Another thing that’s overlooked in the Rishi ascendancy: he basically killed off “levelling up”.
To the extent that Boris “got all the big calls right”, Rishi seems to have “got all the big calls wrong.”
He might have 'got the big calls right' but not necessarily through sound judgement - who remembers the shaking hands with coronavirus patients speech?
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
Presumably only those parts of the military that don't produce any carbon dioxide.
No, because carbon emissions don't fall to zero with net zero. That's why it's net zero, not gross zero.
Any suggestions as to what questions the Con candidates should be asked ?
How about:
Would the country be better with higher or lower house prices ? Should more or fewer young people be going to university ? Why should pensions get a bigger increase than public sector workers ?
How much is enough as a % of GDP (and how much more than the current £200 bn) to give us an NHS and social care system that works really well.
What rate of inflation do you think the BoE should now be targeting and what are you going to do to get them to do so.
Reading Penny's book - although I suspect it's basically ghost-written by Chris Lewis.
It's a lot of waffle: what sort of country we are, then long-winded wax-lyricising about our challenges, with some statistics thrown in, and plenty more waffle about the statistics, but very light on solutions.
Its main premise seems to be to abolish the House of Lords, as if that will fix everything.
However. A Tory leader ditching the House of Lords would be interesting. It needs radical reform. And too much time for an incoming government to waste on it.
If the House of Lords is replaced by an elected second chamber, it likely just leads to the legislative deadlock we see in the USA in the long run
That’s a feature not a bug.
I thought a good Conservative like you would be opposed to government legislating all the time
A good Conservative like me believes if it ain't broke don't fix it, the Lords works effectively as a revising chamber, if it was mainly elected it would move towards becoming a blocking chamber
I believe that the Blair reforms did break it.
I would change it so as to (a) introduce terms, and (b) make it less appointed by the whim of the Prime Minister. FWIW, the Parliament Act - which prevents the Lords from overruling the Commons three times, plus the conventions on Money Bills and on manifesto commitments, should prevent it becoming a blocking chamber.
They do for now but if mainly elected the upper house would be more willing to overrule the Commons more than once, especially on non manifesto commitments and in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act
"in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act"
In which other countries has the Upper House been on a one-way power grab?
In which other countries is the upper chamber deliberately neutered and capable of being bypassed?
That's a genuine question, the Lords is more limited for a reason.
Whoever is next PM, they should introduce a new law that says there has to be a GE within 3 months of a change of PM. That'll stop the leadership challenges.
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
The UK food production to supply ratio is at about 60%, which means that we rely on imports to feed about 27 million people.
However, I became a lot more relaxed about this when I found out Ireland can produce enough food to feed 40 million people, a massive surplus compared to their population of 5 million.
So the invasion is on then? Its probably the best way to end the NI protocol issues.
I wouldn't assume it'd be as easy as you think. I think we stand a fair chance of repelling a full scale Irish invasion.
Even from NI? Damn.
At first very quick look, that 40 million people Irish claim seems potentially questionable:
In real terms, Ireland last enjoyed food self sufficiency in the early nineteenth century. Since then, self sufficiency in food has followed a consistently downward trend, interrupted only by the two world wars, when the disruption to global food supply chains necessitated increasing production at home.15 Nov 2019 https://www.google.com/search?q=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food&oq=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food
Hope everyone's having a good weekend and enjoying the weather. Just been teaching my daughter how to ride a bike without stabilisers which has been fun.
Catching up, am I right in thinking Truss said she'd reverse the NI hike? If so, she deserves to win.
Penny Mordaunt followed by a 2023 election is bad news for both oppo parties. She’ll be an effective campaigner but possibly ineffective administrator. So an election during a honeymoon period hot on the heels of a major political reset = Tory majority
I think that's right: I think she could well benefit from an end of the war in Ukraine (and therefore fuel and food prices falling), combined with a generally cheerful disposition and a vague sense of patriotism. (Plus the fact she doesn't appear to be a wingnut.)
But.
There's that increasingly nagging doubt that she'd be pretty rubbish at the job.
It would make 2023/4 like 1992, and 2028/9 like 1997.
I've been unwinding a bit of my Mordaunt today.
It doesn't feel like she's evens anymore.
Hmm it's still a game of two halves
What happens next. Well either by vote or withdrawal Tommy T heads out. The vote left in is Bravermans and that's going to go disproportionately to Truss, or at least won't change the status quo too much. So who does Tom T endorse ? Either Penny or Rishi I think. Perhaps Rishi after last night. Penny has enough support to still come second as Truss did not do enough to win the non erg votes to get through to the final two. Badenoch though good didn't show MPs enough to dissuade from heading likely disproportionately over to Davos candidate Rishi Rich. So we go to members with a lipsided lead for Rishi over Penny. I still think she's ahead mind, Rishi will have all the Boris fans against him and that's still the bulk of the membership. So after all is said and done, Penny wins perhaps something like 55-45.
Yes, I said similar earlier and predicted 58:42.
However, the situation is volatile, it's still possible she doesn't make it to the final two, and I want to buy Penny back at a better price later, so I have laid off at 2.1.
I think she has some way still to drift and Rishi will probably go odds on again at some point.
This one more of a betting puzzle than the previous lump on Boris at any price which was the prior contest
What's amusing is how much attention I give it for the sake of a few hundred quid with days and days of agitation and attention.
My failure to fix my mortgage last year for 5 years (I fixed instead for 2 years at 0.89%) will cost me and my family thousands, if not tens of thousands, and I basically made that decision inside an hour.
Another thing that’s overlooked in the Rishi ascendancy: he basically killed off “levelling up”.
To the extent that Boris “got all the big calls right”, Rishi seems to have “got all the big calls wrong.”
He might have 'got the big calls right' but not necessarily through sound judgement - who remembers the shaking hands with coronavirus patients speech?
I don’t actually buy the big calls story.
But Rishi killed Levelling Up, invited the Great Barrington lockdown deniers to Downing Street, and thinks “Ukraine can’t win”.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
Very interesting, but while your comments are generally so insightful and sure footed, are you not here falling into the mistake ("independent panel") of trying to depoliticise that which is of the essence of politics - the question: Who shall have political voice.
Another thing that’s overlooked in the Rishi ascendancy: he basically killed off “levelling up”.
To the extent that Boris “got all the big calls right”, Rishi seems to have “got all the big calls wrong.”
He might have 'got the big calls right' but not necessarily through sound judgement - who remembers the shaking hands with coronavirus patients speech?
Being discussed this very day in the Graun as it happens - this was flagged up earlier.
'By 3 March, he was boasting: “I was at a hospital the other night where I think a few there were actually coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you’ll be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands.”'
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
The UK food production to supply ratio is at about 60%, which means that we rely on imports to feed about 27 million people.
However, I became a lot more relaxed about this when I found out Ireland can produce enough food to feed 40 million people, a massive surplus compared to their population of 5 million.
