Am I the only person on this site who, book-value aside, thinks that Truss is the best candidate?
Almost everyone else on this site seems to be anti-Truss for one reason or another it seems.
I do. She's audacious and politically astute. Not long ago was supposed to be the liberal one, now she's somehow the candidate of the ERG. She'll reinvent herself again once she gets into Number 10.
Nope, neither of you support Truss for PM, I’m not falling for that, you are only saying this for a bet or some clever punchline.
She is absolute rubbish. She can’t speak. Has no presentational style, charisma or substance. She can’t think on her feet. She turns voters off. There is absolutely nothing there you can say is a good facet or characteristic, let alone makes her better than the other four candidates.
I’m trying to work out how intelligent person with an interest in politics can publicly post what you have just. What is the punchline?
SeaShantyIrish2 - The QFC I mentioned is, like me, in Kirkland, and so gets its electricity from a private company, PSE. (PSE still gets a large portion of its electricity from burning coal in Montana. source: https://www.pse.com/en/pages/energy-supply/electric-supply )
It wouldn't shock me if Penny Mordaunt collapses like a flan tonight.
She's been exposed as being an empty vessel over the last few days and I think a fair few of her votes will move to Rishi.
Alternatively, the "Anyone But Truss" voters might get behind Mordaunt to keep Truss off the balllot.
Who are these legions of "Anyone but Truss" voters?
And the problem is that the party is quite close to a three way split right now, so no faction can afford to lend tactical votes to another without seeing themselves eliminated.
MPs who have seen her up close, seen how useless she is, and fear for their seats. Not a prediction, but a possibility.
I am quite green on Truss and a doubly good outcome for me as I think she will be an electoral liability very quickly.
Am I the only person on this site who, book-value aside, thinks that Truss is the best candidate?
Almost everyone else on this site seems to be anti-Truss for one reason or another it seems.
I do. She's audacious and politically astute. Not long ago was supposed to be the liberal one, now she's somehow the candidate of the ERG. She'll reinvent herself again once she gets into Number 10.
Nope, neither of you support Truss for PM, I’m not falling for that, you are only saying this for a bet or some clever punchline.
She is absolute rubbish. She can’t speak. Has no presentational style, charisma or substance. She can’t think on her feet. She turns voters off. There is absolutely nothing there you can say is a good facet or characteristic, let alone makes her better than the other four candidates.
I’m trying to work out how intelligent person with an interest in politics can publicly post what you have just. What is the punchline?
Barty has been a fan for a long time. Personally, I think she is possible a tad harshy spoken of, but I may be wrong.
SeaShantyIrish2 - The QFC I mentioned is, like me, in Kirkland, and so gets its electricity from a private company, PSE. (PSE still gets a large portion of its electricity from burning coal in Montana. source: https://www.pse.com/en/pages/energy-supply/electric-supply )
Ah, yes, PSE. What a bunch of land pirates! They did a great job via their incompetence in trying to blow up my neighborhood a few years back.
It wouldn't shock me if Penny Mordaunt collapses like a flan tonight.
She's been exposed as being an empty vessel over the last few days and I think a fair few of her votes will move to Rishi.
Alternatively, the "Anyone But Truss" voters might get behind Mordaunt to keep Truss off the balllot.
Who are these legions of "Anyone but Truss" voters?
And the problem is that the party is quite close to a three way split right now, so no faction can afford to lend tactical votes to another without seeing themselves eliminated.
MPs who have seen her up close, seen how useless she is, and fear for their seats. Not a prediction, but a possibility.
I am quite green on Truss and a doubly good outcome for me as I think she will be an electoral liability very quickly.
It wouldn't shock me if Penny Mordaunt collapses like a flan tonight.
She's been exposed as being an empty vessel over the last few days and I think a fair few of her votes will move to Rishi.
Alternatively, the "Anyone But Truss" voters might get behind Mordaunt to keep Truss off the balllot.
Who are these legions of "Anyone but Truss" voters?
And the problem is that the party is quite close to a three way split right now, so no faction can afford to lend tactical votes to another without seeing themselves eliminated.
MPs who have seen her up close, seen how useless she is, and fear for their seats. Not a prediction, but a possibility.
I am quite green on Truss and a doubly good outcome for me as I think she will be an electoral liability very quickly.
It’s tedious waiting until 8pm for the result today. Get on with it!
As for fertiliser and CO2, can Robert enlighten us on what Californian startup is going to become the Apple/Tesla/Google of food? Surely there’s mahoosive scope for highly energy and resource efficient vertical farming, closed loop even. Plenty experimenting with it, who’s going to be the trillion dollar company because of it? Because someone will.
It's an excellent question.
I've seen some very interesting companies in the sector - one of which produces LEDs tuned to photosynthesis. That is, they only output light in the wavelengths that plants can use for growing.
That kind of thing is great but it’s about finding the right use case. Most people don’t want to eat reconstituted sludge. Astronauts / Martian settlers = tick. Third world = tick. Fringe of western vegans = tick. What would be great is if they can get the mix right to complement grazing animals diets and take away need to use grain.
