Truss seems to have sharper political instincts. She wanted Boris gone too, so she could run, but doesn't get the stigma of having quit and being 'untrustworthy'.
Of course, without Sunak also jumping ship with Javid maybe the opening would not have arisen, so he was kind of stuck in that respect.
I’m not sure that would have made a difference. The choice was about who could offer the Tory membership more “true conservative” policies. Truss just flexed to the “tax cut” line because she wasn’t in the position of being chancellor
Good luck to her. She obviously has a huge amount of (misplaced) self belief to think she can turn it around
Maybe. I think Sunak is in the unenviable position of the 'establishment' candidate, even though they are both that. Commentators and even the majority of MPs telling people they'd be fools to vote for Truss which just bounce off the members, seeing any attack as further reason to back her. It's only day 1 but she seems to be making he waves, and if he has responded it must be low energy as it's not broken through.
Fair play to her, I don't quite know how she has managed that without any particularly impressive presentation, but she's outmanuevered him completely, and now he doesn't even have 'lead with the public' to cling to.
I wonder what Tory MPs are thinking as we head into the long 6 weeks of debate ..
Tory MPs ought to be thinking that the 1922 Committee could not organise a piss-up in a brewery. Why have another six weeks of Liz and Rishi attacking each other (and the last 12 years of Tory rule) to run hustings, when party members will already have seen the televised debates, and broadcasters would fall over each other to show head-to-heads?
Let Labour write their own attack lines rather than lift them from this leadership campaign. The whole thing could have been over in a week, including letting members vote.
Its funny how almost everyone here was saying that Liz would be toxic due to the polls, and yet now it seems the more the public are seeing of Truss the more they're liking her.
I wouldn't rule out a potential PM Truss taking the Tories back into the lead. If she reverses Sunak's egregious mistakes like hiking NI and raising Corporation Tax, then she'll deserve a lead.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
I mean, I think there will be a by-election regardless of a recall issue as Johnson will probably resign as an MP as Cameron did on ceasing to be PM. That's only made more likely by the risk that the decision may be taken for him if he faces a period of suspension, but is quite likely in any event.
Do you think he'd not be suspended for at least ten sitting days? I think he will if the finding is he misled Parliament, which I'd say is very possible although perhaps not probable. And clearly the petition would gather easily sufficient signatures if triggered.
I doubt he'd stand in any by-election.
In terms of Number 10 fighting it hard, a Sunak Number 10 wouldn't spend any political capital trying to get Johnson out of a suspension, I suspect. A Truss Number 10 probably would. But they'd not necessarily be successful, and this isn't controversial legal advice - clearly 10 day+ suspension means recall petition.
If, as reported, he's planning on punting two MP's up to the Lords and causing two by elections for his successor - adding a third on for his own seat makes me feel he might take the quick way out just out of spite.
I see yesterday's NEC heard membership in Labour now down to 382k. Was 570K in 2020 when SKS took over. 188K AntiSemites left presumably.
Sounds about right.
Mandelsonian triangulation and not frightening the horses worked in the New Labour era when TINA but now Labour risks shedding votes (and members) to the greens and LibDems. Labour needs to stand for something apart from being less chaotic than Boris because the Tories are six weeks away from shooting that fox.
I mean, I think there will be a by-election regardless of a recall issue as Johnson will probably resign as an MP as Cameron did on ceasing to be PM. That's only made more likely by the risk that the decision may be taken for him if he faces a period of suspension, but is quite likely in any event.
Do you think he'd not be suspended for at least ten sitting days? I think he will if the finding is he misled Parliament, which I'd say is very possible although perhaps not probable. And clearly the petition would gather easily sufficient signatures if triggered.
I doubt he'd stand in any by-election.
In terms of Number 10 fighting it hard, a Sunak Number 10 wouldn't spend any political capital trying to get Johnson out of a suspension, I suspect. A Truss Number 10 probably would. But they'd not necessarily be successful, and this isn't controversial legal advice - clearly 10 day+ suspension means recall petition.