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
"But Merkel" says someone in the country that just chose between Boris and Corbyn. Fuck me.
Well Boris lasted less than three years as PM and Corbyn had zero.
And Boris, for all his self-obsessed immaturity, tended to get the big calls correct.
Whereas Merkel had 16 years of getting things wrong.
Reading Penny's book - although I suspect it's basically ghost-written by Chris Lewis.
It's a lot of waffle: what sort of country we are, then long-winded wax-lyricising about our challenges, with some statistics thrown in, and plenty more waffle about the statistics, but very light on solutions.
Its main premise seems to be to abolish the House of Lords, as if that will fix everything.
However. A Tory leader ditching the House of Lords would be interesting. It needs radical reform. And too much time for an incoming government to waste on it.
If the House of Lords is replaced by an elected second chamber, it likely just leads to the legislative deadlock we see in the USA in the long run
That’s a feature not a bug.
I thought a good Conservative like you would be opposed to government legislating all the time
A good Conservative like me believes if it ain't broke don't fix it, the Lords works effectively as a revising chamber, if it was mainly elected it would move towards becoming a blocking chamber
I believe that the Blair reforms did break it.
I would change it so as to (a) introduce terms, and (b) make it less appointed by the whim of the Prime Minister. FWIW, the Parliament Act - which prevents the Lords from overruling the Commons three times, plus the conventions on Money Bills and on manifesto commitments, should prevent it becoming a blocking chamber.
They do for now but if mainly elected the upper house would be more willing to overrule the Commons more than once, especially on non manifesto commitments and in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act
"in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act"
In which other countries has the Upper House been on a one-way power grab?
In which other countries is the upper chamber deliberately neutered and capable of being bypassed?
That's a genuine question, the Lords is more limited for a reason.
Canada and several other Commonwealth countries. Australia a special case?
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican and that has been the case since the Reformation.
Atheism is no reason to be a peer unlike being a religious leader unless you are a distinguished scientist, businessmen etc but plenty of atheists are already in the Lords via that route too
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
The UK food production to supply ratio is at about 60%, which means that we rely on imports to feed about 27 million people.
However, I became a lot more relaxed about this when I found out Ireland can produce enough food to feed 40 million people, a massive surplus compared to their population of 5 million.
If you like root vegetables and venison, yes.
Beef, cheese and potatoes. I can think of less pleasant diets.
What really boggles the mind about this Ashcroft members survey is that Tories watched the debate last night and apparently thought "Liz Truss is doing well".
They shouldn't allow the vote to anyone who was a Tory party member when Boris was elected. Because they are all mental.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican
Just pick other people - Moderators rather than Bishops. And the SEC is not subordinate to the C of E, despite your fantasies.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
Very interesting, but while your comments are generally so insightful and sure footed, are you not here falling into the mistake ("independent panel") of trying to depoliticise that which is of the essence of politics - the question: Who shall have political voice.
'Quis custodiet' and all that
Not quite, I just couldn’t be bothered going into the appointments process.
I agree with the idea that c.66% of the House should be appointed in a way suggested upthread by @Luckyguy1983. That would preserve capital p political representation.
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
The UK food production to supply ratio is at about 60%, which means that we rely on imports to feed about 27 million people.
However, I became a lot more relaxed about this when I found out Ireland can produce enough food to feed 40 million people, a massive surplus compared to their population of 5 million.
If you like root vegetables and venison, yes.
Beef, cheese and potatoes. I can think of less pleasant diets.
Hope everyone's having a good weekend and enjoying the weather. Just been teaching my daughter how to ride a bike without stabilisers which has been fun.
Catching up, am I right in thinking Truss said she'd reverse the NI hike? If so, she deserves to win.
A glorious day pass out doing lots of walking in fabulous places. My explore of Findlater Castle was genuinely hair-raising in a few places. I'm shooting a forthcoming YouTube channel, so my "don't fall of the cliff or through the floor" shenanigans will be on there.
Reading Penny's book - although I suspect it's basically ghost-written by Chris Lewis.
It's a lot of waffle: what sort of country we are, then long-winded wax-lyricising about our challenges, with some statistics thrown in, and plenty more waffle about the statistics, but very light on solutions.
Its main premise seems to be to abolish the House of Lords, as if that will fix everything.
However. A Tory leader ditching the House of Lords would be interesting. It needs radical reform. And too much time for an incoming government to waste on it.
If the House of Lords is replaced by an elected second chamber, it likely just leads to the legislative deadlock we see in the USA in the long run
That’s a feature not a bug.
I thought a good Conservative like you would be opposed to government legislating all the time
A good Conservative like me believes if it ain't broke don't fix it, the Lords works effectively as a revising chamber, if it was mainly elected it would move towards becoming a blocking chamber
I believe that the Blair reforms did break it.
I would change it so as to (a) introduce terms, and (b) make it less appointed by the whim of the Prime Minister. FWIW, the Parliament Act - which prevents the Lords from overruling the Commons three times, plus the conventions on Money Bills and on manifesto commitments, should prevent it becoming a blocking chamber.
They do for now but if mainly elected the upper house would be more willing to overrule the Commons more than once, especially on non manifesto commitments and in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act
"in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act"
In which other countries has the Upper House been on a one-way power grab?
In which other countries is the upper chamber deliberately neutered and capable of being bypassed?
That's a genuine question, the Lords is more limited for a reason.
Canada and several other Commonwealth countries. Australia a special case?
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Reading Penny's book - although I suspect it's basically ghost-written by Chris Lewis.
It's a lot of waffle: what sort of country we are, then long-winded wax-lyricising about our challenges, with some statistics thrown in, and plenty more waffle about the statistics, but very light on solutions.
Its main premise seems to be to abolish the House of Lords, as if that will fix everything.
However. A Tory leader ditching the House of Lords would be interesting. It needs radical reform. And too much time for an incoming government to waste on it.
If the House of Lords is replaced by an elected second chamber, it likely just leads to the legislative deadlock we see in the USA in the long run
That’s a feature not a bug.
I thought a good Conservative like you would be opposed to government legislating all the time
A good Conservative like me believes if it ain't broke don't fix it, the Lords works effectively as a revising chamber, if it was mainly elected it would move towards becoming a blocking chamber
I believe that the Blair reforms did break it.
I would change it so as to (a) introduce terms, and (b) make it less appointed by the whim of the Prime Minister. FWIW, the Parliament Act - which prevents the Lords from overruling the Commons three times, plus the conventions on Money Bills and on manifesto commitments, should prevent it becoming a blocking chamber.
They do for now but if mainly elected the upper house would be more willing to overrule the Commons more than once, especially on non manifesto commitments and in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act
"in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act"
In which other countries has the Upper House been on a one-way power grab?
In which other countries is the upper chamber deliberately neutered and capable of being bypassed?
That's a genuine question, the Lords is more limited for a reason.
Canada and several other Commonwealth countries. Australia a special case?