As things stand I think Liz Truss is going to win.
I bloody hope so!
I'm hoping for a Rishi/Truss run-off to the membership as its then literally win/win.
Either win - my bet comes in, or win - the best candidate wins and we get the best candidate to be PM. Either way I'd be happy. 👍
Truss is the Fuck the Union candidate par excellence. She’s head and shoulders above the rest.
I think the SNP would have big problems if they joined with the Conservatives under Truss to undermine the operation of a Lab/LD coalition or Lab minority government with C&S and perhaps even bring it down. PM Truss would make that outcome more likely I think. So be careful what you wish for.
“Joined with the Conservatives”?!? Ho ho. That’s a tremendous Labour attack line… when you lot quite literally just “joined with the Conservatives” in councils throughout the country. And don’t forget:
Your memory is short. The SNP went from 11 to 2 seats in 1979 when it last brought down a Labour government.
Jim Callaghan himself said that that was a lot of nonsense.
"At an election rally in Glasgow at the start of the campaign, Callaghan attacked the SNP's role in joining with the Conservatives to bring his Government down. He described them as "turkeys voting for Christmas" and urged his Scottish supporters to "carve them up in the polling booths.""
As things stand I think Liz Truss is going to win.
I bloody hope so!
I'm hoping for a Rishi/Truss run-off to the membership as its then literally win/win.
Either win - my bet comes in, or win - the best candidate wins and we get the best candidate to be PM. Either way I'd be happy. 👍
Truss is the Fuck the Union candidate par excellence. She’s head and shoulders above the rest.
I think the SNP would have big problems if they joined with the Conservatives under Truss to undermine the operation of a Lab/LD coalition or Lab minority government with C&S and perhaps even bring it down. PM Truss would make that outcome more likely I think. So be careful what you wish for.
“Joined with the Conservatives”?!? Ho ho. That’s a tremendous Labour attack line… when you lot quite literally just “joined with the Conservatives” in councils throughout the country. And don’t forget:
Your memory is short. The SNP went from 11 to 2 seats in 1979 when it last brought down a Labour government.
Jim Callaghan himself said that that was a lot of nonsense.
"At an election rally in Glasgow at the start of the campaign, Callaghan attacked the SNP's role in joining with the Conservatives to bring his Government down. He described them as "turkeys voting for Christmas" and urged his Scottish supporters to "carve them up in the polling booths.""
That was when he was electioneering. He had a different and more considered view as do political historians - that it only speeded things up by a few months at most.
Labour had breached an agreement to allow a referendum without nobbling it. Simple as that.
In any case, why aren't you complaining about the LDs as well?
Or for that matter the Labour and SDLP MPs who abstained (one with an excellent excuse)?
It wouldn't shock me if Penny Mordaunt collapses like a flan tonight.
She's been exposed as being an empty vessel over the last few days and I think a fair few of her votes will move to Rishi.
Alternatively, the "Anyone But Truss" voters might get behind Mordaunt to keep Truss off the balllot.
Who are these legions of "Anyone but Truss" voters?
And the problem is that the party is quite close to a three way split right now, so no faction can afford to lend tactical votes to another without seeing themselves eliminated.
MPs who have seen her up close, seen how useless she is, and fear for their seats. Not a prediction, but a possibility.
I am quite green on Truss and a doubly good outcome for me as I think she will be an electoral liability very quickly.
The interesting result tonight would be if Badenoch somehow overtakes Truss, or gets close to doing so. Also if Mordaunt loses votes compared to the previous round.
It’s not happening Andy. As Badenoch has had a difficult time under scrutiny since the last vote, and Truss has improved (whatever that means) the Braverman votes increase Truss lead over Kemi and perhaps to about 10 on Penny.
With her immature teen-like ideas and approach to politics (Kemi is certainly the heir to Gove) its hard to know what Sunak will do with her when PM, Education probably, unless he has disguised how much he dislikes her and her politics in which case Health.
Has your preference moved away from Mordaunt now?
There was an idea of Mourdant, a great idea, that didn’t match the reality of Mourdant. She seems under prepared by her team, whinging too much about attacks on her, missing in debate, gaff prone on ideas, and a touch fancying herself too much (which obviously gets buried in this field).
Let’s be honest, as a contest it’s over, Rishi has this in the bag, 60/40 or more from members over probably Penny. But Labour will crush him by about 8 points in the general election.
Let’s be honest, the Tories should have anointed Tom Tugendhat from this field. It’s over to TSE and HY to answer if he ever was a serious runner, and why he’s come fifth against that other 4.
The interesting result tonight would be if Badenoch somehow overtakes Truss, or gets close to doing so. Also if Mordaunt loses votes compared to the previous round.
It’s not happening Andy. As Badenoch has had a difficult time under scrutiny since the last vote, and Truss has improved (whatever that means) the Braverman votes increase Truss lead over Kemi and perhaps to about 10 on Penny.