Why would they waste political capital to save BJ?
Wherever you stand on this, the US authorities continue to behave VERY strangely
Interesting interview this week with Abi Loeb (ex Harvard Astronomy Head) and Eric Weinstein (Thiel Capital), both of whom working on the Galileo Project, which is an attempt by civilian science to use near field telescopic imaging to capture anomalous objects.
Weinstein makes a good point that there’s basically no good direct evidence of The Phenomenon but oodles of indirect evidence. He concludes there’s either been “a multi decade nonsense campaign” by the government to leave breadcrumbs on something that’s not there, for reasons he can’t decipher. Or the Phenomenon is real and the best evidence is being wilfully withheld from civilian science.
Loeb gives an interesting background on NASA’s new interest in UAP and associated committee. Says that Bill Nelson was privy to classified briefings as Senator that made him sit up. And now he’s Nasa Administrator he’s tasked NASA’s chief scientists with going deeper. Loeb provided a white paper that has formed the basis for NASA’s proposed committee on UAP but it’s likely to be two years before there’s a proper budget appropriation in place for its work. So instead Loeb has formed the Galileo Project with private money to collect replicable evidence, rather than waiting for nasa or even worse waiting for the US govt / military to declassify its own data. “The sky isn’t classified”.
I still scratch my head at those who are ignorant or derisory about this story. Because it’s likely we’re either on the cusp of humanity’s most profound discovery ever. Or, the US militaryindustrial complex has been in possession for decades of an ultra tech that would transform our world if made public but continues to be held outside of all democratic scrutiny, with ex Presidents, Joint Chiefs and current Gang of Eight members from across the aisle seemingly ignorant about such a programme.
The ground in between these options is getting ever smaller.
But what about my explanation (shamelessly stolen from Joe Rogan) - the USG has amazing tech and is desperate to hide it from the Chinese, and Obama et al are IN ON THIS, and laying trails of decoys and distractions by talking about UFOs?
It sounds rather far fetched, but - as we both know - any explanation that covers all the bases is far fetched, and this one at least doesn't involve Martians
I wonder where Joe Rogan was - and what he was doing - when he thought of that? Probably it was during a "brainstorming" session with other interested parties. But maybe not. Perhaps he was alone in the shower - or even not alone in the shower - when, BOOM, it just came to him. He's not the biggest global podcaster on the planet for nothing after all. Me, I prefer Jarvis Cocker but I've heard great things.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Try the Elizabeth David diet: an omelette and a glass of wine.
Incredible to think that even in 2022, there are people who think there is no link between the climate and anthropogenic factors. Thank God, the young are not that foolish!
I agree that those who are certain there is no link are fools. However, I don’t think those who aren’t 100% sure are idiots.
It’s not completely out the question that there’s some other, as yet unknown mechanism driving climate change.
From what I understand, scientific consensus is ~95-99% anthropogenic factors have been the primary cause of recent climate change. It’s good enough for me and should be good enough for policy making purposes. But it’s not 100%. We might still be wrong.
Sure. But we have posters on here likening the acceptance of that overwhelming scientific consensus to religious dogmatism. Bit silly really.
Who? I haven't seen anyone doing that.
Apart from a few idiots, who are extremely rare on this site, nobody denies climate change.
What is debated more is what is the best way to deal with it?
People find it hard to separate out issues and tend to take them as pre-prepared packages of ineluctable truths.
Separate out:
Climate facts, data What events constitute relevant changes Interpretation Causation and correlation - how to distinguish Benefits v Burdens of any changes Modes of rectification - what can we change and what not, and how.
Even assuming he turns things around, massive numbers will have voted (and I doubt many of them realise if they send another the later one will count instead)
I thought the ballot papers don't go out early August?
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Five+ days doesn't sound healthy at all.
If you're going to do fasting then more regular intermittent fasting seems healthier to me, a bit like doing HIIT for training.