Canada has huge levels of devolution though. They've got a Liberal government with all but half a million living under non-Liberal Provincial governments.
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
"But Merkel" says someone in the country that just chose between Boris and Corbyn. Fuck me.
Well Boris lasted less than three years as PM and Corbyn had zero.
And Boris, for all his self-obsessed immaturity, tended to get the big calls correct.
Whereas Merkel had 16 years of getting things wrong.
Mate, she won four elections. You know, like Thatcher. Only, four instead of three. Must have been getting something right at some point 👍
Another thing that’s overlooked in the Rishi ascendancy: he basically killed off “levelling up”.
To the extent that Boris “got all the big calls right”, Rishi seems to have “got all the big calls wrong.”
He might have 'got the big calls right' but not necessarily through sound judgement - who remembers the shaking hands with coronavirus patients speech?
Being discussed this very day in the Graun as it happens - this was flagged up earlier.
'By 3 March, he was boasting: “I was at a hospital the other night where I think a few there were actually coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you’ll be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands.”'
If one goes back and looks at PB, we were already talking about lockdowns even when Boris was making silly speeches in Greenwich and shaking people’s hands.
What really boggles the mind about this Ashcroft members survey is that Tories watched the debate last night and apparently thought "Liz Truss is doing well".
They shouldn't allow the vote to anyone who was a Tory party member when Boris was elected. Because they are all mental.
We have to remember that people don't usually change their minds much. A contest like this is a bit unusual because some of the candidates, most notably Badenoch, are going to be entirely new to most of the selectorate so do have an opportunity to seize some attention and momentum.
But the more well known candidates will probably rate their 'performance' to a large degree on how well they the selectorate already liked them. Those somewhat between those positions might get another shot, but only one. Hence
All in all, the more the panel has chewed over Mordaunt, the more its doubts have grown; and the more it’s seen of Badenoch, the more it’s liked her.
It'd probably take several bad performances or flubs to really start swaying people as it becomes impossible to ignore.
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
"But Merkel" says someone in the country that just chose between Boris and Corbyn. Fuck me.
Well Boris lasted less than three years as PM and Corbyn had zero.
And Boris, for all his self-obsessed immaturity, tended to get the big calls correct.
Whereas Merkel had 16 years of getting things wrong.
Mate, she won four elections. You know, like Thatcher. Only, four instead of three. Must have been getting something right at some point 👍
It’s a shibboleth of the “moonbat” right that Merkel was the worst thing to happen to humanity since…Obama…or something.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Whoever is next PM, they should introduce a new law that says there has to be a GE within 3 months of a change of PM. That'll stop the leadership challenges.
If they don't, Starmer should after the next GE.
That's why MPs of any party would be crazy to do it.
Forcing a general election after a new prime minister would move us even further along the line to a presidential system.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican
Just pick other people - Moderators rather than Bishops. And the SEC is not subordinate to the C of E, despite your fantasies.
I'd have no problem at all with a couple of Scottish Churchs' Moderators in the Lords - about 10% of the number of CofE Bishops would be about right ratio-wise. Ditto for other communities.
The advantage such have is that they will genuinely encounter (as opposed to 'meet') a greater cross-section of society than any politician.
It becomes problematic in England if the Bishops' numbers are reduced too far, as it would end up with the dominant cities rather than the regionals. eg currently they have Derby and Blackburn, amongst others.
Another thing that’s overlooked in the Rishi ascendancy: he basically killed off “levelling up”.
To the extent that Boris “got all the big calls right”, Rishi seems to have “got all the big calls wrong.”
He might have 'got the big calls right' but not necessarily through sound judgement - who remembers the shaking hands with coronavirus patients speech?
I don’t actually buy the big calls story.
But Rishi killed Levelling Up, invited the Great Barrington lockdown deniers to Downing Street, and thinks “Ukraine can’t win”.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
Very interesting, but while your comments are generally so insightful and sure footed, are you not here falling into the mistake ("independent panel") of trying to depoliticise that which is of the essence of politics - the question: Who shall have political voice.
'Quis custodiet' and all that
Not quite, I just couldn’t be bothered going into the appointments process.
I agree with the idea that c.66% of the House should be appointed in a way suggested upthread by @Luckyguy1983. That would preserve capital p political representation.
The other c.33% should be cross-benchers.
Hurrah!
It would also embarrass the SNP, as they would face a decision between nominating their candidates for the ermine, or refusing, meaning their voters, and by extension Scotland, would lose representation in parliament, allowing the peerages to go to other parties. Most SNP supporters I've proposed this to have stated firmly that they would refuse. Meaning they would be complaining about the unfairness of Scotland's poor representation in the UK parliament, whilst choosing to worsen it still further.
Reading Penny's book - although I suspect it's basically ghost-written by Chris Lewis.
It's a lot of waffle: what sort of country we are, then long-winded wax-lyricising about our challenges, with some statistics thrown in, and plenty more waffle about the statistics, but very light on solutions.
Its main premise seems to be to abolish the House of Lords, as if that will fix everything.
However. A Tory leader ditching the House of Lords would be interesting. It needs radical reform. And too much time for an incoming government to waste on it.
If the House of Lords is replaced by an elected second chamber, it likely just leads to the legislative deadlock we see in the USA in the long run
That’s a feature not a bug.
I thought a good Conservative like you would be opposed to government legislating all the time
A good Conservative like me believes if it ain't broke don't fix it, the Lords works effectively as a revising chamber, if it was mainly elected it would move towards becoming a blocking chamber
I believe that the Blair reforms did break it.
I would change it so as to (a) introduce terms, and (b) make it less appointed by the whim of the Prime Minister. FWIW, the Parliament Act - which prevents the Lords from overruling the Commons three times, plus the conventions on Money Bills and on manifesto commitments, should prevent it becoming a blocking chamber.
They do for now but if mainly elected the upper house would be more willing to overrule the Commons more than once, especially on non manifesto commitments and in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act
"in time an elected Senate would seek to block legislation completely and amend the Parliament Act"
In which other countries has the Upper House been on a one-way power grab?
In which other countries is the upper chamber deliberately neutered and capable of being bypassed?
That's a genuine question, the Lords is more limited for a reason.
Lots of systems are available, but critically the system should have one and one only supreme chamber and that should be elected by universal suffrage.
I think it is likely that many of the USA's problems stem from that failure. And I think it's possible that the way in which the EU enabled the UK to derogate from that principle gave support to Brexit. The current conflict between UK and Scotland stems from a similar fault line.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
Snore.
So no sensible response.
Perhaps because there isn't one because Schroder and Merkel have been Putin's ideal German leaders.
But was that because of the German constitutional system or because of the wider German establishment ?
I just couldn’t be arsed responding to a nit-witted non sequitur. Someone else did though and I refer you to that entirely correct response.
The 'entirely correct response' being 'but the UK is even worse'.
Now that can be argued about but it doesn't change the reality of the deeply unsatisfactory legacy of Schroeder and Merkel.