With her immature teen-like ideas and approach to politics (Kemi is certainly the heir to Gove) its hard to know what Sunak will do with her when PM, Education probably, unless he has disguised how much he dislikes her and her politics in which case Health.
Has your preference moved away from Mordaunt now?
There was an idea of Mourdant, a great idea, that didn’t match the reality of Mourdant. She seems under prepared by her team, whinging too much about attacks on her, missing in debate, gaff prone on ideas, and a touch fancying herself too much (which obviously gets buried in this field).
Let’s be honest, as a contest it’s over, Rishi has this in the bag, 60/40 or more from members over probably Penny. But Labour will crush him by about 8 points in the general election.
Let’s be honest, the Tories should have anointed Tom Tugendhat from this field. It’s over to TSE and HY to answer if he ever was a serious runner, and why he’s come fifth against that other 4.
Not Brexity, too French, no experience. He was always a long shot
Seems England peaked at 38.1 as against record 38.7
Did we ever find out what @Cicero was referring to with the big Finnish story about to destroy the Conservative Party? I’m lazy and would rather not trawl the depths of the Finnish blogosphere.
Couldn't see anything when I had a look on Twatter just now but did find this very nice, and possibly if obscurely relevant, pic of a rock:
They’re called ‘erratics’ aren’t they? Been many moons since I studied geology. Very common throughout the former glaciated areas, eg Scotland and Scandinavia.
Yep!
Seattle's most famous erratic rock (next to Kurt Cobain):
Did we ever find out what @Cicero was referring to with the big Finnish story about to destroy the Conservative Party? I’m lazy and would rather not trawl the depths of the Finnish blogosphere.
Couldn't see anything when I had a look on Twatter just now but did find this very nice, and possibly if obscurely relevant, pic of a rock:
They’re called ‘erratics’ aren’t they? Been many moons since I studied geology. Very common throughout the former glaciated areas, eg Scotland and Scandinavia.
Yep!
Seattle's most famous erratic rock (next to Kurt Cobain):
Though there are bigger ones - appreciable fractions of square kms in size - big enough to quarry, known in Scotland, and I'm sure still bigger ones elsewhere.
Wedgwood Rock aka Boulder is located well-within the Seattle City limits. It's just that so much of the Emerald City in fact resembles a garden.
Inferno latest: highest temperature reported so far is 38.1C in Suffolk, so looks possible that Cambridge will keep its record, until tomorrow at least. Luton Airport suspends flights due to runway defect (one assumes caused by molten asphalt.)
Am I the only person on this site who, book-value aside, thinks that Truss is the best candidate?
Almost everyone else on this site seems to be anti-Truss for one reason or another it seems.
I do. She's audacious and politically astute. Not long ago was supposed to be the liberal one, now she's somehow the candidate of the ERG. She'll reinvent herself again once she gets into Number 10.
Nope, neither of you support Truss for PM, I’m not falling for that, you are only saying this for a bet or some clever punchline.
She is absolute rubbish. She can’t speak. Has no presentational style, charisma or substance. She can’t think on her feet. She turns voters off. There is absolutely nothing there you can say is a good facet or characteristic, let alone makes her better than the other four candidates.
I’m trying to work out how intelligent person with an interest in politics can publicly post what you have just. What is the punchline?
Not Brexity, too French, no experience. He was always a long shot
[snip]
As I understand it, Tugendhat's supporters (including some of the red wall MPs) thought that, if they could get him into the debates, and subsequently into hustings with members, he would perform very well. The hope was that he would gain enough momentum to be a serious contender against a field where all of the other contenders are deeply flawed.
It wasn't totally mad as an idea, but it was a very optimistic one. Maybe it would have worked better if Kemi Badenoch hadn't done it better.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
The interesting result tonight would be if Badenoch somehow overtakes Truss, or gets close to doing so. Also if Mordaunt loses votes compared to the previous round.
It’s not happening Andy. As Badenoch has had a difficult time under scrutiny since the last vote, and Truss has improved (whatever that means) the Braverman votes increase Truss lead over Kemi and perhaps to about 10 on Penny.
With her immature teen-like ideas and approach to politics (Kemi is certainly the heir to Gove) its hard to know what Sunak will do with her when PM, Education probably, unless he has disguised how much he dislikes her and her politics in which case Health.
Has your preference moved away from Mordaunt now?
There was an idea of Mourdant, a great idea, that didn’t match the reality of Mourdant. She seems under prepared by her team, whinging too much about attacks on her, missing in debate, gaff prone on ideas, and a touch fancying herself too much (which obviously gets buried in this field).
Let’s be honest, as a contest it’s over, Rishi has this in the bag, 60/40 or more from members over probably Penny. But Labour will crush him by about 8 points in the general election.
Let’s be honest, the Tories should have anointed Tom Tugendhat from this field. It’s over to TSE and HY to answer if he ever was a serious runner, and why he’s come fifth against that other 4.
To put it simply, because the current Conservative party is shit.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Not literal shite, unless the cows are in France. Shit food that they can't digest well.