But I don't like the idea of fasting at all, but intermittent fasting is certainly doable and can be healthy, week-long water-only doesn't sound that healthy or sustainable to do regularly.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Did a 44 hour total fast. No food or drink of any kind a couple of months ago. That was hard enough. Although the craving died off rather than intensified. But I wouldn't like to do much more. Did have minor trippy feelings second afternoon.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Five+ days doesn't sound healthy at all.
If you're going to do fasting then more regular intermittent fasting seems healthier to me, a bit like doing HIIT for training.
But I don't like the idea of fasting at all, but intermittent fasting is certainly doable and can be healthy, week-long water-only doesn't sound that healthy or sustainable to do regularly.
Oh I wouldn't do it regularly. Just a one off to get my AntiPodge Blitzkrieg underway
After that I would go back to my normal dieting regime (when I need to diet) - restricted calories one day, fast the next, and continue the cycle. With plenty of exercise. It knocks off the weight quite quick
But I am intrigued by the idea of the longer fast as a one-off. Some say you get amazing spiritual insights...
Truss seems to have sharper political instincts. She wanted Boris gone too, so she could run, but doesn't get the stigma of having quit and being 'untrustworthy'.
Of course, without Sunak also jumping ship with Javid maybe the opening would not have arisen, so he was kind of stuck in that respect.
I’m not sure that would have made a difference. The choice was about who could offer the Tory membership more “true conservative” policies. Truss just flexed to the “tax cut” line because she wasn’t in the position of being chancellor
Good luck to her. She obviously has a huge amount of (misplaced) self belief to think she can turn it around
Maybe. I think Sunak is in the unenviable position of the 'establishment' candidate, even though they are both that. Commentators and even the majority of MPs telling people they'd be fools to vote for Truss which just bounce off the members, seeing any attack as further reason to back her. It's only day 1 but she seems to be making he waves, and if he has responded it must be low energy as it's not broken through.
Fair play to her, I don't quite know how she has managed that without any particularly impressive presentation, but she's outmanuevered him completely, and now he doesn't even have 'lead with the public' to cling to.
Sunak is in the unenviable position of being a total lightweight who bottled his chance in December last year.
He only got the job by being a Sub to Dom, letting him pick his SPADs.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
A friend lost a lot of weight with 5:2 intermittent fasting (eat normally five days a week and diet on the other two). The idea is it stops your body adjusting your metabolic rate downwards and burning less calories. This has happened to me: I cut out 1.5 litres of Coke a day, dropped a stone and a half but now my weight remains stubbornly constant.
There is a lot more science around weight loss these days. It's not just fasting or calorie counting. What you propose looks like a yoyo diet on steroids.
I see yesterday's NEC heard membership in Labour now down to 382k. Was 570K in 2020 when SKS took over. 188K AntiSemites left presumably.
Sounds about right.
Mandelsonian triangulation and not frightening the horses worked in the New Labour era when TINA but now Labour risks shedding votes (and members) to the greens and LibDems. Labour needs to stand for something apart from being less chaotic than Boris because the Tories are six weeks away from shooting that fox.
That's a different point, but, yes, Starmer isn't terribly good at this politics malarkey.
However, I think you might be over-estimating the capacity of the Tories under Liz Truss (assuming Rishi can't kibosh her) not to be chaotic. It's true that she's likely to be much, much more controlled and hard-working than Boris (a low bar, of course). But it's also clear that she is still fighting old Brexit wars against imaginary enemies, and trying to make up a new one called 'Treasury orthodoxy'. None of that will help in dealing with the multiple crises she will face; indeed, she seems determined to make them worse. It's even rumoured that she's planning keep Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg in the cabinet, and you can't get much madder than that.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
How will we notice if you go mad?
Seriously, what are you aiming to achieve?
Say you burn 2,000 kcal per day... 7 days would be 14,000 kcal which is about 2kg or 4lbs of fat. But of course by day two your body will be in famine-mode so you won't be burning 2,000 kcal per day. And you won't be getting any protein so you'll be losing vital tissue as well as fat.
So, 7 days of fasting for 3-4lbs weight loss? Forget it. Cut back to 1,000 kcal per day for the next few months.
