"The gender balance of the veterinary profession has changed dramatically in the last 30 to 40 years and having once been very much in the minority, women now account for almost 60 % of practicing vets registered with the RCVS. This is a statistic is likely to increase even further considering that almost 80 % of students enrolling in the veterinary degree course are female.
Men still outnumber women in medicine, but not in the specialism of General Practice. It only counts if men are on top in the more prestigious professions, so work is still to be done. Men outnumbering women in the poorer-paid professions will never be a problem.
Having sat on Athena-Swan committees at Uni I am fully aware that the process is very one sided. Pharmacy is heading rapidly to be an all female profession. I opined that this is a bad thing, but no-one else seemed to care. And yet it is a bad thing. Women are significanlty more likely to take career breaks (children, and often then reduced hours for many years). This affects workforce planning. If your graduates only end up working 60% over their careers , you need to find the other 40% somewhere.
They seem to manage in nurseries and primary schools, which are overwhelmingly female. Perhaps it's the workplace planning that's the problem rather than the gender balance?
Why not just use the reopened Rough storage facility as a national (and nationalised) strategic gas reserve, that can be filled either from the North Sea or from elsewhere when the price has fallen?
What will she come up with next? A good Trussite policy would be abolishing state schools. We could replace them with online courses, and put some of the money saved into funding youth activities.
"youth activities for rich parents children" only of course to be true Truss economics.
Her speech tomorrow and the reaction to it are going to be well worth tuning in for.
I honestly cannot predict what she will go for. The sorts of ratings they are getting on the economy are indeed apocalyptic, and she's made some tweaks, but the party is mutinous already, so how does she pitch this? She cannot go for the lady is not for turning as she did turn, sensibly, but no one but her seems to believe her economic pitch will work now (even if they thought it would work initially, things have taken a turn as a result), so is she just going to say how great it is going to be?
The attempt to shift position means they won't be trusted if they reverse, but there's no benefit to pushing on either if no one believes it. So she's stuck.
I predict full-on ra ra "I will NOT accept the stale old consensus that the best we can do is managed decline and that our rightful place is in the second division of nations. We are GREAT Britain. We belong in the top tier. Just look at the variety and quality of our cheeses."
It's a strong case. Pungent even.
Yep. Course last bit was my little joke but that is the essence of what we'll get, I think. New era, dynamism, "unleash the animal in us all" yada yada.
I can't believe my eyes. Wipe out. Forget Red Wall, they'll barely hold Surrey on these satisfaction ratings.
Incredible.
SKSICIPM
It would be funny if it were a short report for the foreign news section of the bulletin. "New Premier makes complete mess of things." But less funny when you live here.
Actually- forget the UK. Is there any new PM anywhere who has soiled themselves so utterly so quickly? What happened next?
Kim Campbell, Prime Minister of Canada (1993) in somewhat similar circumstances. Substituting Lyin' Brian for BoJo.
Guess Frosty is bitter about no major Cabinet role, although on this one he is clearly right.
5m on UC.
You wanna definitely lose 5m votes, Liz?
The benefits wedge issue doesn't work anymore.
The pandemic which saw so many people receiving benefits (and the problems therein applying for them) has changed the perceptions on so called benefit scroungers.
I hear Liz Truss’s team is worried about the prospect of MPs not turning up to listen to her speech tomorrow. Some MPs are heading home early because of train strikes; others because they can’t cope with any more. Govt aides today texting MPs asking if they plan to attend… https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1577335762080731138
Lincolnshire and Essex I think should save some Tory MPs. The true brexit heartlands
I can't see my North Dorset constituency ditching our (very one-nation) Tory MP tbh. Any of the neighbouring constituencies could switch to Labour of the LDs though.
Suella is up and running: apparently all crimes are down, except for those that are up.
She ticks a lot of boxes for the loyalist crowd and would win with the members. She's now got one of the big jobs too, though Home is hardest of them all. But Cleverly is quiet and Kwarteng is too closely tied to Truss. So she could be the next Tory leader
Her speech tomorrow and the reaction to it are going to be well worth tuning in for.