As things stand I think Liz Truss is going to win.
I bloody hope so!
I'm hoping for a Rishi/Truss run-off to the membership as its then literally win/win.
Either win - my bet comes in, or win - the best candidate wins and we get the best candidate to be PM. Either way I'd be happy. 👍
Truss is the Fuck the Union candidate par excellence. She’s head and shoulders above the rest.
I think the SNP would have big problems if they joined with the Conservatives under Truss to undermine the operation of a Lab/LD coalition or Lab minority government with C&S and perhaps even bring it down. PM Truss would make that outcome more likely I think. So be careful what you wish for.
“Joined with the Conservatives”?!? Ho ho. That’s a tremendous Labour attack line… when you lot quite literally just “joined with the Conservatives” in councils throughout the country. And don’t forget:
Your memory is short. The SNP went from 11 to 2 seats in 1979 when it last brought down a Labour government.
The SNP didn't just bring down a Labour government. The SNP joined with the Conservatives to bring down a Labour Government put Margaret Thatcher in power for 11 years.
I always thought it was the voters who put Thatcher in power, but I'm happy to be corrected if wrong.
It was the SNP that forced the General Election that gave the voters that opportunity. Thatcher may never have been PM if it wasn't for the SNP voting with the Conservatives to bring down the Labour government when they did.
The election had to be held by October, 5 months later. What do you think Labour would have done in those 5 months that would have bettered their standing with the voters?
If Labour had been allowed to hold the GE at a time of their own choosing they may have held on to power. As it was they were forced to have the GE in May 1979 which was a time that the SNP and the Conservative's chose. The Conservative won in 1979 with the help of the SNP. It's not convenient for the SNP to remember this now but it happened and you can't change history although the SNP would certainly try.
So Mordaunt gets closest to Starmer while Sunak has a slightly higher Tory votershare and Truss likely leads to a Labour landslide of 1997 proportions, at least in terms of the popular vote.
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
As things stand I think Liz Truss is going to win.
I bloody hope so!
I'm hoping for a Rishi/Truss run-off to the membership as its then literally win/win.
Either win - my bet comes in, or win - the best candidate wins and we get the best candidate to be PM. Either way I'd be happy. 👍
Truss is the Fuck the Union candidate par excellence. She’s head and shoulders above the rest.
I think the SNP would have big problems if they joined with the Conservatives under Truss to undermine the operation of a Lab/LD coalition or Lab minority government with C&S and perhaps even bring it down. PM Truss would make that outcome more likely I think. So be careful what you wish for.
“Joined with the Conservatives”?!? Ho ho. That’s a tremendous Labour attack line… when you lot quite literally just “joined with the Conservatives” in councils throughout the country. And don’t forget:
Your memory is short. The SNP went from 11 to 2 seats in 1979 when it last brought down a Labour government.
Jim Callaghan himself said that that was a lot of nonsense.
"At an election rally in Glasgow at the start of the campaign, Callaghan attacked the SNP's role in joining with the Conservatives to bring his Government down. He described them as "turkeys voting for Christmas" and urged his Scottish supporters to "carve them up in the polling booths.""
That was when he was electioneering. He had a different and more considered view as do political historians - that it only speeded things up by a few months at most.
Labour had breached an agreement to allow a referendum without nobbling it. Simple as that.
In any case, why aren't you complaining about the LDs as well?
Or for that matter the Labour and SDLP MPs who abstained (one with an excellent excuse)?
We’re back in articles of faith territory again, that the SNP booted principled, honest Labour in the baws and ushered in a decade of Thacherism is one Labourites cling to and repeat at the drop of a Jimmy hat (much good that it does them with Scottish voters).
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Not literal shite, unless the cows are in France. Shit food that they can't digest well.
Penny was less than stellar in two debates (worse in one). That's really about the sum of what's gone wrong in the campaign itself. The rest was a media and rival character assassination, based, sadly, on her own prior misjudgements.
But over all, you have to ask where the Penny who says cock in a speech 7 times and belly flops on TV, and hands Angela Raynor her arse in the Commons has been hiding.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Not literal shite, unless the cows are in France. Shit food that they can't digest well.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
So Mordaunt gets closest to Starmer while Sunak has a slightly higher Tory votershare and Truss likely leads to a Labour landslide of 1997 proportions, at least in terms of the popular vote.
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
Penny was less than stellar in two debates (worse in one). That's really about the sum of what's gone wrong in the campaign itself. The rest was a media and rival character assassination, based, sadly, on her own prior misjudgements.
But over all, you have to ask where the Penny who says cock im a speech 7 times and belly flops on TV, and hands Angela Raynor her arse in the Commons has been hiding.
Yes it’s very hard to put the two together isn’t it. She managed to show almost no personality at all in 2 and a half hours of prime time telly. Badly advised? Or froze under pressure?
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Not literal shite, unless the cows are in France. Shit food that they can't digest well.