Of which almost all of which is membership contributions covering the time we were members or treated as members, including €7.8bn bill for extending Article 50 and a €10.9bn bill for the 11 months of the transition.
So if we hadn't Brexited, those contributions would still be going indefinitely, and its beyond weird to call our pre-Brexit membership contributions a part of a divorce bill.
What it does go to confirm though is that EU membership was costing us €1bn per month, based upon your own figures you're sharing.
I mean, I think there will be a by-election regardless of a recall issue as Johnson will probably resign as an MP as Cameron did on ceasing to be PM. That's only made more likely by the risk that the decision may be taken for him if he faces a period of suspension, but is quite likely in any event.
Do you think he'd not be suspended for at least ten sitting days? I think he will if the finding is he misled Parliament, which I'd say is very possible although perhaps not probable. And clearly the petition would gather easily sufficient signatures if triggered.
I doubt he'd stand in any by-election.
In terms of Number 10 fighting it hard, a Sunak Number 10 wouldn't spend any political capital trying to get Johnson out of a suspension, I suspect. A Truss Number 10 probably would. But they'd not necessarily be successful, and this isn't controversial legal advice - clearly 10 day+ suspension means recall petition.
I actually think it's much simpler. Like it or not, there are a lot of Conservatives on the committee. And the anger is now gone. Now they will simply want to sweep BJ and Partygate under the carpet. (They are also acutely aware that their own members are angry about the defenestration of the Big Dog, and that - indirectly - throwing him out of Parliament via a two week suspension would not be popular.)
So, sure, it's possible that BJ resigns his seat and there's a byelection. But I just don't see the committee agreeing to a suspension that allows for a recall petition.
But lying to the house is Serious Shit. 4 out of the 7 are con. Dunno about the others but one of them is Bernard Jenkin who judging from his performance at the liaison committee hates Johnson as much as I do.
I wonder if Boris simply refuses to attend and gets held in contempt ?
This government has a record of refusing to attend select committee hearings; Priti and Kwasi in the past few days. It would not be surprising if Boris stays away. Whether his testimony would be needed is another matter.
Hmmm.
Priti Patel offered another time one week later, and the reason was that the Govt was in turmoil and her Ministerial team had changed. Damn good reason.
Kwarteng (and Raab btw) did not give reasons, but in the circs it seems quite reasonable.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Did a 44 hour total fast. No food or drink of any kind a couple of months ago. That was hard enough. Although the craving died off rather than intensified. But I wouldn't like to do much more. Did have minor trippy feelings second afternoon.
Don't encourage him.
Seriously, 44 hours without fluid sounds dangerous.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Did a 44 hour total fast. No food or drink of any kind a couple of months ago. That was hard enough. Although the craving died off rather than intensified. But I wouldn't like to do much more. Did have minor trippy feelings second afternoon.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Did a 44 hour total fast. No food or drink of any kind a couple of months ago. That was hard enough. Although the craving died off rather than intensified. But I wouldn't like to do much more. Did have minor trippy feelings second afternoon.
Don't encourage him.
Seriously, 44 hours without fluid sounds dangerous.
I thought so too. Before I tried it. It wasn't hard at all tbh.
Of which almost all of which is membership contributions covering the time we were members or treated as members, including €7.8bn bill for extending Article 50 and a €10.9bn bill for the 11 months of the transition.
So if we hadn't Brexited, those contributions would still be going indefinitely, and its beyond weird to call our pre-Brexit membership contributions a part of a divorce bill.
What it does go to confirm though is that EU membership was costing us €1bn per month, based upon your own figures you're sharing.
I see yesterday's NEC heard membership in Labour now down to 382k. Was 570K in 2020 when SKS took over. 188K AntiSemites left presumably.
Sounds about right.
Mandelsonian triangulation and not frightening the horses worked in the New Labour era when TINA but now Labour risks shedding votes (and members) to the greens and LibDems. Labour needs to stand for something apart from being less chaotic than Boris because the Tories are six weeks away from shooting that fox.
