Tugendhat is knocked out they will send their votes en masse to Mordaunt as the best bet to stop Truss in the membership vote, Mordaunt also close to Hunt having backed him in 2019 for leader.
The vast majority of Badenoch and Braverman votes will transfer to Truss of course not Sunak
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 46m Will Woodhams of @Fitzdares : "We've seen a surge of flutters on Mordaunt today as true blue punters lash themselves to the good ship Penny. She's nailed on favourite now as Sunak seems to be stuttering and the rest of the right still look like a rabble."
It’s rather odd. Lots of ramping. Truss wasn’t that far behind Mordaunt.
With astonish number, 72, votes for Braverman and Badenoch you would never have thought a week ago!
You are absolutely right, lesson from previous, it’s not whose 15 ahead of who at this stage, it’s who looks close to their glass ceiling, who most benefits from the drop outs. It’s a very different game when it comes to knocking 1 out to make a 2 as deals to exceed your glass ceiling comes into it.
Harry Cole’s “right looking like a rabble” sounds so amateurish when there are so many right votes for a unified right candidate to transform this election. If anything it’s the opposite - the Tory Parliamentary Party and Membership seem very right wing, and not very hungry for the concessions needed for power, these days.
I'm sure there's been lengthy analysis so far, but I've not caught up on 4 pages of discussion so far! I wonder whether there might be value in laying Mordaunt? Truss can pull votes from Badenoch (or vice versa if you want), and from Zahawi and Braverman. Mordaunt, on the other hand, is probably looking at Hunt and Tugendhat to get her additional votes. There's more votes on the libertarian, pro-Boris, pro-culture war right. Sunak has a good lead and will get transfers too. So maybe you get a Truss/Sunak final? Moreover, both Truss and Sunak would rather face the other than Mordaunt, so there could even be some jiggery-pokery with votes to achieve that.
I could be entirely wrong, of course! Mordaunt is making a play to represent all of the party, not just the One Nation faction.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
Go on and on and on about Woke. That’s the Tories solution to all painful problems.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
Ouch. I hope the latter is not some sort of protest at the former.
To me, all four candidates are better than the options last time around. I am glass half full. Obviously I'd like someone who was totally in tune with my view of the world, is persuasive, a deep thinker, of great integrity and charm and has an entertaining back story. But that will never happen, not least because most ways of viewing world are not mine. But any step in the right direction is to be welcomed.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
Ouch. I hope the latter is not some sort of protest at the former.
To me, all four candidates are better than the options last time around. I am glass half full. Obviously I'd like someone who was totally in tune with my view of the world, is persuasive, a deep thinker, of great integrity and charm and has an entertaining back story. But that will never happen, not least because most ways of viewing world are not mine. But any step in the right direction is to be welcomed.
But, as we don't have one of them right now, let's go with this guy.
I want it to be Sunak v Badenoch, just to see if Jolyon's head would explode.
Why would that make his head explode?
He thinks Sunak is too brown to lead the Tories
I don't think that represents his position at all. He did a pretty thoughtful thread about that tweet. Did you read it?
Only after he took down his first tweet which he obviously thought sounded a bit racist. And that's me being very generous.
I too like to carefully explain my position after I make a damn fool of myself.
Watching some of the Twitter lefties go full racist, is one of the most amusing parts of the last few days. They really don’t like the idea that ethnic minorities might be conservative.
Agreed, but it is also pretty unedifying of those on the right that are making statements that to me seem to be saying "hahaha, we have got you here: look at the colour of our candidates. That's got you in a pickle eh?" There is definitely an undercurrent of patronising racism.
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
Oh I agree, the Conservative Party has been a fantastic example of treating people according to the content of their character.
But when the likes of Jolyon and Femi start going on about this bunch of coconuts and choc-ices, they need to be reminded about which party elects women and minorities on merit.
That isn't Femi's critique of Badenoch though. He objects to her policies and politics.