I've just been watching the quiz show "Pointless". There was a round on politics where contestants were asked to name a member of the Cabinet following the 2021 reshuffle (The quiz was obviously filmed a few months back). One man said: "Isn't there someone called Rene Sunak?" From now on I shall think of Rishi with an apron and a tray of drinks serving in a French cafe.
BTW there was a appalling lack of knowledge. One contestant could only name Boris Johnson and another had to make up a name because she couldn't think of anyone.
I reckon Sunak will win in the end, but I wonder if his dig at Truss last night will have damaged him, particularly with members rather than MPs.
Sunak's question to Truss ("which do you regret most - being in the Liberal Democrats or voting remain?") managed to be both puerile and snide. It was beneath him - more of a Borisism. (I can't stand Truss, obviously).
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Holy God where do you get this lunacy from? Grass fed cattle produce more methane than grain-fed. Producing methane is part of the deal, it is no more a sign of faulty digestion, than you exhaling CO2 is.
So Mordaunt gets closest to Starmer while Sunak has a slightly higher Tory votershare and Truss likely leads to a Labour landslide of 1997 proportions, at least in terms of the popular vote.
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
So Mordaunt gets closest to Starmer while Sunak has a slightly higher Tory votershare and Truss likely leads to a Labour landslide of 1997 proportions, at least in terms of the popular vote.
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Not literal shite, unless the cows are in France. Shit food that they can't digest well.
As things stand I think Liz Truss is going to win.
I bloody hope so!
I'm hoping for a Rishi/Truss run-off to the membership as its then literally win/win.
Either win - my bet comes in, or win - the best candidate wins and we get the best candidate to be PM. Either way I'd be happy. 👍
Truss is the Fuck the Union candidate par excellence. She’s head and shoulders above the rest.
I think the SNP would have big problems if they joined with the Conservatives under Truss to undermine the operation of a Lab/LD coalition or Lab minority government with C&S and perhaps even bring it down. PM Truss would make that outcome more likely I think. So be careful what you wish for.
“Joined with the Conservatives”?!? Ho ho. That’s a tremendous Labour attack line… when you lot quite literally just “joined with the Conservatives” in councils throughout the country. And don’t forget:
Your memory is short. The SNP went from 11 to 2 seats in 1979 when it last brought down a Labour government.
The SNP didn't just bring down a Labour government. The SNP joined with the Conservatives to bring down a Labour Government put Margaret Thatcher in power for 11 years.
I always thought it was the voters who put Thatcher in power, but I'm happy to be corrected if wrong.
It was the SNP that forced the General Election that gave the voters that opportunity. Thatcher may never have been PM if it wasn't for the SNP voting with the Conservatives to bring down the Labour government when they did.
The election had to be held by October, 5 months later. What do you think Labour would have done in those 5 months that would have bettered their standing with the voters?
If Labour had been allowed to hold the GE at a time of their own choosing they may have held on to power. As it was they were forced to have the GE in May 1979 which was a time that the SNP and the Conservative's chose. The Conservative won in 1979 with the help of the SNP. It's not convenient for the SNP to remember this now but it happened and you can't change history although the SNP would certainly try.
Respectfully, you've just waffled and ignored my question. There HAD to be an election by October 1979. Labour were in trouble with the electorate, as the actual result showed. What would they have done in the last five months to turn it around?
You claim it might have been better and it might have. It might have been worse, too. Voters don't like it when a government is holed below the waterline but limps on and on. Labour weren't governing well by this point and it's wishful thinking that they could have pulled a miracle out of the hat.
I've just been watching the quiz show "Pointless". There was a round on politics where contestants were asked to name a member of the Cabinet following the 2021 reshuffle (The quiz was obviously filmed a few months back). One man said: "Isn't there someone called Rene Sunak?" From now on I shall think of Rishi with an apron and a tray of drinks serving in a French cafe.
BTW there was a appalling lack of knowledge. One contestant could only name Boris Johnson and another had to make up a name because she couldn't think of anyone.
Rene Sunak and the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
So Mordaunt gets closest to Starmer while Sunak has a slightly higher Tory votershare and Truss likely leads to a Labour landslide of 1997 proportions, at least in terms of the popular vote.
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
I reckon Sunak will win in the end, but I wonder if his dig at Truss last night will have damaged him, particularly with members rather than MPs.
Sunak's question to Truss ("which do you regret most - being in the Liberal Democrats or voting remain?") managed to be both puerile and snide. It was beneath him - more of a Borisism. (I can't stand Truss, obviously).
Goodness that was a smug greasy moment to top them all wasn’t it. And he’s then got the cheek to say the debates are no good for party coherence. He deserves to be kicked out on his arse tonight but he won’t be of course.
I've just been watching the quiz show "Pointless". There was a round on politics where contestants were asked to name a member of the Cabinet following the 2021 reshuffle (The quiz was obviously filmed a few months back). One man said: "Isn't there someone called Rene Sunak?" From now on I shall think of Rishi with an apron and a tray of drinks serving in a French cafe.