That's a different point, but, yes, Starmer isn't terribly good at this politics malarkey.
However, I think you might be over-estimating the capacity of the Tories under Liz Truss (assuming Rishi can't kibosh her) not to be chaotic. It's true that she's likely to be much, much more controlled and hard-working than Boris (a low bar, of course). But it's also clear that she is still fighting old Brexit wars against imaginary enemies, and trying to make up a new one called 'Treasury orthodoxy'. None of that will help in dealing with the multiple crises she will face; indeed, she seems determined to make them worse. It's even rumoured that she's planning keep Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg in the cabinet, and you can't get much madder than that.
Cynics might wonder if Liz Truss's war on the Treasury is an attempt at cakeism — a way of attacking Rishi Sunak without too much collateral damage to a decade of Conservative government, and without making it ostensibly personal.
Regular intermittent fasting is the way to go - 2 or 3 days a week.
As said below, a bit like HIIT
How do you define intermittent fasting, you mean the 5:2 diet?
I do something like that normally, I quite often go a day without a meal
Definitions of intermittent differ. What's yours?
I do 8:16...8 hour window of where can eat, 16 fasted....and basically just live by that. Obviously if going out or away etc, I am not some weirdo, but its my default.
I don't really buy some of all the hippy dippy stuff about such a regime, but I find it does a very simple thing, it restricts your calorie intake as you basically eat twice a day and you don't really snack.
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
It's fantastic for you is what I hear. But you do have to really go for it. No little "treats" here and there.
I see yesterday's NEC heard membership in Labour now down to 382k. Was 570K in 2020 when SKS took over. 188K AntiSemites left presumably.
Sounds about right.
Mandelsonian triangulation and not frightening the horses worked in the New Labour era when TINA but now Labour risks shedding votes (and members) to the greens and LibDems. Labour needs to stand for something apart from being less chaotic than Boris because the Tories are six weeks away from shooting that fox.
That's a different point, but, yes, Starmer isn't terribly good at this politics malarkey.
However, I think you might be over-estimating the capacity of the Tories under Liz Truss (assuming Rishi can't kibosh her) not to be chaotic. It's true that she's likely to be much, much more controlled and hard-working than Boris (a low bar, of course). But it's also clear that she is still fighting old Brexit wars against imaginary enemies, and trying to make up a new one called 'Treasury orthodoxy'. None of that will help in dealing with the multiple crises she will face; indeed, she seems determined to make them worse. It's even rumoured that she's planning keep Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg in the cabinet, and you can't get much madder than that.
Is Treasury Orthodoxy what Maggie used to call Sound Money?
I mean, I think there will be a by-election regardless of a recall issue as Johnson will probably resign as an MP as Cameron did on ceasing to be PM. That's only made more likely by the risk that the decision may be taken for him if he faces a period of suspension, but is quite likely in any event.
Do you think he'd not be suspended for at least ten sitting days? I think he will if the finding is he misled Parliament, which I'd say is very possible although perhaps not probable. And clearly the petition would gather easily sufficient signatures if triggered.
I doubt he'd stand in any by-election.
In terms of Number 10 fighting it hard, a Sunak Number 10 wouldn't spend any political capital trying to get Johnson out of a suspension, I suspect. A Truss Number 10 probably would. But they'd not necessarily be successful, and this isn't controversial legal advice - clearly 10 day+ suspension means recall petition.
I actually think it's much simpler. Like it or not, there are a lot of Conservatives on the committee. And the anger is now gone. Now they will simply want to sweep BJ and Partygate under the carpet. (They are also acutely aware that their own members are angry about the defenestration of the Big Dog, and that - indirectly - throwing him out of Parliament via a two week suspension would not be popular.)
So, sure, it's possible that BJ resigns his seat and there's a byelection. But I just don't see the committee agreeing to a suspension that allows for a recall petition.
I think this all speaks to why Johnson is quite likely to resign his seat as soon as his successor is in place.