Okay, you might say, lots of western countries have had low quality political leadership and constitutional problems since 2000.
And that would be right.
Nor do I have any ideas about to improve things or who is doing well.
But the 'we should be more like Germany' suggestion, while working in many aspects of life, doesn't work IMO when it comes to politics and governments.
1976: not only were the Synoptics absolutely unique and not yet repeated, but the UK had the biggest warm anomaly of anywhere on earth that summer, with blues on the anomaly map across much of the rest of the planet. Now we are just one bit of a vast sea of red and orange, despite it being a (relatively cool) La Niña year globally.
If we saw June-July Synoptics in 2022 we would get a repeat of 1976, but with temperatures a degree of two higher.
Indeed this morning’s GFS run showed essentially a 1976-style run of hot days from next weekend, 34-36C day after day. Massive outlier big shows what would happen if we ever repeated the pattern.
June 1976 averaged 17.0C in central England, the same as July 2022 so far, before the heatwave.
1976 is the “we survived the blitz” of modern British climate denial.
1976 was more that that, and generally I don't think we are anywhere near that yet.
It was for three months and nearly 18C average: In the Central England Temperature series, 1976 is the hottest summer for more than 350 years. The average temperature over the whole summer (June, July, August) was 17.77 °C (63.99 °F), compared to the average for the unusually warm years between 2001–2008 of 16.30 °C (61.34 °F).
The noticeable thing for me this year - Midlands - so far is the changeability of it. We have had a heat wave in spring, plus a cold period. Followed by May/June/July where we have continued to receive periodic rain - my garden water butts keep getting refilled by showers and overnight rain before they run completely dry.
Also the water problems in 1976 were also due to an extended serious shortage of rain from Summer 75 / Autumn 75 / Winter 75 / Spring 76.
Even in 2018 hosepipe bans started at the end of June. To date this year none are in place.
There are also background factors, such as reduced water reduced leakage in the supply.
I was going to add in reduced leakage, but when I can find immediate estimates that domestic is either 5% or 50% of total usage, I don't think that reliable figures exist.
Even so, the denial is a bit like saying house fires dont' exist because the average temperature of a burnt down house is about 25 degC averaged out for a year.
Is anyone still in denial about the gradual warming of the climate and the need to continue to address it?
Who?
Quite a few folk ... including some Tories. One of us was denying the need for net zero policies only a couple of hours ago, which is pretty much the same thing.
Big G also said we couldn’t afford “net zero”. There’s quite a lot of confusion over it.
Net zero means spending today's money for future generations, as we know old people want to spend future generation money on themselves with 11% pension rises and inflation busying healthcare rises. It's clear that the post-war generation is the single most selfish we've witnessed.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Another thing that’s overlooked in the Rishi ascendancy: he basically killed off “levelling up”.
To the extent that Boris “got all the big calls right”, Rishi seems to have “got all the big calls wrong.”
He might have 'got the big calls right' but not necessarily through sound judgement - who remembers the shaking hands with coronavirus patients speech?
I don’t actually buy the big calls story.
But Rishi killed Levelling Up, invited the Great Barrington lockdown deniers to Downing Street, and thinks “Ukraine can’t win”.
So Rishi only got one out of three right.
No, zero out of three. Great Barrington was before vaccine availability.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Tory member preference, and general public preference, seem to have an orthogonal relationship.
After over 10 years in power the Tory membership as I have said are looking for increasingly rightwing leadership candidates and will be for years to come. Just as Labour looked for increasingly leftwing candidates after 10 years of Blair as PM
It was very interesting following the comments on here last night about the Tories' internal elections. One thing I noticed was that most of the recognisable Lib Dems on here were more impressed by Tom Tug than by the other candidates.
This would suggest that, if he were Tory Leader and the need arose, he might find it easier to come to some kind of arrangement with the Lib Dems - that is, he might make the Tories a bit less uncoalitionable.
On the other hand, he seems to be the candidate most out of step with the dominant Tory-UKIP extremist tendency. So if he were leader, he might wish to lead in a certain direction, but most of the Tories would not necessarily follow.
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
Snore.
So no sensible response.
Perhaps because there isn't one because Schroder and Merkel have been Putin's ideal German leaders.
But was that because of the German constitutional system or because of the wider German establishment ?
I just couldn’t be arsed responding to a nit-witted non sequitur. Someone else did though and I refer you to that entirely correct response.
The 'entirely correct response' being 'but the UK is even worse'.
Now that can be argued about but it doesn't change the reality of the deeply unsatisfactory legacy of Schroeder and Merkel.
Okay, you might say, lots of western countries have had low quality political leadership and constitutional problems since 2000.
And that would be right.
Nor do I have any ideas about to improve things or who is doing well.
But the 'we should be more like Germany' suggestion, while working in many aspects of life, doesn't work IMO when it comes to politics and governments.
That’s lovely, mate. I merely noted that they combined efficacy and representation well.
There’s been c. 10 Chancellors since the war; we’ve had about 16 PMs even under FPTP which is in theory more stable.
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
The UK food production to supply ratio is at about 60%, which means that we rely on imports to feed about 27 million people.
However, I became a lot more relaxed about this when I found out Ireland can produce enough food to feed 40 million people, a massive surplus compared to their population of 5 million.
So the invasion is on then? Its probably the best way to end the NI protocol issues.
I wouldn't assume it'd be as easy as you think. I think we stand a fair chance of repelling a full scale Irish invasion.
Even from NI? Damn.
At first very quick look, that 40 million people Irish claim seems potentially questionable:
In real terms, Ireland last enjoyed food self sufficiency in the early nineteenth century. Since then, self sufficiency in food has followed a consistently downward trend, interrupted only by the two world wars, when the disruption to global food supply chains necessitated increasing production at home.15 Nov 2019 https://www.google.com/search?q=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food&oq=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food
Oh, sorry, it looks like I was tricked by the Irish media being rubbish. Here's what happened.
1. Ireland exports 90% of its beef and dairy production.
2. This is confusingly phrased as, "Ireland produces enough beef and dairy to feed 40 million people," by an Irish agriculture quango. This is true to the extent that, at Irish levels of beef and dairy consumption, Ireland could provide all the beef and dairy in 40 million people's diets (but not all the other food those people would eat, so actually it's misleading nonsense).
3. This is simplified in the Irish media to, "Ireland produces enough food to feed 40 million people."
I guess we have to rely on the Canadians taking pity on us.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican
Just pick other people - Moderators rather than Bishops. And the SEC is not subordinate to the C of E, despite your fantasies.
I'd have no problem at all with a couple of Scottish Churchs' Moderators in the Lords - about 10% of the number of CofE Bishops would be about right ratio-wise. Ditto for other communities.
The advantage such have is that they will genuinely encounter (as opposed to 'meet') a greater cross-section of society than any politician.