I'm sure there's been lengthy analysis so far, but I've not caught up on 4 pages of discussion so far! I wonder whether there might be value in laying Mordaunt? Truss can pull votes from Badenoch (or vice versa if you want), and from Zahawi and Braverman. Mordaunt, on the other hand, is probably looking at Hunt and Tugendhat to get her additional votes. There's more votes on the libertarian, pro-Boris, pro-culture war right. Sunak has a good lead and will get transfers too. So maybe you get a Truss/Sunak final? Moreover, both Truss and Sunak would rather face the other than Mordaunt, so there could even be some jiggery-pokery with votes to achieve that.
I could be entirely wrong, of course! Mordaunt is making a play to represent all of the party, not just the One Nation faction.
It’s certainly a possibility and I wouldn’t rule out Truss/Sunak. However I think the chances of that have significantly reduced today because Sunak massively underperformed on the first ballot and Penny has the momentum. Transfers are more likely to go to Penny as the Stop Liz candidate now that Sunak is seen as toxic with the membership and not a runaway in the MP vote.
Final 2 likelihood in order is IMHO: Penny v Liz Penny v Badenoch Liz v Rishi Rishi v Penny Rishi v Badenoch.
I think the pressure on labour to eventually replace Keir with a woman will be overwhelming.
Betting tip:
Lay all the men in the next labour leader market. Close to free money.
The fallacy of altruism exposed by Dawkins in Selfish Gene: individuals are not motivated by what would benefit the group overall. Ignore this advice.
I'm not sure this does justice to a really tricky problem in ethics and behavioural studies.
Dawkins's backing is scant recommendation outside his field of actual expertise, wholly unrelated to what he is famous for. To say the least other arguments are available.
Dawkins is simply adducing a widely known issue in game theory; and his application of it is most certainly part of what he is famous for. Unless one is a religious type.
What made Dawkins' name was applying this reasoning not just at the individual level, but at the gene level, thus the title of his most famous work. But the gene level doesn't really have a useful metaphor here! Oh, and also, he nicked the good ideas from his then wife, Marian Stamp Dawkins. (He was briefly married to a second wife and had a daughter. I knew someone who knew the daughter -- claim to fame there, albeit not as good as my cat knowing Sinead O'Connor. Then Dawkins married Romana from Dr Who, because he wants to be Dr Who presumably, but they've since separated.)
I am rather impressed by @hyufd ‘s analysis of the race into Clarke-Portillo-Smith (europhile liberal - eurosceptic libertarian - hard rightwinger)
Can anyone remind me how IDS managed to slip through the middle? That’s the nightmare scenario - that a Truss/Badenoch Unity Right Candidate slips through.
(Even I’m not pessimistic enough to imagine fortune favouring the Braverman
Iirc it was whether the tories were more homophobic or europhobic
I'm sure there's been lengthy analysis so far, but I've not caught up on 4 pages of discussion so far! I wonder whether there might be value in laying Mordaunt? Truss can pull votes from Badenoch (or vice versa if you want), and from Zahawi and Braverman. Mordaunt, on the other hand, is probably looking at Hunt and Tugendhat to get her additional votes. There's more votes on the libertarian, pro-Boris, pro-culture war right. Sunak has a good lead and will get transfers too. So maybe you get a Truss/Sunak final? Moreover, both Truss and Sunak would rather face the other than Mordaunt, so there could even be some jiggery-pokery with votes to achieve that.
I could be entirely wrong, of course! Mordaunt is making a play to represent all of the party, not just the One Nation faction.
I think the prices are about right for the first time in the contest. Possibly Badenoch a back. The Hat still a lay at around 70-100, literally zero chance.
This Harry Lambert bloke clearly isn't a fan of Kemi Badenoch.
"There are only four serious contenders left for the Tory leadership The real question is who of Penny Mordaunt, Tom Tugendhat and Liz Truss will face Rishi Sunak in the final round. By Harry Lambert" (£)
I want it to be Sunak v Badenoch, just to see if Jolyon's head would explode.