It's very hard for the Committee not to find that Johnson misled the House, partly because Starmer (as you might expect from a senior lawyer) was quite clever in avoiding pinning it to *deliberately* misleading. Important to remember that this is a quasi-judicial committee which will receive professional legal advice, and I think it will be hard not to find a breach.
The issue is then seriousness and therefore penalty. This all relates to a series of very high profile statements made by Johnson at major set-piece events (PMQs) where it was very obvious the issue would arise. It's therefore hard not to see it as being at the more serious end, and they've a real issue with consistency with past and future decisions if they don't treat it as pretty high up the scale of seriousness. I am sure that will be the legal advice.
All in all, the way to defuse this (including for Johnson himself) is to follow the Blair/Cameron route of not returning to the backbenches. Then the issue of consequences for a sitting member don't arise. And I think that's likely to be the way it goes.
It looks bad for Sunak but maybe not quite as bad as at first glance.
The actual YouGov poll result is:
Truss 49 Sunak 31 Will not vote 6 Don't Know 15
So if Sunak got all Don't Knows it's on a knife-edge.
Even allocating DKs which gives 62-38, the point is it's not like a 24 point lead in a normal VI poll because in a head to head, one point off one candidate automatically means one point onto the other.
It's obvious from all polls that nobody's support is deep - only 13% of members go for Truss (and 11% for Sunak) given the choice of all the original eight candidates.
So things could change quickly - and the BBC head to head debate next Monday is before ballot papers go out. If Sunak won that convincingly he absolutely could turn it around - but the question is can he actually do that?
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
Incredible to think that even in 2022, there are people who think there is no link between the climate and anthropogenic factors. Thank God, the young are not that foolish!
I agree that those who are certain there is no link are fools. However, I don’t think those who aren’t 100% sure are idiots.
It’s not completely out the question that there’s some other, as yet unknown mechanism driving climate change.
From what I understand, scientific consensus is ~95-99% anthropogenic factors have been the primary cause of recent climate change. It’s good enough for me and should be good enough for policy making purposes. But it’s not 100%. We might still be wrong.
Sure. But we have posters on here likening the acceptance of that overwhelming scientific consensus to religious dogmatism. Bit silly really.
Who? I haven't seen anyone doing that.
Apart from a few idiots, who are extremely rare on this site, nobody denies climate change.
What is debated more is what is the best way to deal with it?
People find it hard to separate out issues and tend to take them as pre-prepared packages of ineluctable truths.
Separate out:
Climate facts, data What events constitute relevant changes Interpretation Causation and correlation - how to distinguish Benefits v Burdens of any changes Modes of rectification - what can we change and what not, and how.
That's a rather tough ask for the man on the Clapham omnibus!
Wherever you stand on this, the US authorities continue to behave VERY strangely
Interesting interview this week with Abi Loeb (ex Harvard Astronomy Head) and Eric Weinstein (Thiel Capital), both of whom working on the Galileo Project, which is an attempt by civilian science to use near field telescopic imaging to capture anomalous objects.
Weinstein makes a good point that there’s basically no good direct evidence of The Phenomenon but oodles of indirect evidence. He concludes there’s either been “a multi decade nonsense campaign” by the government to leave breadcrumbs on something that’s not there, for reasons he can’t decipher. Or the Phenomenon is real and the best evidence is being wilfully withheld from civilian science.
Loeb gives an interesting background on NASA’s new interest in UAP and associated committee. Says that Bill Nelson was privy to classified briefings as Senator that made him sit up. And now he’s Nasa Administrator he’s tasked NASA’s chief scientists with going deeper. Loeb provided a white paper that has formed the basis for NASA’s proposed committee on UAP but it’s likely to be two years before there’s a proper budget appropriation in place for its work. So instead Loeb has formed the Galileo Project with private money to collect replicable evidence, rather than waiting for nasa or even worse waiting for the US govt / military to declassify its own data. “The sky isn’t classified”.