It becomes problematic in England if the Bishops' numbers are reduced too far, as it would end up with the dominant cities rather than the regionals. eg currently they have Derby and Blackburn, amongst others - who balance eg London. And CofE Bishops are by seniority, so apart from London / York / Durham / Canterbury / Winchester they rotate by length of service.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican
Just pick other people - Moderators rather than Bishops. And the SEC is not subordinate to the C of E, despite your fantasies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares spiritual leader of the global Anglican communion, which includes the SEC
Hope everyone's having a good weekend and enjoying the weather. Just been teaching my daughter how to ride a bike without stabilisers which has been fun.
Catching up, am I right in thinking Truss said she'd reverse the NI hike? If so, she deserves to win.
No fannying about with helmets, I trust? They are never too young to learn that death by multiple skull fractures is part of the circle of life.
Because she's a completely empty vessel, would get absolutely smashed in an election. It's taking all the risk of an unknown face but with no underlying quality to get that unknown quantity over the line.
Any suggestions as to what questions the Con candidates should be asked ?
How about:
Would the country be better with higher or lower house prices ? Should more or fewer young people be going to university ? Should pensions get a bigger increase than public sector workers ?
I think questions which try to get either a X or Y answer are better than the "What do you think / will you do ..." type which allow to much blather as a response.
Anyway time for me to put some more money back into the economy.
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
"But Merkel" says someone in the country that just chose between Boris and Corbyn. Fuck me.
Well Boris lasted less than three years as PM and Corbyn had zero.
And Boris, for all his self-obsessed immaturity, tended to get the big calls correct.
Whereas Merkel had 16 years of getting things wrong.
I know he must have got the big calls right, because it's been said about a million f-ing times.
But can anyone list them?
Apart from the vaccine programme (do we know who pushed that idea? Given his slack early approach to covid it seems unlikely it was Boris) I can't think of any, but clearly the list must be really long and I'm just missing it.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Hope everyone's having a good weekend and enjoying the weather. Just been teaching my daughter how to ride a bike without stabilisers which has been fun.
Catching up, am I right in thinking Truss said she'd reverse the NI hike? If so, she deserves to win.
No fannying about with helmets, I trust? They are never too young to learn that death by multiple skull fractures is part of the circle of life.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
"But Merkel" says someone in the country that just chose between Boris and Corbyn. Fuck me.
Well Boris lasted less than three years as PM and Corbyn had zero.
And Boris, for all his self-obsessed immaturity, tended to get the big calls correct.
Whereas Merkel had 16 years of getting things wrong.
I know he must have got the big calls right, because it's been said about a million f-ing times.
But can anyone list them?
Apart from the vaccine programme (do we know who pushed that idea? Given his slack early approach to covid it seems unlikely it was Boris) I can't think of any, but clearly the list must be really long and I'm just missing it.
Brexit (most people think it's bad) and lockdown (where he took every policy available so some must have been right). Apart from this, are we meant to give credit for not siding with Russia?
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican
Just pick other people - Moderators rather than Bishops. And the SEC is not subordinate to the C of E, despite your fantasies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares spiritual leader of the global Anglican communion, which includes the SEC
Yes, but you are an anti-Anglican heretic. The monarch is head of the church, and we have it in writing from the greatest theologian ever to hold that position, James "Bible" VI and I, that the relationship between Christ and John was physically homosexual ("Christ had his John, and I have my George") but there is no extracting you from your "straight Christ" uncanonical fantasies.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
If true (we don't get a transcript of the tape), really not what we need.
1968 Rivers of Blood - Enoch Powell 2022 Oceans of Woke - Kemi Bad'enoch
Wonder what the (unquiet?) spirit of EP was saying last night? Or sputtering?
He thought the children of Africans would be beginning a civil war right now, so probably expecting the Conservative Party to be a name for an inner-city black militia.
Hope everyone's having a good weekend and enjoying the weather. Just been teaching my daughter how to ride a bike without stabilisers which has been fun.
Catching up, am I right in thinking Truss said she'd reverse the NI hike? If so, she deserves to win.
No fannying about with helmets, I trust? They are never too young to learn that death by multiple skull fractures is part of the circle of life.
what the fuck?
It’s a reference to the bizarre corner Barty has painted himself into over Covid.
Hope everyone's having a good weekend and enjoying the weather. Just been teaching my daughter how to ride a bike without stabilisers which has been fun.
Catching up, am I right in thinking Truss said she'd reverse the NI hike? If so, she deserves to win.
No fannying about with helmets, I trust? They are never too young to learn that death by multiple skull fractures is part of the circle of life.
what the fuck?
It’s a reference to the bizarre corner Barty has painted himself into over Covid.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican
Just pick other people - Moderators rather than Bishops. And the SEC is not subordinate to the C of E, despite your fantasies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares spiritual leader of the global Anglican communion, which includes the SEC
Yes, but you are an anti-Anglican heretic. The monarch is head of the church, and we have it in writing from the greatest theologian ever to hold that position, James "Bible" VI and I, that the relationship between Christ and John was physically homosexual ("Christ had his John, and I have my George") but there is no extracting you from your "straight Christ" uncanonical fantasies.
The monarch is only head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury is spiritual leader of the global Anglican Communion, including the UK, Africa, North America and Australia and New Zealand
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
The UK food production to supply ratio is at about 60%, which means that we rely on imports to feed about 27 million people.
However, I became a lot more relaxed about this when I found out Ireland can produce enough food to feed 40 million people, a massive surplus compared to their population of 5 million.
So the invasion is on then? Its probably the best way to end the NI protocol issues.
I wouldn't assume it'd be as easy as you think. I think we stand a fair chance of repelling a full scale Irish invasion.
Even from NI? Damn.
At first very quick look, that 40 million people Irish claim seems potentially questionable:
In real terms, Ireland last enjoyed food self sufficiency in the early nineteenth century. Since then, self sufficiency in food has followed a consistently downward trend, interrupted only by the two world wars, when the disruption to global food supply chains necessitated increasing production at home.15 Nov 2019 https://www.google.com/search?q=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food&oq=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food
Oh, sorry, it looks like I was tricked by the Irish media being rubbish. Here's what happened.
1. Ireland exports 90% of its beef and dairy production.
2. This is confusingly phrased as, "Ireland produces enough beef and dairy to feed 40 million people," by an Irish agriculture quango. This is true to the extent that, at Irish levels of beef and dairy consumption, Ireland could provide all the beef and dairy in 40 million people's diets (but not all the other food those people would eat, so actually it's misleading nonsense).
3. This is simplified in the Irish media to, "Ireland produces enough food to feed 40 million people."
I guess we have to rely on the Canadians taking pity on us.
Apols if that came across as hostile - that was not my intention.
I'm genuinely interested, and I have never seen complete data.
The country that I am most intrigued by is the Netherlands, who are a huge food exporter but much smaller than even Ieland.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Tory member preference, and general public preference, seem to have an orthogonal relationship.
The Mail are heavily pro-Truss today, and anti-Penny. She's fading.