Why would that make his head explode?
He thinks Sunak is too brown to lead the Tories
I don't think that represents his position at all. He did a pretty thoughtful thread about that tweet. Did you read it?
Only after he took down his first tweet which he obviously thought sounded a bit racist. And that's me being very generous.
I too like to carefully explain my position after I make a damn fool of myself.
Watching some of the Twitter lefties go full racist, is one of the most amusing parts of the last few days. They really don’t like the idea that ethnic minorities might be conservative.
Agreed, but it is also pretty unedifying of those on the right that are making statements that to me seem to be saying "hahaha, we have got you here: look at the colour of our candidates. That's got you in a pickle eh?" There is definitely an undercurrent of patronising racism.
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
Oh I agree, the Conservative Party has been a fantastic example of treating people according to the content of their character.
But when the likes of Jolyon and Femi start going on about this bunch of coconuts and choc-ices, they need to be reminded about which party elects women and minorities on merit.
That isn't Femi's critique of Badenoch though. He objects to her policies and politics.
And did you see the supportive tweets he got from people of colour saying he shouldn't have deleted it?
Cards on the table, I think it was unwise to have tweeted what he did, in part because it was easy for people to vexatiously construe it as racist. There was a good question in there. Is there a significant amount of racism in the Conservative membership? I don't know the answer to that question, but having two people of colour being presented to to the membership would hardly answer that question.
People don't generally vexatiously construe things as obvious as that. He provoked the reaction he got because his comments were unacceptable. No amount of after the fact justification changes that.
Your "analysis" does not account for the large amount of support he got. You have to dismiss a lot of voices of people of colour in order to get to the conclusion that the tweet was obviously wrong. Are you ready to do that?
Absolutely. I am quite happy to hold my own views about the acceptability of his tweet and his all-round berkishness. And for what it's worth I don't think that "a lot of voices of people of colour" agreeing with him makes him right, or the opinions of any other group for that matter. Not that his Twitter followers or the opinion of Twitter users in general is even remotely representative of anything useful.
"Not that his Twitter followers or the opinion of Twitter users in general is even remotely representative of anything useful." Indeed. The same goes for people who reflexively see the worst possibly interpretation in what he says. Jolyon Maugham is a lightning rod for proxy Brexit wars, so the condemnation and support should be taken to be partially representative of that delightful front in the culture wars.
The fact that some people are shouting "racist" who also put in their Twitter bios that "Enoch Powell was right" ought to make one think twice about it.
Why is this all so meta? Why can't it be about what he said rather than how, who responded to it?
The taunting of Sunak sounds so de haut en bas, you can tell from his name that Jolyon is one of nature's Etonians but debarred by geography (he's NZ). There's a bit in Styron's Confessions of Nat Turner where a field slave yells at the dolled up house slave Turner "Yo ass as black as mine" and Maugham sounds exactly like that: Hey jumped up brown boi, you think your owners gonna make you PM?
Thems the breaks. I'm sorry for injecting a little nuance into the conversation.
Some of us can sniff out the distinction between clumsy and malicious, even without having read this or that book. Indeed, personal experience goes a long way.
I'm sure there's been lengthy analysis so far, but I've not caught up on 4 pages of discussion so far! I wonder whether there might be value in laying Mordaunt? Truss can pull votes from Badenoch (or vice versa if you want), and from Zahawi and Braverman. Mordaunt, on the other hand, is probably looking at Hunt and Tugendhat to get her additional votes. There's more votes on the libertarian, pro-Boris, pro-culture war right. Sunak has a good lead and will get transfers too. So maybe you get a Truss/Sunak final? Moreover, both Truss and Sunak would rather face the other than Mordaunt, so there could even be some jiggery-pokery with votes to achieve that.
I could be entirely wrong, of course! Mordaunt is making a play to represent all of the party, not just the One Nation faction.