I still scratch my head at those who are ignorant or derisory about this story. Because it’s likely we’re either on the cusp of humanity’s most profound discovery ever. Or, the US militaryindustrial complex has been in possession for decades of an ultra tech that would transform our world if made public but continues to be held outside of all democratic scrutiny, with ex Presidents, Joint Chiefs and current Gang of Eight members from across the aisle seemingly ignorant about such a programme.
The ground in between these options is getting ever smaller.
But what about my explanation (shamelessly stolen from Joe Rogan) - the USG has amazing tech and is desperate to hide it from the Chinese, and Obama et al are IN ON THIS, and laying trails of decoys and distractions by talking about UFOs?
It sounds rather far fetched, but - as we both know - any explanation that covers all the bases is far fetched, and this one at least doesn't involve Martians
I wonder where Joe Rogan was - and what he was doing - when he thought of that? Probably it was during a "brainstorming" session with other interested parties. But maybe not. Perhaps he was alone in the shower - or even not alone in the shower - when, BOOM, it just came to him. He's not the biggest global podcaster on the planet for nothing after all. Me, I prefer Jarvis Cocker but I've heard great things.
Your feeble satire is tiresome
But I do prefer Cocker to Rogan. Have you not heard any Cocker podcasts?
Sunak has a choice next week . To go for the jugular and trash the Maggie clones economic plan or play nice realizing he’s lost already and doesn’t want too much blue on blue acrimony and hopes he might stage a comeback in the future .
ON topic, has anyone ever done a prolonged fast, like 5, 7 or 10 days?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
I would go for the 800 calorie eight week approach. Typically shed 2 stone and is great for blood parameters, and seems to reset the metabolic thermostat.
Comments
Sunak may try to paint her as an economic fantasist, but that's what folk want to hear, it seems.
Fair play to her, I don't quite know how she has managed that without any particularly impressive presentation, but she's outmanuevered him completely, and now he doesn't even have 'lead with the public' to cling to.
Badenoch 24
Mordaunt 20
Truss 13
Sunak 11
Let Labour write their own attack lines rather than lift them from this leadership campaign. The whole thing could have been over in a week, including letting members vote.
I wouldn't rule out a potential PM Truss taking the Tories back into the lead. If she reverses Sunak's egregious mistakes like hiking NI and raising Corporation Tax, then she'll deserve a lead.
Certainly it doesn't speak to their ability to win, since the Tories manage to win with fewer.
Labour's membership dropped under Blair but Labour kept winning elections, so who cares?
I'm so bored of the Lockdown Podge that I am getting brutal. I want it all gone by end August, and I'm going to kickstart the campaign with a fast
I've fasted before but only 2-3 days (and even then I allowed wine). I'm now thinking: total water fast, 5 or 7 days. Go for it. Has anyone tried? Will I drop dead or go mad? The internet has varying advice (some day don't do it)
So Sunak has ten days to turn this around. Would be astonishing if he manages it.
Worried about a byelection?
Separate out:
Climate facts, data
What events constitute relevant changes
Interpretation
Causation and correlation - how to distinguish
Benefits v Burdens of any changes
Modes of rectification - what can we change and what not, and how.
If you're going to do fasting then more regular intermittent fasting seems healthier to me, a bit like doing HIIT for training.
But I don't like the idea of fasting at all, but intermittent fasting is certainly doable and can be healthy, week-long water-only doesn't sound that healthy or sustainable to do regularly.
That was hard enough.
Although the craving died off rather than intensified.
But I wouldn't like to do much more. Did have minor trippy feelings second afternoon.
After that I would go back to my normal dieting regime (when I need to diet) - restricted calories one day, fast the next, and continue the cycle. With plenty of exercise. It knocks off the weight quite quick
But I am intrigued by the idea of the longer fast as a one-off. Some say you get amazing spiritual insights...
He only got the job by being a Sub to Dom, letting him pick his SPADs.