My best guess now is that we get a Rishi-Truss contest, and Penny misses out, so I'd laid her down.
The Mail have always been strongly anti-Penny. Wouldn't read anything into that.
Presumably they are Continuity Boris and Truss is the one who fits that bill closest. JRM and Nad obviously think so and they are Johnson's representatives on Earth.
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
Very interesting, but while your comments are generally so insightful and sure footed, are you not here falling into the mistake ("independent panel") of trying to depoliticise that which is of the essence of politics - the question: Who shall have political voice.
'Quis custodiet' and all that
The reason for having a House of Lords separate to the House of Commons was so that the Monarch would have to give regards to the views of their Peers separate to those of the minor gentry.
If we take the democratic ideal then only a single chamber is required.
However, if you take the view that the country is still divided between different interest groups, it might be as well to represent that explicitly with different chambers. If, for example, we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old, then the tensions between their differing priorities would have to be debated openly between the two chambers.
Or you might have a House of Men and a House of Women. Or a House of Workers and a House of Dependents.
What really boggles the mind about this Ashcroft members survey is that Tories watched the debate last night and apparently thought "Liz Truss is doing well".
They shouldn't allow the vote to anyone who was a Tory party member when Boris was elected. Because they are all mental.
There is something deeply wrong with our glorious unwritten constitution if it lets these fruitcakes and loonies choose who leads the country.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
You could argue that the German system (mostly) worked very well for the Germans and not so well for the Ukrainians.
I think you do need to give the Germans some credit. In 1990, the country reunited, and the East was incredibly poor, with terrible infrastructure and no modern industries. It could have been a sink for the West for fifty years. Yet now the East German Lander are *all* pretty wealthy.
Politics is about priorities. Yes, Germany made the mistake of becoming too dependent on Russian gas. But governments needed to get elected. And "levelling up" bought votes now, while becoming independent of Russian gas may not have had a positive impact.
In the 1990s and even the 2000s that's a reasonable suggestion but in the last decade it was pretty obvious that having any dependency on Russia was becoming ever more risky.
And that Russia was becoming ever more of a threat to Eastern Europe - countries which Germany has both a moral historical debt to and also a current political responsibility to via the EU.
Of course that would give Schroeder a working excuse - international progress through trade, didn't know what the future would bring, left office in 2005, blah and blah - if he'd wanted to use it. But he didn't, he's an actual Putin cheerleader. At least you have to give him credit for honesty.
Germany owes a debt to Russia too, and I have no doubt that played heavily on the German psyche. Guilt over their actions in WW2 - combined with a belief that making Russia a part of the Western trading system would make them as invested in peace as the Germans were - was at the heart of the problem.
Now, did they make a mistake? Sure. But lots of people make mistakes. It doesn't make them evil or terrible.
As George W Bush said: Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples - while judging ourselves by our best intentions.
One interesting question that might shed light on constitutional arrangements is — which country seems to do best at balancing efficacy in government with representation of the people?
Germany probably ticks most boxes.
The Germany which gave the world Schroder and Merkel.
The German system has worked very nicely for Putin.
"But Merkel" says someone in the country that just chose between Boris and Corbyn. Fuck me.
Well Boris lasted less than three years as PM and Corbyn had zero.
And Boris, for all his self-obsessed immaturity, tended to get the big calls correct.
Whereas Merkel had 16 years of getting things wrong.
I know he must have got the big calls right, because it's been said about a million f-ing times.
But can anyone list them?
Apart from the vaccine programme (do we know who pushed that idea? Given his slack early approach to covid it seems unlikely it was Boris) I can't think of any, but clearly the list must be really long and I'm just missing it.
Brexit (most people think it's bad) and lockdown (where he took every policy available so some must have been right). Apart from this, are we meant to give credit for not siding with Russia?
I thought the whole point of all this nonsense is NI with Brexit is that they got that deal wrong - otherwise why the need to fix it?
For lockdown, I guess you can't please everyone, but he seems to have displeased most - by not making decisions when they needed to be made, and then by not sticking to his principles of freedom when he did. Pretty much Goldilocks and the Two Bears.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
It means more people in more places will experience hunger. And that carries with it a risk of violent political conflicts, the kinds of which we have regularly seen when hunger reaches high-density populations.
We'd better hope if this comes about that our leaders have the will and the ability to do whatever it takes to keep us fed. We aren't self-sufficient, so we start from a disadvantage.
So we should drop net zero and invest in the military?
No, we should lead the way to net zero and work as hard as we can to make sure other countries understand it too. AND invest in the military.
The UK food production to supply ratio is at about 60%, which means that we rely on imports to feed about 27 million people.
However, I became a lot more relaxed about this when I found out Ireland can produce enough food to feed 40 million people, a massive surplus compared to their population of 5 million.
So the invasion is on then? Its probably the best way to end the NI protocol issues.
I wouldn't assume it'd be as easy as you think. I think we stand a fair chance of repelling a full scale Irish invasion.
Even from NI? Damn.
At first very quick look, that 40 million people Irish claim seems potentially questionable:
In real terms, Ireland last enjoyed food self sufficiency in the early nineteenth century. Since then, self sufficiency in food has followed a consistently downward trend, interrupted only by the two world wars, when the disruption to global food supply chains necessitated increasing production at home.15 Nov 2019 https://www.google.com/search?q=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food&oq=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food
Oh, sorry, it looks like I was tricked by the Irish media being rubbish. Here's what happened.
1. Ireland exports 90% of its beef and dairy production.
2. This is confusingly phrased as, "Ireland produces enough beef and dairy to feed 40 million people," by an Irish agriculture quango. This is true to the extent that, at Irish levels of beef and dairy consumption, Ireland could provide all the beef and dairy in 40 million people's diets (but not all the other food those people would eat, so actually it's misleading nonsense).
3. This is simplified in the Irish media to, "Ireland produces enough food to feed 40 million people."
I guess we have to rely on the Canadians taking pity on us.
That would explain the need for convoys during the second world war, rather than us being fed from the Dublin to Holyhead ferry.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Beware possibly THE story of summer: Putin cuts gas supplies to Europe to stop replenishing for winter + plunge it into recession. No gas coming thru Yamal pipeline for 2 months Nord Stream 1 was at 40% capacity. Now zero for “maintenance”. What chance not switched on again?
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
If true (we don't get a transcript of the tape), really not what we need.
1968 Rivers of Blood - Enoch Powell 2022 Oceans of Woke - Kemi Bad'enoch
Wonder what the (unquiet?) spirit of EP was saying last night? Or sputtering?
He thought the children of Africans would be beginning a civil war right now, so probably expecting the Conservative Party to be a name for an inner-city black militia.
He got it right: by 2020 the children of Africans are within a smidgen of gaining control of the country and waging (woke) war on the white urban middle classes.
Another thing that’s overlooked in the Rishi ascendancy: he basically killed off “levelling up”.
To the extent that Boris “got all the big calls right”, Rishi seems to have “got all the big calls wrong.”