I think the prices are about right for the first time in the contest. Possibly Badenoch a back. The Hat still a lay at around 70-100, literally zero chance.
I laid my bet on Mordaunt a tad earlier today. Adds a few quid to the others if they win and it is v early in this process: TV debates to come.
Contra to @HYUFD, I think you have to work quite hard to project a situation in which Rishi doesn’t get through.
It’s possible, along the lines he projects, but a lot of MPs will be looking nervously at Mordaunt’s inexperience and the lack of coherence underneath her rhetoric (per @Cyclefree). They’re also shit scared of Loony Liz.
I still think Mordaunt will win, but beyond that I will only venture that there is certainly no route through to the final two for Braverman. She (and the ERG) need to decide whether they are weighing in behind Badenoch or Truss.
Tugendhat’s hopes rest on some kind of Rishi collapse. Very unlikely. Badenoch needs wholehearted support from the ERG, or Truss to falter.
As I already said Mordaunt v Truss is the likely final 2 as Mordaunt plus Tugendhat and Hunt’s votes and Truss plus Badenoch and Braverman’s votes are both combined comfortably more than Sunak’s 1st round vote even if Sunak picks up a few Zahawi votes.
I now expect Sunak to get squeezed a la Portillo 2001. Hunt will join Tugendhat but if and when Tugendhat is knocked out they will send their votes en masse to Mordaunt as the best bet to stop Truss in the membership vote, Mordaunt also close to Hunt having backed him in 2019 for leader.
The vast majority of Badenoch and Braverman votes will transfer to Truss of course not Sunak
It’s tribal yes. But not to underestimate personal to some degree (Craig watching Penny and zahawi pass each other without acknowledging the others existence suggests to me that although zahawi say publicly he won’t endorse he may privately be urging his supporters not to go near Penny). But it’s also about experience when it comes to the crunch.
It all turns out a bit like the FA cup does in the end, I think.
Give you one question as example - Sunak pulls out tonight due to a scandal - you will have more of his votes transferring to Penny not Liz wouldn’t you? Raab and Shapps to Penny not Liz?
As I already said Mordaunt v Truss is the likely final 2 as Mordaunt plus Tugendhat and Hunt’s votes and Truss plus Badenoch and Braverman’s votes are both combined comfortably more than Sunak’s 1st round vote even if Sunak picks up a few Zahawi votes.
I now expect Sunak to get squeezed a la Portillo 2001. Hunt will join Tugendhat but if and when Tugendhat is knocked out they will send their votes en masse to Mordaunt as the best bet to stop Truss in the membership vote, Mordaunt also close to Hunt having backed him in 2019 for leader.
The vast majority of Badenoch and Braverman votes will transfer to Truss of course not Sunak
Interesting and makes a lot of sense.
Why do you think Zahawi voters will go to Sunak? Aren't Zahawi voters Boris lovers, who now all hate Sunak? I'd put them down for Truss.
Comments
Dawkins's backing is scant recommendation outside his field of actual expertise, wholly unrelated to what he is famous for. To say the least other arguments are available.
May and Gillard lost their party’s majority
Fun fact, root meaning of lens is lentil, cos lenses are shaped like that.
Seattle Times ($) - Danny Westneat: ‘A debacle’: Our troubled citizen initiative process is in a record drought
. . . . No one is quite sure why, but this fall will mark the third year in a row voters will find zero statewide citizens’ initiatives on their ballots. For this once insanely popular form of “direct democracy,” it’s the longest drought going back nearly a century, to the 1920s.
For the past three decades, through 2019, we averaged three issue initiatives on the ballot per year (either initiatives to the people or to the Legislature). There was only one year during those decades that had none.
What’s going on? The initiative was once a populist relief valve, so that hacked-off citizens could take their ideas around the stranglehold of the powerful and straight to the people. Later, the tool was itself hijacked by corporations and special interests, as well as twisted into a rent-seeking factory by mercenaries like Eyman.