UK’s post Brexit EU “divorce bill” reaches €50 billion, confirms Treasury... up from €40-45bn...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1092835/20220720_EU_Finances_Statement_2021_with_cover_v3_FINAL.pdf https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1550156669769900033/photo/1
As said below, a bit like HIIT
There is a lot more science around weight loss these days. It's not just fasting or calorie counting. What you propose looks like a yoyo diet on steroids.
I do something like that normally, I quite often go a day without a meal
Definitions of intermittent differ. What's yours?
However, I think you might be over-estimating the capacity of the Tories under Liz Truss (assuming Rishi can't kibosh her) not to be chaotic. It's true that she's likely to be much, much more controlled and hard-working than Boris (a low bar, of course). But it's also clear that she is still fighting old Brexit wars against imaginary enemies, and trying to make up a new one called 'Treasury orthodoxy'. None of that will help in dealing with the multiple crises she will face; indeed, she seems determined to make them worse. It's even rumoured that she's planning keep Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg in the cabinet, and you can't get much madder than that.
Seriously, what are you aiming to achieve?
Say you burn 2,000 kcal per day... 7 days would be 14,000 kcal which is about 2kg or 4lbs of fat. But of course by day two your body will be in famine-mode so you won't be burning 2,000 kcal per day. And you won't be getting any protein so you'll be losing vital tissue as well as fat.
So, 7 days of fasting for 3-4lbs weight loss? Forget it. Cut back to 1,000 kcal per day for the next few months.
So if we hadn't Brexited, those contributions would still be going indefinitely, and its beyond weird to call our pre-Brexit membership contributions a part of a divorce bill.
What it does go to confirm though is that EU membership was costing us €1bn per month, based upon your own figures you're sharing.
Priti Patel offered another time one week later, and the reason was that the Govt was in turmoil and her Ministerial team had changed. Damn good reason.
Kwarteng (and Raab btw) did not give reasons, but in the circs it seems quite reasonable.
Not really a long term "record of refusing" imo.
Seriously, 44 hours without fluid sounds dangerous.
That is dangerous. Would never recommend that.
I don't really buy some of all the hippy dippy stuff about such a regime, but I find it does a very simple thing, it restricts your calorie intake as you basically eat twice a day and you don't really snack.
Johnson 66.4%
Hubt 33.6%
2005 Tory Leadership Contest
Cameron 67.6%
Davis 32.4%
2001 Tory Leadership Contest
Duncan Smith 60.7%
Clarke 39.3%
Tory Members don't like it to be close, it seems.
It's very hard for the Committee not to find that Johnson misled the House, partly because Starmer (as you might expect from a senior lawyer) was quite clever in avoiding pinning it to *deliberately* misleading. Important to remember that this is a quasi-judicial committee which will receive professional legal advice, and I think it will be hard not to find a breach.
The issue is then seriousness and therefore penalty. This all relates to a series of very high profile statements made by Johnson at major set-piece events (PMQs) where it was very obvious the issue would arise. It's therefore hard not to see it as being at the more serious end, and they've a real issue with consistency with past and future decisions if they don't treat it as pretty high up the scale of seriousness. I am sure that will be the legal advice.
All in all, the way to defuse this (including for Johnson himself) is to follow the Blair/Cameron route of not returning to the backbenches. Then the issue of consequences for a sitting member don't arise. And I think that's likely to be the way it goes.
The actual YouGov poll result is:
Truss 49
Sunak 31
Will not vote 6
Don't Know 15
So if Sunak got all Don't Knows it's on a knife-edge.
Even allocating DKs which gives 62-38, the point is it's not like a 24 point lead in a normal VI poll because in a head to head, one point off one candidate automatically means one point onto the other.
It's obvious from all polls that nobody's support is deep - only 13% of members go for Truss (and 11% for Sunak) given the choice of all the original eight candidates.
So things could change quickly - and the BBC head to head debate next Monday is before ballot papers go out. If Sunak won that convincingly he absolutely could turn it around - but the question is can he actually do that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI-v4o2HKkQ
https://thebloodsugardiet.com/800-calorie-diet-study/
800 calories is pretty tough. I found 1200 quite sustainable