He might have 'got the big calls right' but not necessarily through sound judgement - who remembers the shaking hands with coronavirus patients speech?
I don’t actually buy the big calls story.
But Rishi killed Levelling Up, invited the Great Barrington lockdown deniers to Downing Street, and thinks “Ukraine can’t win”.
So Rishi only got one out of three right.
No, zero out of three. Great Barrington was before vaccine availability.
Listening to all sides of the debate and questioning whether lockdown was the right call was appropriate even pre vaccines.
Sweden did better by not having a lockdown. The Great Barrington folks were right. Vaccines work, but shutting society before they arrive was an egregious mistake. Keeping it shut after they were rolled out was unforgivable.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Simply introduce attendance requirements, and leave appointments to an independent panel.
Overall it would be good to have more regional representation (ex council leaders for example) and less political hacks and certainly no party donors.
And either scrub the bishops or have RC, Presbyterian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, and Jedi representation. Not to mention Unitarians and Congregationalists, and Methodists too, as well as Scottish Episcopal. Jains, Buddhists, and so on. And a fair proportion of atheists brought in for that reason alone (as well as others).
No you still need some Bishops as the Church of England is the established church in England. The Chief Rabbi is already normally a peer by retirement and plenty of Muslim peers too. Presbyterians don't do Bishops and Lords and Scottish Episcopals leader in the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. The Vatican does not allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would challenge the authority of the Pope and the Vatican
Just pick other people - Moderators rather than Bishops. And the SEC is not subordinate to the C of E, despite your fantasies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares spiritual leader of the global Anglican communion, which includes the SEC
Yes, but you are an anti-Anglican heretic. The monarch is head of the church, and we have it in writing from the greatest theologian ever to hold that position, James "Bible" VI and I, that the relationship between Christ and John was physically homosexual ("Christ had his John, and I have my George") but there is no extracting you from your "straight Christ" uncanonical fantasies.
The monarch is only head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury is spiritual leader of the global Anglican Communion, including the UK, Africa, North America and Australia and New Zealand
I think that characterisation is a little out of balance.
The ABC is not quite a leader - more imo a 'chair', or First Amongst Equals. ABC does not have authority to tell other provinces what to do.
In a wonderfully ambiguous Anglican phrase he is also described as the "Focus for Unity" !
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
Have only seen one "Rocky" movie, but others who've seen more can (maybe) help fill this out:
> Liz Truss is reprising (she hopes) the role of Rocky Balboa, at stage of his career when he was getting living shit knocked out in the ring, and was in sore (more ways than one) need of a skilled handler and trainer, before the next big fight.
Question is: can she bounce back on Sunday? AND what about the rest of the pugilists?
Mordaunt also needs to up her game by tomorrow night, one wonders what kind of regime she's following (or is it enduring) at the moment?
Badenoch is another who needs to do a bit better, based on the polling numbers. Or does she, she may well be doing way better with Tory members (and MPs?) than with Tory voters. In her case, she needs to sound somewhat more ready for the Top Job, let alone the Treasury Bench, without losing the edge she's got with much of the red- (or rather blue-) meat crowd.
Sunak was penultimate favorite in post-debate polling, but also wants a slightly superior performance. He's got the facts and figures down (naturally) but is somewhat wanting in what Bush the Elder called "the vision thing". He needs some crisper answers to questions NOT a forefront of his (no doubt ongoing) Treasury brief.
Tugenhat? Keep on keeping on, keep impressing the neo-Ken Clark crowd, and end up being an adornment in the next cabinet, whomever ends up as next PM. Stay loose until next debate, keep up moderate training routine, avoid cramming, instead focus on getting out just one more superior sound bite, preferably from a Conservative Party PR point of view.
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
BREAKING ** @KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night. The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
If true (we don't get a transcript of the tape), really not what we need.
1968 Rivers of Blood - Enoch Powell 2022 Oceans of Woke - Kemi Bad'enoch
Wonder what the (unquiet?) spirit of EP was saying last night? Or sputtering?
He thought the children of Africans would be beginning a civil war right now, so probably expecting the Conservative Party to be a name for an inner-city black militia.
He got it right: by 2020 the children of Africans are within a smidgen of gaining control of the country and waging (woke) war on the white urban middle classes.
I will admit though: I don't think he saw it happening via the child of an African immigrant becoming leader of the Conservative Party and PM.
Comments
That's a genuine question, the Lords is more limited for a reason.
In real terms, Ireland last enjoyed food self sufficiency in the early nineteenth century. Since then, self sufficiency in food has followed a consistently downward trend, interrupted only by the two world wars, when the disruption to global food supply chains necessitated increasing production at home.15 Nov 2019
https://www.google.com/search?q=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food&oq=irish+self-sufficiency+in+food
Catching up, am I right in thinking Truss said she'd reverse the NI hike? If so, she deserves to win.
My failure to fix my mortgage last year for 5 years (I fixed instead for 2 years at 0.89%) will cost me and my family thousands, if not tens of thousands, and I basically made that decision inside an hour.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1548360960057847814
But Rishi killed Levelling Up, invited the Great Barrington lockdown deniers to Downing Street, and thinks “Ukraine can’t win”.
'Quis custodiet' and all that
'By 3 March, he was boasting: “I was at a hospital the other night where I think a few there were actually coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you’ll be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands.”'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/16/covid-deaths-virus-200000-britain-trauma-loss
And Boris, for all his self-obsessed immaturity, tended to get the big calls correct.
Whereas Merkel had 16 years of getting things wrong.
Atheism is no reason to be a peer unlike being a religious leader unless you are a distinguished scientist, businessmen etc but plenty of atheists are already in the Lords via that route too
They shouldn't allow the vote to anyone who was a Tory party member when Boris was elected. Because they are all mental.
I agree with the idea that c.66% of the House should be appointed in a way suggested upthread by @Luckyguy1983. That would preserve capital p political representation.
The other c.33% should be cross-benchers.
https://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/sandend/findlatercastle/index.html
@KemiBadenoch has picked up real momentum in a new @ConHome survey of 850 Tory party members today, in the wake of the Channel 4 TV debate last night.
The poll puts Ms Badenoch in the lead on 31 per cent, up from 19 per cent last Monday. 1/3 #ToryLeadershipContest
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1548359360870436864
They've got a Liberal government with all but half a million living under non-Liberal Provincial governments.
Must have been getting something right at some point 👍
But the more well known candidates will probably rate their 'performance' to a large degree on how well they the selectorate already liked them. Those somewhat between those positions might get another shot, but only one. Hence
All in all, the more the panel has chewed over Mordaunt, the more its doubts have grown; and the more it’s seen of Badenoch, the more it’s liked her.
It'd probably take several bad performances or flubs to really start swaying people as it becomes impossible to ignore.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1548359364376834050?s=20&t=cX865SPxJphZPNq-E33kaQ
They are really going for Penny.