Now it seems, the whole concept is momentarily defunct.
Last week the ACLU of Washington announced it had failed to collect enough signatures to qualify a big-ticket drug decriminalization initiative for this fall’s ballot. This was no longshot effort by scrappy volunteers — the group spent $2.7 million on consultants and pro signature-gatherers, and has racked up an additional $669,000 in debts, according to state records. . . .
Another high-stakes measure, to repeal the state’s new capital gains tax, was amply backed by superrich people but also folded last month after spending $510,000.
. . . There’s a labor shortage among itinerant canvassers, which — combined with voters not wanting to engage with clipboard-toting strangers during COVID — led to soaring costs of more than $10 per signature.
Bottom line: No direct democracy again this year — not even the bought and paid for kind. . . .
It could also be that this is the calm before the storm — a big storm, if a new initiative-promoting gambit gets its way.
. . .[T]wo outfits have risen on the right. One is called Restore Washington, the other Let’s Go Washington. Their joint drive is bankrolled mostly by a Kirkland businessman named Brian Heywood.
“I came here from the People’s Republic of California,” Heywood introduced himself to a conservative crowd recently at a Marysville church. “I’m an economic refugee. I came here to make money, and to be free.”
Unlike Eyman, Heywood isn’t trying to make bank off his initiatives — he’s already rich. He’s given more than $750,000 to GOP causes in the past five years, including $150,000 last year to try to repeal the state’s long-term care program (that also failed to get enough signatures).
But now Heywood is taking his make-money-and-be-free bravado and amping it all the way up to 11. In an environment where $3 million just failed to get a single measure on the ballot, his outfit, Let’s Go Washington, has started collecting signatures for 11 initiatives simultaneously. . . .
Let us just try and see people on their merits, not their ethnicity.
"I always reflect and, discuss, across the political spectrum."
Look at those fucking commas!
Imploding before our eyes.
But nothing there beyond that. Am I missing something?
If you want to leave Dawkins out of it you could think about the tragedy of the commons, or about Prisoner's Dilemma, to see the utter wrongness of the proposition under discussion.
This is not the pool in which she is fishing.
But I do dispute that backing down is always evidence of mens rea. Far from it. We live in a culture of hair trigger outrage, and it's tempting often to acquiesce to the reaction rather than fight every fight.
Now all this is sort of besides the point because in his longer thread he says "I can do better" and it's really interesting to see why. The "imputed prejudice" point is important to understand here, I think. It's a good thread. You don't have to agree with it all to see that.
1. Trust me I’m nice and not too contaminated by Boris
2. I still stand for the 2019 manifesto (I.e, I won’t rock the boat too much and I don’t want an early election)
3. I can take the fight to Labour because I come across well on the telly
4. I believe in more collaborative leadership i.e I’m going to try and build a big tent.
If you want to point out she was not a very good election winner you're on firm ground.
And I know I'm right because if Boris had stayed on as PM, and fought the next election and gotten a 2017 style result, you would have correctly noted that that was a decent result for the 5th election since 2010, and that as he stayed as PM he won it.
Truss , who imagine could be electoral marmite, does seem to have a brain and a track record.
But when the likes of Jolyon and Femi start going on about this bunch of coconuts and choc-ices, they need to be reminded about which party elects women and minorities on merit.
Can anyone remind me how IDS managed to slip through the middle? That’s the nightmare scenario - that a Truss/Badenoch Unity Right Candidate slips through.
(Even I’m not pessimistic enough to imagine fortune favouring the Braverman.)
Opposition MPs rejected a proposal to reinstate the health pass for travellers entering France, requiring them to show proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test in the event of the emergence of a new Covid variant.
Truss can’t win here….
However as said only chance then of a coronation is a Mordaunt v Sunak last 2
Fiscal policy is left/right not liberal or authoritarian.
Brexit is neither a liberal nor an authoritarian issue.