I honestly cannot predict what she will go for. The sorts of ratings they are getting on the economy are indeed apocalyptic, and she's made some tweaks, but the party is mutinous already, so how does she pitch this? She cannot go for the lady is not for turning as she did turn, sensibly, but no one but her seems to believe her economic pitch will work now (even if they thought it would work initially, things have taken a turn as a result), so is she just going to say how great it is going to be?
The attempt to shift position means they won't be trusted if they reverse, but there's no benefit to pushing on either if no one believes it. So she's stuck.
I predict full-on ra ra "I will NOT accept the stale old consensus that the best we can do is managed decline and that our rightful place is in the second division of nations. We are GREAT Britain. We belong in the top tier. Just look at the variety and quality of our cheeses."
It's a strong case. Pungent even.
Yep. Course last bit was my little joke but that is the essence of what we'll get, I think. New era, dynamism, "unleash the animal in us all" yada yada.
Kemi Badenoch says using the word “coup” over MPs and cabinet ministers “speaking our minds” is “inflammatory”. But dismisses talk of a cabinet split and says Truss doesn’t mind differing opinions until a policy is laid out.
I hope so too, because it is a good point well made. Even a Cabinet has to be brought onside, and the party definitely, a new leader has reasonable excuse to seek to change direction, but they still need to persuade internally. They aren't emperors.
Indeed, but I was particularly curious about automatrons
Perhaps as well Ms B isn't at Health.
Automatrons could be the answer to the NHS recruitment problem.
Lincolnshire and Essex I think should save some Tory MPs. The true brexit heartlands
I can't see my North Dorset constituency ditching our (very one-nation) Tory MP tbh. Any of the neighbouring constituencies could switch to Labour of the LDs though.
Hoare would be very vulnerable to the Lib Dems if there was an election tommorow
Guess Frosty is bitter about no major Cabinet role, although on this one he is clearly right.
5m on UC.
You wanna definitely lose 5m votes, Liz?
The benefits wedge issue doesn't work anymore.
The pandemic which saw so many people receiving benefits (and the problems therein applying for them) has changed the perceptions on so called benefit scroungers.
Its not just that, but we're at full employment, there aren't really many benefits scroungers.
The benefits bill goes to the grey vote now, if you want to cut benefits, that's the place to start.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
"Red tape" is ultimately derived from the idea that all the chaos in the world can be bought under control through law. The trouble is that the tories have embraced this phenomenon in all the time it has been in office, so any red tape busting is not particularly convincing.
Guess Frosty is bitter about no major Cabinet role, although on this one he is clearly right.
5m on UC.
You wanna definitely lose 5m votes, Liz?
The benefits wedge issue doesn't work anymore.
The pandemic which saw so many people receiving benefits (and the problems therein applying for them) has changed the perceptions on so called benefit scroungers.
Showing my age but this reminds me of the late 70s/early 80s when the law-abiding middle classes found it was their punk kids getting hassled and "moved on" for no reason by the police.
I hear Liz Truss’s team is worried about the prospect of MPs not turning up to listen to her speech tomorrow. Some MPs are heading home early because of train strikes; others because they can’t cope with any more. Govt aides today texting MPs asking if they plan to attend… https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1577335762080731138
Now that *would* be funny - Truss speaks to a half empty hall.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
I hear Liz Truss’s team is worried about the prospect of MPs not turning up to listen to her speech tomorrow. Some MPs are heading home early because of train strikes; others because they can’t cope with any more. Govt aides today texting MPs asking if they plan to attend… https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1577335762080731138
Now that *would* be funny - Truss speaks to a half empty hall.
Like those photos of the ScoTory and SLD conferences.You could tell a newspaper's allegiance by the degree to which the photo was cropped.
"Red tape" is ultimately derived from the idea that all the chaos in the world can be bought under control through law. The trouble is that the tories have embraced this phenomenon in all the time it has been in office, so any red tape busting is not particularly convincing.
Perhaps someone can clarify, but I seem to recall there was a civil service annual or the like published under the banner of 'The Red Tape'. (It may well have a title only slightly like that)
Somewhere in my archives I think I have such a thing.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
I have a bugbear about scammers and pyramid schemes, especially ones that are extremely damaging to the environment emitting more pollution than entire countries but without producing anything. Strange that you don't quite frankly.
Kemi Badenoch says using the word “coup” over MPs and cabinet ministers “speaking our minds” is “inflammatory”. But dismisses talk of a cabinet split and says Truss doesn’t mind differing opinions until a policy is laid out.