The advantage such have is that they will genuinely encounter (as opposed to 'meet') a greater cross-section of society than any politician.
It becomes problematic in England if the Bishops' numbers are reduced too far, as it would end up with the dominant cities rather than the regionals. eg currently they have Derby and Blackburn, amongst others.
It would also embarrass the SNP, as they would face a decision between nominating their candidates for the ermine, or refusing, meaning their voters, and by extension Scotland, would lose representation in parliament, allowing the peerages to go to other parties. Most SNP supporters I've proposed this to have stated firmly that they would refuse. Meaning they would be complaining about the unfairness of Scotland's poor representation in the UK parliament, whilst choosing to worsen it still further.
I think it is likely that many of the USA's problems stem from that failure. And I think it's possible that the way in which the EU enabled the UK to derogate from that principle gave support to Brexit. The current conflict between UK and Scotland stems from a similar fault line.
Now that can be argued about but it doesn't change the reality of the deeply unsatisfactory legacy of Schroeder and Merkel.
Okay, you might say, lots of western countries have had low quality political leadership and constitutional problems since 2000.
And that would be right.
Nor do I have any ideas about to improve things or who is doing well.
But the 'we should be more like Germany' suggestion, while working in many aspects of life, doesn't work IMO when it comes to politics and governments.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg8znx/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-goes-on-anti-lgbtq-rant-in-leaked-audio
If true (we don't get a transcript of the tape), really not what we need.
Great Barrington was before vaccine availability.
This would suggest that, if he were Tory Leader and the need arose, he might find it easier to come to some kind of arrangement with the Lib Dems - that is, he might make the Tories a bit less uncoalitionable.
On the other hand, he seems to be the candidate most out of step with the dominant Tory-UKIP extremist tendency. So if he were leader, he might wish to lead in a certain direction, but most of the Tories would not necessarily follow.
I merely noted that they combined efficacy and representation well.
There’s been c. 10 Chancellors since the war; we’ve had about 16 PMs even under FPTP which is in theory more stable.
1. Ireland exports 90% of its beef and dairy production.
2. This is confusingly phrased as, "Ireland produces enough beef and dairy to feed 40 million people," by an Irish agriculture quango. This is true to the extent that, at Irish levels of beef and dairy consumption, Ireland could provide all the beef and dairy in 40 million people's diets (but not all the other food those people would eat, so actually it's misleading nonsense).
3. This is simplified in the Irish media to, "Ireland produces enough food to feed 40 million people."
I guess we have to rely on the Canadians taking pity on us.
The advantage such have is that they will genuinely encounter (as opposed to 'meet') a greater cross-section of society than any politician.
It becomes problematic in England if the Bishops' numbers are reduced too far, as it would end up with the dominant cities rather than the regionals. eg currently they have Derby and Blackburn, amongst others - who balance eg London. And CofE Bishops are by seniority, so apart from London / York / Durham / Canterbury / Winchester they rotate by length of service.
Anyway time for me to put some more money back into the economy.
Keep cool everyone.
But can anyone list them?
Apart from the vaccine programme (do we know who pushed that idea? Given his slack early approach to covid it seems unlikely it was Boris) I can't think of any, but clearly the list must be really long and I'm just missing it.
2022 Oceans of Woke - Kemi Bad'enoch
Wonder what the (unquiet?) spirit of EP was saying last night? Or sputtering?
My best guess now is that we get a Rishi-Truss contest, and Penny misses out, so I'd laid her down.
https://twitter.com/ChristianVoicUK/status/1548339957441257472?s=20&t=4v5AYtP8JPOWrileW_XZSw
I'm genuinely interested, and I have never seen complete data.
The country that I am most intrigued by is the Netherlands, who are a huge food exporter but much smaller than even Ieland.
If we take the democratic ideal then only a single chamber is required.
However, if you take the view that the country is still divided between different interest groups, it might be as well to represent that explicitly with different chambers. If, for example, we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old, then the tensions between their differing priorities would have to be debated openly between the two chambers.
Or you might have a House of Men and a House of Women. Or a House of Workers and a House of Dependents.
But I also don’t think Truss performed so badly as everyone thinks on that debate…
Now, did they make a mistake? Sure. But lots of people make mistakes. It doesn't make them evil or terrible.
As George W Bush said: Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples - while judging ourselves by our best intentions.
For lockdown, I guess you can't please everyone, but he seems to have displeased most - by not making decisions when they needed to be made, and then by not sticking to his principles of freedom when he did. Pretty much Goldilocks and the Two Bears.
“I’m not going to call her a liar… it’s possible she genuinely didn’t understand what she was signing off… it’s very complex”
I contains the suggestion that Kemi’s use of the word transsexual as opposed to transgender is considered by some to be “deeply offensive”.
God help us all.
No gas coming thru Yamal pipeline for 2 months
Nord Stream 1 was at 40% capacity. Now zero for “maintenance”. What chance not switched on again?
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1548363851359342598
Sweden did better by not having a lockdown. The Great Barrington folks were right. Vaccines work, but shutting society before they arrive was an egregious mistake. Keeping it shut after they were rolled out was unforgivable.
They are going to be massacred at the next election
The ABC is not quite a leader - more imo a 'chair', or First Amongst Equals. ABC does not have authority to tell other provinces what to do.
In a wonderfully ambiguous Anglican phrase he is also described as the "Focus for Unity" !
So, if Truss closes the gap then Kemi will go out and she'll overtake to face Rishi.
For Kemi to beat Truss the ERG and Braverman have to ditch her and then for Tugendhat to back her, or similar.
> Liz Truss is reprising (she hopes) the role of Rocky Balboa, at stage of his career when he was getting living shit knocked out in the ring, and was in sore (more ways than one) need of a skilled handler and trainer, before the next big fight.
Question is: can she bounce back on Sunday? AND what about the rest of the pugilists?
Mordaunt also needs to up her game by tomorrow night, one wonders what kind of regime she's following (or is it enduring) at the moment?
Badenoch is another who needs to do a bit better, based on the polling numbers. Or does she, she may well be doing way better with Tory members (and MPs?) than with Tory voters. In her case, she needs to sound somewhat more ready for the Top Job, let alone the Treasury Bench, without losing the edge she's got with much of the red- (or rather blue-) meat crowd.
Sunak was penultimate favorite in post-debate polling, but also wants a slightly superior performance. He's got the facts and figures down (naturally) but is somewhat wanting in what Bush the Elder called "the vision thing". He needs some crisper answers to questions NOT a forefront of his (no doubt ongoing) Treasury brief.
Tugenhat? Keep on keeping on, keep impressing the neo-Ken Clark crowd, and end up being an adornment in the next cabinet, whomever ends up as next PM. Stay loose until next debate, keep up moderate training routine, avoid cramming, instead focus on getting out just one more superior sound bite, preferably from a Conservative Party PR point of view.
They care far less about debates.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/15/next-pm-ethnic-minority-labour-keir-starmer