BTW there was a appalling lack of knowledge. One contestant could only name Boris Johnson and another had to make up a name because she couldn't think of anyone.
Rene Sunak and the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
I reckon Sunak will win in the end, but I wonder if his dig at Truss last night will have damaged him, particularly with members rather than MPs.
Sunak's question to Truss ("which do you regret most - being in the Liberal Democrats or voting remain?") managed to be both puerile and snide. It was beneath him - more of a Borisism. (I can't stand Truss, obviously).
Goodness that was a smug greasy moment to top them all wasn’t it. And he’s then got the cheek to say the debates are no good for party coherence. He deserves to be kicked out on his arse tonight but he won’t be of course.
His nadir was actually the closing address. The smarm was so thick you could sail on it.
Am I the only person on this site who, book-value aside, thinks that Truss is the best candidate?
Almost everyone else on this site seems to be anti-Truss for one reason or another it seems.
She seems serious, passionate and capable. I think you should back her to the hilt.
From a Labour perspective she looks suitable. The public persona and charisma of T May + a harsh set of principles and without the solidity and correctness. I think Labourites are looking at a further period in opposition if Kemi gets it, otherwise they should be reasonably confident. Truss would be the Labour favourite though, as there is something to be said for all then others.
Truss is probably better than Rishi for a host of reasons. Chief among them not having to take ownership for the economic situation.
His stature will also be an issue on TV.
The real question is whether Kemi would really broaden or sustain the party's reach.
I'm not sure she will appeal to UKIP leaning former Labour voters in the Red Wall - or to Remain leaning Wets down south.
She is articulate, attractive and sharp. I'm just not sure she is the answer to the fragmenting electoral coalition that the next leader will need to address.
I don't think there is a large Black middle class vote that will flip if she runs - unlike the sizeable Hindu vote which is already moving into the Tory column.
And she has personal weaknesses - I think she will look too ideological. She doesn't have personal gravitas - although she might develop that in time.
My gut feeling is that she doesn't come across well on "women's issues" - health, transport, education etc - which is where the current Tory party is getting crucified among female swing voters. (Hillary Clinton had the same problem - she really loved the big picture economic and geopolitical strategy - and that was ultimately reflected in voter perceptions).
It is remarkable how little attention the Tories have paid to these issues. Housing has only belatedly got onto the agenda because it is biting young activists.
So the idea that a black female leader would close off the race and gender angle evaporates under closer scrutiny.
And if she did win pretty soon she would get dragged down into the sorry horse trading that running the country involves.
Selling personal sacrifices to the electorate while cutting corporate taxation is going to be a tough message.
I think she is really cementing her position as a strong challenger for leader in 2025 if the election is lost.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Not literal shite, unless the cows are in France. Shit food that they can't digest well.
The Kemi rampers on here are going to be hugely disappointed.
She performed well, but couldn’t get lift-off.
Shame as she's the last Conservative in the race.
Shame and sad, she could be spending a huge chunk of her career in opposition till becoming “the future once” 😕
Well maybe - but the rainbow coalition from hell that might scrape the numbers in 2024 won't last forever.
She's not lit as big a fire as she could have - perhaps she was only ever thinking about next time..
More than the coalition nature of the next Labour government, more important to the subsequent General Election is the next two years and the record Tory’s exit government with in 2024. If they leave behind an awful legacy on managing economy and managing Brexit, it will play in future elections, possibly more than when they enjoyed incumbency bonus this time.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
Not literal shite, unless the cows are in France. Shit food that they can't digest well.
And anywhere else where (bovine) dairying is a major agricultural industry.
First heard about cows > methane issue decades ago, while living in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, which is (or at least was) major source of milk & etc. for New Orleans metro area.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
I've just been watching the quiz show "Pointless". There was a round on politics where contestants were asked to name a member of the Cabinet following the 2021 reshuffle (The quiz was obviously filmed a few months back). One man said: "Isn't there someone called Rene Sunak?" From now on I shall think of Rishi with an apron and a tray of drinks serving in a French cafe.
BTW there was a appalling lack of knowledge. One contestant could only name Boris Johnson and another had to make up a name because she couldn't think of anyone.
Rene Sunak and the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
In GREAT news for the Conservative Party and the UK, all five candidates firmly on record now support the Net Zero 50 target and will do what they can to deliver it. 😎
For Kemi promising “not row back on net zero” being described as a big u turn, whilst peat restoration is Sunak’s “pet project” Truss is leading a delegation to Canada in December as our PM, Tom was once on the side of more sewage pollution, but now thinks his voting on that stinks
What Labour did anointing Brown is looking stupid this week, because a huge positive for the Tories is they are having a proper leadership contest. As it has developed, all five candidates now fully signed up to delivering Net Zero 50, and Badenoch has become isolated of sorts on Trans and Culture War. The contest is a shaper.
So Mordaunt gets closest to Starmer while Sunak has a slightly higher Tory votershare and Truss likely leads to a Labour landslide of 1997 proportions, at least in terms of the popular vote.