I hope so too, because it is a good point well made. Even a Cabinet has to be brought onside, and the party definitely, a new leader has reasonable excuse to seek to change direction, but they still need to persuade internally. They aren't emperors.
Indeed, but I was particularly curious about automatrons
Perhaps as well Ms B isn't at Health.
Automatrons could be the answer to the NHS recruitment problem.
"Carry on Automatron" sounds like one of @Leons future dystopias, though in that one at least we aren't all living in a post nuclear wasteland.
What will she come up with next? A good Trussite policy would be abolishing state schools. We could replace them with online courses, and put some of the money saved into funding youth activities.
"youth activities for rich parents children" only of course to be true Truss economics.
The others can do vocational training. Cleaning chimneys or something similar.
"The gender balance of the veterinary profession has changed dramatically in the last 30 to 40 years and having once been very much in the minority, women now account for almost 60 % of practicing vets registered with the RCVS. This is a statistic is likely to increase even further considering that almost 80 % of students enrolling in the veterinary degree course are female.
Men still outnumber women in medicine, but not in the specialism of General Practice. It only counts if men are on top in the more prestigious professions, so work is still to be done. Men outnumbering women in the poorer-paid professions will never be a problem.
Having sat on Athena-Swan committees at Uni I am fully aware that the process is very one sided. Pharmacy is heading rapidly to be an all female profession. I opined that this is a bad thing, but no-one else seemed to care. And yet it is a bad thing. Women are significanlty more likely to take career breaks (children, and often then reduced hours for many years). This affects workforce planning. If your graduates only end up working 60% over their careers , you need to find the other 40% somewhere.
They seem to manage in nurseries and primary schools, which are overwhelmingly female. Perhaps it's the workplace planning that's the problem rather than the gender balance?
Be assured I have no beef with the profession becoming more female. And yes, if it happens you need to adjust your planning. The bigger point is that a lot of fuss is made over certain male dominated professions, but not others. No campaigns about the glass ceiling for bin men.
Her speech tomorrow and the reaction to it are going to be well worth tuning in for.
I honestly cannot predict what she will go for. The sorts of ratings they are getting on the economy are indeed apocalyptic, and she's made some tweaks, but the party is mutinous already, so how does she pitch this? She cannot go for the lady is not for turning as she did turn, sensibly, but no one but her seems to believe her economic pitch will work now (even if they thought it would work initially, things have taken a turn as a result), so is she just going to say how great it is going to be?
The attempt to shift position means they won't be trusted if they reverse, but there's no benefit to pushing on either if no one believes it. So she's stuck.
I predict full-on ra ra "I will NOT accept the stale old consensus that the best we can do is managed decline and that our rightful place is in the second division of nations. We are GREAT Britain. We belong in the top tier. Just look at the variety and quality of our cheeses."
It's a strong case. Pungent even.
Yep. Course last bit was my little joke but that is the essence of what we'll get, I think. New era, dynamism, "unleash the animal in us all" yada yada.
It's going to be a real buttock-clencher.
What time is she due to speak?
Dunno. The official agenda does not show a time, just lists her as the last speaker before they knock off at 12. The media will have been more thoroughly briefed but I've no time to look.
ETA even then, the agenda adds the qualification, "not in order of appearance".
"Red tape" is ultimately derived from the idea that all the chaos in the world can be bought under control through law. The trouble is that the tories have embraced this phenomenon in all the time it has been in office, so any red tape busting is not particularly convincing.
Perhaps someone can clarify, but I seem to recall there was a civil service annual or the like published under the banner of 'The Red Tape'. (It may well have a title only slightly like that)
Somewhere in my archives I think I have such a thing.
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
They could parade Mr Blobby as the new party chairman, then have him body check the first two rows of the audience immediately before Truss speaks?
I hear Liz Truss’s team is worried about the prospect of MPs not turning up to listen to her speech tomorrow. Some MPs are heading home early because of train strikes; others because they can’t cope with any more. Govt aides today texting MPs asking if they plan to attend… https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1577335762080731138
Now that *would* be funny - Truss speaks to a half empty hall.
Even walk outs mid speech would be appropriate for many
Guess Frosty is bitter about no major Cabinet role, although on this one he is clearly right.