Climate change the most authoritarian side is the Green extremes, while the most sceptical people have a more liberal attitude.
And as you say, culture wars are too complicated to put as authoritarian like that.
What happened to the man of the house, who met Farah at the airport and was apparently expecting his real son to come through the arrivals gate rather than this boy he had never seen? What role did Farah’s uncle play?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/real-mo-farah-review-gobsmacking-documentary-leaves-many-unanswered/
I mentioned this before....who is Mo's brother who got deported for criminality. Was he also a victim of trafficking?
He dismisses the charge of racism against Sunak on the grounds that he is just speaking Truth to Power. He then construes the potential offence of his remark as having been that it might discourage other Black or Brown candidates from standing, but then says that what will discourage them is the "racism" of the Conservative party selectorate. The fact that they were evidently not put off from standing seems to pass him by.
Indeed. The same goes for people who reflexively see the worst possibly interpretation in what he says. Jolyon Maugham is a lightning rod for proxy Brexit wars, so the condemnation and support should be taken to be partially representative of that delightful front in the culture wars.
The fact that some people are shouting "racist" who also put in their Twitter bios that "Enoch Powell was right" ought to make one think twice about it.
She’d make Patel look like bleeding heart most reasonable headed liberal. 🫢
Zahawi ~> Truss
The next round could very close.
Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
·
35m
MP points out that Jeremy Hunt should endorse Penny Mordaunt because of their history. She backed him in 2019, then he quit the cabinet rather than take her job as defence sec when she was sacked by Johnson.
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
46m
Will Woodhams of
@Fitzdares
: "We've seen a surge of flutters on Mordaunt today as true blue punters lash themselves to the good ship Penny. She's nailed on favourite now as Sunak seems to be stuttering and the rest of the right still look like a rabble."
I reckon that Mordaunt would end up beating a candidate from further to the right in a run-off if the members are still interested in trying to win the next election, but that she wouldn't stand a chance if the post-Johnson party thinks it is doomed to defeat, has given in to the "opposition as chance for renewal" theory, or simply wishes to indulge itself by refusing to compromise its principles if that means compromising with the electorate.
You don’t have any of the Zahawi vote going to Truss?
You don’t have any centre left votes going to truss on basis she has experience?
And you don’t factor in, regardless what wing or faction, personality’s, grudges and deals doesn’t swell Truss support either if she looks like the winner once joining Sunak in last two?
In two rounds she could be top even before deals and grudges come into it.
The taunting of Sunak sounds so de haut en bas, you can tell from his name that Jolyon is one of nature's Etonians but debarred by geography (he's NZ). There's a bit in Styron's Confessions of Nat Turner where a field slave yells at the dolled up house slave Turner "Yo ass as black as mine" and Maugham sounds exactly like that: Hey jumped up brown boi, you think your owners gonna make you PM?
Tory MP's will now start to look for the final two and being seen to back either of those two. It's self interest and jobs for the boys and gals time. Mordaunt had the Big Mo and nothing succeeds like success.
There's going to be plenty of churn. Mordaunt will cruise to the final two. Might Sunak limp over the line or will the terminally dull Truss cobble together enough of the odds and sods to edge him out. Either way Mordaunt will comfortable see off either of Sunak or Truss in the members ballot.
PM4PM ... It's going to happen.
IAHHM was - and I am fond of a classic sitcom - not a masterpiece at the time and has aged badly. But it is the straight white male who is the butt of the jokes. For the 70s it is actually almost proto-woke.
My unease with her critique of IAHHM is that it appears to be driven by her feeling the need to say the right thing and doesn't appear to be that well thought through. It doesn't imply a great critical thinker is about to take over the Conservative Party.
Mordaunt is Continuity Boris: has difficulties with the truth and can't be trusted, talks bullshit (that modernisation twaddle was painful) and her main policy is to make it easy for MPs to become as corrupt as Italian politicians. And like Boris she is relying on polls to make her case.