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
I've just been watching the quiz show "Pointless". There was a round on politics where contestants were asked to name a member of the Cabinet following the 2021 reshuffle (The quiz was obviously filmed a few months back). One man said: "Isn't there someone called Rene Sunak?" From now on I shall think of Rishi with an apron and a tray of drinks serving in a French cafe.
BTW there was a appalling lack of knowledge. One contestant could only name Boris Johnson and another had to make up a name because she couldn't think of anyone.
Rene Sunak and the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
That’s no way to talk about Liz Truss!
I think there are four contenders for the booby prize.
As things stand I think Liz Truss is going to win.
I bloody hope so!
I'm hoping for a Rishi/Truss run-off to the membership as its then literally win/win.
Either win - my bet comes in, or win - the best candidate wins and we get the best candidate to be PM. Either way I'd be happy. 👍
Truss is the Fuck the Union candidate par excellence. She’s head and shoulders above the rest.
I think the SNP would have big problems if they joined with the Conservatives under Truss to undermine the operation of a Lab/LD coalition or Lab minority government with C&S and perhaps even bring it down. PM Truss would make that outcome more likely I think. So be careful what you wish for.
“Joined with the Conservatives”?!? Ho ho. That’s a tremendous Labour attack line… when you lot quite literally just “joined with the Conservatives” in councils throughout the country. And don’t forget:
Your memory is short. The SNP went from 11 to 2 seats in 1979 when it last brought down a Labour government.
Jim Callaghan himself said that that was a lot of nonsense.
"At an election rally in Glasgow at the start of the campaign, Callaghan attacked the SNP's role in joining with the Conservatives to bring his Government down. He described them as "turkeys voting for Christmas" and urged his Scottish supporters to "carve them up in the polling booths.""
That was when he was electioneering. He had a different and more considered view as do political historians - that it only speeded things up by a few months at most.
Labour had breached an agreement to allow a referendum without nobbling it. Simple as that.
In any case, why aren't you complaining about the LDs as well?
Or for that matter the Labour and SDLP MPs who abstained (one with an excellent excuse)?
Considering the collapse of the SNP vote at the following election, it does rather seem as if they were turkeys voting for Christmas and they did indeed get carved up in the pooling booths. Whoever and whatever was ultimately responsible for Callaghan's government really does not matter to be honest. What matters is that the last time the SNP 'helped' bring a Labour government down, their vote collapsed. Which is why Starmer - if we get a hung parliament next election - is not going to struggle to get a Queen's Speech through the Commons and will likely be able to govern for long enough to call another election on his terms.
I've just been watching the quiz show "Pointless". There was a round on politics where contestants were asked to name a member of the Cabinet following the 2021 reshuffle (The quiz was obviously filmed a few months back). One man said: "Isn't there someone called Rene Sunak?" From now on I shall think of Rishi with an apron and a tray of drinks serving in a French cafe.
BTW there was a appalling lack of knowledge. One contestant could only name Boris Johnson and another had to make up a name because she couldn't think of anyone.
Rene Sunak and the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
Yes I noticed Boris has big boobies and also makes some
So Mordaunt gets closest to Starmer while Sunak has a slightly higher Tory votershare and Truss likely leads to a Labour landslide of 1997 proportions, at least in terms of the popular vote.
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
“Extreme heat is taking its toll on Britain's electricity system. Demand is unusually high due to air con & fans, while solar & gas plants are less efficient...
National Grid has issued an alert calling for more power plants tonight and analysts say the situation looks serious 😬”
Did that PBer end up going golfing? Is BartyBobbins still insisting the weather is “glorious”?
Absolutely glorious weather here. 😎🌞
Spent the last couple of hours with the kids in our blow up pool in the garden. 🏊♀️
Great weather you'd normally have to pay to fly to, but at home instead. Even the Moaning Myrtles seem to have briefly stopped moaning and started enjoying themselves.
Comments
She is absolute rubbish. She can’t speak. Has no presentational style, charisma or substance. She can’t think on her feet. She turns voters off. There is absolutely nothing there you can say is a good facet or characteristic, let alone makes her better than the other four candidates.
I’m trying to work out how intelligent person with an interest in politics can publicly post what you have just. What is the punchline?
I am quite green on Truss and a doubly good outcome for me as I think she will be an electoral liability very quickly.
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Eddie: “What about people who have changed their minds on Brexit?”
Liz Truss: “I don’t think people have changed their minds”
Eddie: “You have”
Liz Truss: “I have, thats true…”
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1105927514952749058?s=20&t=JAnyElK39bBqjdKEt_156g
Labour had breached an agreement to allow a referendum without nobbling it. Simple as that.
In any case, why aren't you complaining about the LDs as well?
Or for that matter the Labour and SDLP MPs who abstained (one with an excellent excuse)?
Let’s be honest, as a contest it’s over, Rishi has this in the bag, 60/40 or more from members over probably Penny. But Labour will crush him by about 8 points in the general election.