5m on UC.
You wanna definitely lose 5m votes, Liz?
The benefits wedge issue doesn't work anymore.
The pandemic which saw so many people receiving benefits (and the problems therein applying for them) has changed the perceptions on so called benefit scroungers.
Its not just that, but we're at full employment, there aren't really many benefits scroungers.
The benefits bill goes to the grey vote now, if you want to cut benefits, that's the place to start.
According to this article (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-penny-mordaunt-s-pre-rebellion-matters) there are 5.3 million on out of work benefit, and we're nowhere near full employment. It's just that people are managed off jobseekers allowance (where they count as unemployment) to other benefits (where they don't). Which is crazy in a time when positions are apparently hard to fill. And crazier still that we are proposing to increase benefits by more than wages are increasing.
There may be more to this than an article in the Spectator, of course, but the numbers look like they back the story up.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
Yet millions will still vote Conservative next time, a few, perhaps, because they believe in the current drivel.
Others will support the Party because it suits them financially to do so - they win from lower taxes.
For others, it's cultural or traditional - they are Tory, they have always been Tory, they will always be Tory.
The biggest group arguably are those who are simply anti-Labour - they don't "trust" Labour, they don't "like" Starmer, they may even fear what they think a Labour Government will mean for them and the country.
Ultimately, it's reducing that last group which will win or lose the election for Starmer. Blair was supremely successful in convincing millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. If Starmer can get anywhere near that aided and abetted by Truss (who is nowhere near as likeable as John Major), he will become the next Prime Minister.
The balancing act is to offer change without that change being threatening or alarming for middle class England.
Kemi Badenoch says using the word “coup” over MPs and cabinet ministers “speaking our minds” is “inflammatory”. But dismisses talk of a cabinet split and says Truss doesn’t mind differing opinions until a policy is laid out.
Also we’re a democracy, not an autocracy. A PM failing utterly to command the confidence and support of her party isn’t a ‘coup’ happening; it’s just democracy.
Prediction for Truss Speech. Not upgrading benefits in line with inflation saves £5B. There is no way Truss won’t do it, so why prevaricate any longer? She will announce inflation rise for UC in her speech.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
No
They could. Just wait till they proclaim up front the abolition of animal cruelty laws. (Which is probably what they are doing anyway, with the EU-erasure act, as per Cyclefree's header.)
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
A chance of survival close to 100% I'd say - 45.6% majority & will be amazed if Fareham is not blue at next GE.
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
It has a different look and meaning to it depending which side of the ideological fence you sit on - from Truss side of the fence it holds UK back in this world making us Uncompetitive in the new global economy, and it puts huge posters up everywhere on UK streets: “we are not an aspirational nation.”
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
I think people paying attention with both eyes (so ruling out libertarian pirates with eyepatches) could predict that Truss would be bad. There were lots of clues.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
I think people paying attention with both eyes (so ruling out libertarian pirates with eyepatches) could predict that Truss would be bad. There were lots of clues.
But not this bad, I reckon.
During the debates, even the first one, she surprised me on the upside.
She managed to avoid major clangers during the campaign, and a commitment to re-in state NPR was even mildly encouraging.
Of course there some absurd comments passed during the hustings - such as the berserk idea that Macron was not necessarily an ally. But, I’m not really the consituency.
So mea culpa? I personally found both Rishi and Truss deeply flawed, but I don’t think anyone was predicting this level of failure.
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
A chance of survival close to 100% I'd say - 45.6% majority & will be amazed if Fareham is not blue at next GE.
In the event of a truly catastrophic defeat, Truss, Sunak, Patel and Braverman are all likely survivors.
A near-wipeout of Tory MPs would not, of course, change the number and composition of the membership.
Next Con leader election: Braverman vs Patel, with Patel rejected by the fossil membership for being too moderate.
We were, back at the time, discussing the way in which there was an incident when a chap heckled Prince Andrew near the High Kirk in Edinburgh. A follow-up here.
We were, back at the time, discussing the way in which there was an incident when a chap heckled Prince Andrew near the High Kirk in Edinburgh. A follow-up here.