She will shine for a while then crash and burn like him.
Truss - God knows what she stands for .
Badenoch: has real potential but little experience
Sunak: ho hum.
It is a dismal choice.
I have also managed to burn my right arm with boiling water. It hurts like hell.
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1547242960642887680?t=KZovQEEfRB_sepuWHk4K4g&s=09
Sorry to hear of your scald... Antiseptic Cooling Cream can be your friend here.
As I already said Mordaunt v Truss is the likely final 2 as Mordaunt plus Tugendhat and Hunt’s votes and Truss plus Badenoch and Braverman’s votes are both combined comfortably more than Sunak’s 1st round vote even if Sunak picks up a few Zahawi votes.
I now expect Sunak to get squeezed a la Portillo 2001. Hunt will join Tugendhat but if and when Tugendhat is knocked out they will send their votes en masse to Mordaunt as the best bet to stop Truss in the membership vote, Mordaunt also close to Hunt having backed him in 2019 for leader.
The vast majority of Badenoch and Braverman votes will transfer to Truss of course not Sunak
You are absolutely right, lesson from previous, it’s not whose 15 ahead of who at this stage, it’s who looks close to their glass ceiling, who most benefits from the drop outs. It’s a very different game when it comes to knocking 1 out to make a 2 as deals to exceed your glass ceiling comes into it.
Harry Cole’s “right looking like a rabble” sounds so amateurish when there are so many right votes for a unified right candidate to transform this election. If anything it’s the opposite - the Tory Parliamentary Party and Membership seem very right wing, and not very hungry for the concessions needed for power, these days.
I could be entirely wrong, of course! Mordaunt is making a play to represent all of the party, not just the One Nation faction.
Get well soon.
To me, all four candidates are better than the options last time around. I am glass half full. Obviously I'd like someone who was totally in tune with my view of the world, is persuasive, a deep thinker, of great integrity and charm and has an entertaining back story. But that will never happen, not least because most ways of viewing world are not mine. But any step in the right direction is to be welcomed.
Who will get the Ben Wallace endorsement? In case I missed it, that significant card has yet to be played.
Still a crying shame he didn’t stand. He even reached my teenage sons.
Final 2 likelihood in order is IMHO:
Penny v Liz
Penny v Badenoch
Liz v Rishi
Rishi v Penny
Rishi v Badenoch.
"There are only four serious contenders left for the Tory leadership
The real question is who of Penny Mordaunt, Tom Tugendhat and Liz Truss will face Rishi Sunak in the final round.
By Harry Lambert" (£)
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/07/eight-candidates-tory-leadership-ballot-list
Kemi Badenoch cannot be accepted because she isn't a left winger . There is no way, in his mind, that a person of colour can be a conservative.
How blinkered can you get?
Some of us can sniff out the distinction between clumsy and malicious, even without having read this or that book. Indeed, personal experience goes a long way.
Could he back Truss? Neither resigned.
It’s possible, along the lines he projects, but a lot of MPs will be looking nervously at Mordaunt’s inexperience and the lack of coherence underneath her rhetoric (per @Cyclefree). They’re also shit scared of Loony Liz.
I still think Mordaunt will win, but beyond that I will only venture that there is certainly no route through to the final two for Braverman. She (and the ERG) need to decide whether they are weighing in behind Badenoch or Truss.
Tugendhat’s hopes rest on some kind of Rishi collapse. Very unlikely. Badenoch needs wholehearted support from the ERG, or Truss to falter.
It all turns out a bit like the FA cup does in the end, I think.
Give you one question as example - Sunak pulls out tonight due to a scandal - you will have more of his votes transferring to Penny not Liz wouldn’t you? Raab and Shapps to Penny not Liz?
Think about it.
Why do you think Zahawi voters will go to Sunak? Aren't Zahawi voters Boris lovers, who now all hate Sunak? I'd put them down for Truss.
I think some Hunt voters might go to Sunak.