Let’s be honest, the Tories should have anointed Tom Tugendhat from this field. It’s over to TSE and HY to answer if he ever was a serious runner, and why he’s come fifth against that other 4.
Seems England peaked at 38.1 as against record 38.7
I still can’t quite make the numbers work for Truss, so I maintain it will be Rishi v Mordaunt.
My prediction tonight (first posted this morning):
Sunak 113
Mordaunt 89
Truss 84
Badenoch 56
It wasn't totally mad as an idea, but it was a very optimistic one. Maybe it would have worked better if Kemi Badenoch hadn't done it better.
Sunak (CON): 33% (-1)
Starmer (LAB): 43% (+2)
Starmer (LAB): 37%
Mordaunt (CON): 31%
Starmer (LAB): 41%
Truss (CON): 29%
via @RedfieldWilton, 17 Jul
(Changes with 10 Jul)
She performed well, but couldn’t get lift-off.
Hat-tip original by Mica Wright:
https://rense.com/1.imagesG/whathet.jpg
By comparison Redfield has it Johnson 33% Starmer 43% as best PM, so none of the likely final 3 Tory leadership candidates does better than Boris and Truss does significantly worse
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1549066509162614784?s=20&t=Lh8o2TwC71lEl1t2AZ8Srg
Disappointing for the Tories, though.
Er ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogens_in_digestive_tract_of_ruminants
But over all, you have to ask where the Penny who says cock in a speech 7 times and belly flops on TV, and hands Angela Raynor her arse in the Commons has been hiding.
She's not lit as big a fire as she could have - perhaps she was only ever thinking about next time..
Looks like Tuesday will also be a scorcher for many UKers.
BTW there was a appalling lack of knowledge. One contestant could only name Boris Johnson and another had to make up a name because she couldn't think of anyone.
Sunak's question to Truss ("which do you regret most - being in the Liberal Democrats or voting remain?") managed to be both puerile and snide. It was beneath him - more of a Borisism. (I can't stand Truss, obviously).
Is BartyBobbins still insisting the weather is “glorious”?
There HAD to be an election by October 1979. Labour were in trouble with the electorate, as the actual result showed. What would they have done in the last five months to turn it around?
You claim it might have been better and it might have. It might have been worse, too. Voters don't like it when a government is holed below the waterline but limps on and on. Labour weren't governing well by this point and it's wishful thinking that they could have pulled a miracle out of the hat.
There were some golfers on Woking golf course when I walked past it at around 11:30 this morning. Would have been a tough 18 after lunch.
Still hoping for a sudden burst from Kemi, though
The smarm was so thick you could sail on it.
His stature will also be an issue on TV.
The real question is whether Kemi would really broaden or sustain the party's reach.
I'm not sure she will appeal to UKIP leaning former Labour voters in the Red Wall - or to Remain leaning Wets down south.
She is articulate, attractive and sharp. I'm just not sure she is the answer to the fragmenting electoral coalition that the next leader will need to address.
I don't think there is a large Black middle class vote that will flip if she runs - unlike the sizeable Hindu vote which is already moving into the Tory column.
And she has personal weaknesses - I think she will look too ideological. She doesn't have personal gravitas - although she might develop that in time.
My gut feeling is that she doesn't come across well on "women's issues" - health, transport, education etc - which is where the current Tory party is getting crucified among female swing voters. (Hillary Clinton had the same problem - she really loved the big picture economic and geopolitical strategy - and that was ultimately reflected in voter perceptions).
It is remarkable how little attention the Tories have paid to these issues. Housing has only belatedly got onto the agenda because it is biting young activists.
So the idea that a black female leader would close off the race and gender angle evaporates under closer scrutiny.
And if she did win pretty soon she would get dragged down into the sorry horse trading that running the country involves.
Selling personal sacrifices to the electorate while cutting corporate taxation is going to be a tough message.
I think she is really cementing her position as a strong challenger for leader in 2025 if the election is lost.
It’s 30 here, but humid, with occasional bouts of thunder.
First heard about cows > methane issue decades ago, while living in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, which is (or at least was) major source of milk & etc. for New Orleans metro area.
She's good at getting people to have a rethink, at first. But it doesn't last because she's soon found out.
Whoever and whatever was ultimately responsible for Callaghan's government really does not matter to be honest. What matters is that the last time the SNP 'helped' bring a Labour government down, their vote collapsed. Which is why Starmer - if we get a hung parliament next election - is not going to struggle to get a Queen's Speech through the Commons and will likely be able to govern for long enough to call another election on his terms.
The rest have a chance to make an impression.
“Extreme heat is taking its toll on Britain's electricity system. Demand is unusually high due to air con & fans, while solar & gas plants are less efficient...
National Grid has issued an alert calling for more power plants tonight and analysts say the situation looks serious 😬”
Spent the last couple of hours with the kids in our blow up pool in the garden. 🏊♀️
Great weather you'd normally have to pay to fly to, but at home instead. Even the Moaning Myrtles seem to have briefly stopped moaning and started enjoying themselves.