"The gender balance of the veterinary profession has changed dramatically in the last 30 to 40 years and having once been very much in the minority, women now account for almost 60 % of practicing vets registered with the RCVS. This is a statistic is likely to increase even further considering that almost 80 % of students enrolling in the veterinary degree course are female.
Men still outnumber women in medicine, but not in the specialism of General Practice. It only counts if men are on top in the more prestigious professions, so work is still to be done. Men outnumbering women in the poorer-paid professions will never be a problem.
It varies tremendously by speciality, and not for very obvious reasons. There is also demographic change in that the GP workforce is younger than Hospital Consultants, so more female. Some hospital specialities are dominated by women, notably paediatrics, despite the heavy on call, but also haematology curiously.
The need for part time working is obvious, but as usual the DoH thinks this is the 1950s.
I hear Liz Truss’s team is worried about the prospect of MPs not turning up to listen to her speech tomorrow. Some MPs are heading home early because of train strikes; others because they can’t cope with any more. Govt aides today texting MPs asking if they plan to attend…
Of course, many of them never arrived in the first place.
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
A chance of survival close to 100% I'd say - 45.6% majority & will be amazed if Fareham is not blue at next GE.
Fareham has not elected anything other than a Conservative MP since 1885 - even when it was Gosport & Fareham from 1950 to 1974 it was still strongly Conservative.
Even in 1997, the winning Conservative got 47% of the vote (the worst performance was 43% in October 1974). Compared with the 75% Thomas Inskip got in 1935 and the TWO by-elections where the Conservative was unopposed (imagine that now?), Suella Braverman isn't really trying.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
I think people paying attention with both eyes (so ruling out libertarian pirates with eyepatches) could predict that Truss would be bad. There were lots of clues.
But not this bad, I reckon.
During the debates, even the first one, she surprised me on the upside.
She managed to avoid major clangers during the campaign, and a commitment to re-in state NPR was even mildly encouraging.
Of course there some absurd comments passed during the hustings - such as the berserk idea that Macron was not necessarily an ally. But, I’m not really the consituency.
So mea culpa? I personally found both Rishi and Truss deeply flawed, but I don’t think anyone was predicting this level of failure.
To add: What started to make me suspicious was her silence on the energy bung; she refused to show leadership. More than that, though, was her ghastly loyalty to Boris.
Both were calculated to win over the membership, but revealed a kind of cowardice and tendency to dissembling.
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
A chance of survival close to 100% I'd say - 45.6% majority & will be amazed if Fareham is not blue at next GE.
In the event of a truly catastrophic defeat, Truss, Sunak, Patel and Braverman are all likely survivors.
A near-wipeout of Tory MPs would not, of course, change the number and composition of the membership.
Next Con leader election: Braverman vs Patel, with Patel rejected by the fossil membership for being too moderate.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
To be fair, crypto itself isn't a scam. Good cryptography is always useful.
Electronic currencies aren't a scam as such, either.
"Investment" in bullshit topped with "block chain" and "We expect growth in the 12,340% range" definitely is a scam.
And using all the graphics cards in the world to mine electronic currency is as mad as a box of frogs on every possible level.
99% of crypto "business" are either bullshit where the founders have conned themselves, or are actually cons. Hence the long and growing list of frauds, lost money, missing executives, missing executives with the only key to the wallet etc etc
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
It has a different look and meaning to it depending which side of the ideological fence you sit on - from Truss side of the fence it holds UK back in this world making us Uncompetitive in the new global economy, and it puts huge posters up everywhere on UK streets: “we are not an aspirational nation.”
Does that answer your question.
Clearly the vast majority of the public don’t think those high earners should have their taxes cut and that includes a decent chunk of Tory voters. So Truss and her ideology are vote losers .
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
I think people paying attention with both eyes (so ruling out libertarian pirates with eyepatches) could predict that Truss would be bad. There were lots of clues.
But not this bad, I reckon.
I thought she would be terrible and have consistently said that a Labour majority was twice as likely as a Tory one, and that is now priced. I attended a dinner shortly after she became PM where the Westminster insiders present did little to disguise their contempt for her and her team. So none of this should be wholly surprising. But I never imagined that any politician could be quite as spectacularly awful as she has turned out to be.
We were, back at the time, discussing the way in which there was an incident when a chap heckled Prince Andrew near the High Kirk in Edinburgh. A follow-up here.
Putting the merits of the case to one side, if you set out to offend people, you take the risk you will succeed.
Was there not a common law offence of 'behaving in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace'? Presumably it has been legislated away in the interim. But it was a long-established principle that one shouldn't provoke people into behaving violently and the onus isn't necessarily on them to turn the other cheek. Depends on the circumstances and the finer details, needless to say, but I'm sure most of us can imagine behaviour that would rouse us to fury, even if we disagree what it might be.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
To be fair, crypto itself isn't a scam. Good cryptography is always useful.
Electronic currencies aren't a scam as such, either.
"Investment" in bullshit topped with "block chain" and "We expect growth in the 12,340% range" definitely is a scam.
And using all the graphics cards in the world to mine electronic currency is as mad as a box of frogs on every possible level.
99% of crypto "business" are either bullshit where the founders have conned themselves, or are actually cons. Hence the long and growing list of frauds, lost money, missing executives, missing executives with the only key to the wallet etc etc
I have never seen a blockchain application which wouldn’t be done better by a database managed by a trusted third party
Comments
Yes - 4/6
No - 6/5
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/liz-truss-specials/236956035/all-markets
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2359695.stm
It's going to be a real buttock-clencher.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1577335762080731138
You have to confess your bad ones, I feel. Can't only sing when you're winning.
But Cleverly is quiet and Kwarteng is too closely tied to Truss. So she could be the next Tory leader
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
The benefits bill goes to the grey vote now, if you want to cut benefits, that's the place to start.
https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1577217590543253504?s=46&t=M_KcM3It9GUwMDftkF24Tw
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
...such as Priti Patel.
All is relative.
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Somewhere in my archives I think I have such a thing.
ETA even then, the agenda adds the qualification, "not in order of appearance".
Osborne did exactly what everyone is yelling at Kwarteng might !
https://mrc-catalogue.warwick.ac.uk/records/ACA
Though if we want a refund, we'll need to return them.undamaged, and it may be too late for that.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Kwarteng likes to kick poor people.
According to this article (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-penny-mordaunt-s-pre-rebellion-matters) there are 5.3 million on out of work benefit, and we're nowhere near full employment. It's just that people are managed off jobseekers allowance (where they count as unemployment) to other benefits (where they don't).
Which is crazy in a time when positions are apparently hard to fill.
And crazier still that we are proposing to increase benefits by more than wages are increasing.
There may be more to this than an article in the Spectator, of course, but the numbers look like they back the story up.
Others will support the Party because it suits them financially to do so - they win from lower taxes.
For others, it's cultural or traditional - they are Tory, they have always been Tory, they will always be Tory.
The biggest group arguably are those who are simply anti-Labour - they don't "trust" Labour, they don't "like" Starmer, they may even fear what they think a Labour Government will mean for them and the country.
Ultimately, it's reducing that last group which will win or lose the election for Starmer. Blair was supremely successful in convincing millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. If Starmer can get anywhere near that aided and abetted by Truss (who is nowhere near as likeable as John Major), he will become the next Prime Minister.
The balancing act is to offer change without that change being threatening or alarming for middle class England.
A PM failing utterly to command the confidence and support of her party isn’t a ‘coup’ happening; it’s just democracy.
Who was the idiot ? Ah, yes, Braverman.
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03 - Novak-Parma - Onion Amicus Brief.pdf
Not upgrading benefits in line with inflation saves £5B. There is no way Truss won’t do it, so why prevaricate any longer? She will announce inflation rise for UC in her speech.
Does that answer your question.
But not this bad, I reckon.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-news-live-kwarteng-u-turn-45p-tax-liz-truss-12593360?postid=4580945#liveblog-body
Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not.
Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not.
Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not.
Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not.
Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not.
Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
https://twitter.com/karl_fh/status/1577310907516030976?s=46&t=zfIV0nxBO8NS7qD3OEPOaA
https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1577217590543253504?s=46&t=M_KcM3It9GUwMDftkF24Tw
She managed to avoid major clangers during the campaign, and a commitment to re-in state NPR was even mildly encouraging.
Of course there some absurd comments passed during the hustings - such as the berserk idea that Macron was not necessarily an ally. But, I’m not really the consituency.
So mea culpa?
I personally found both Rishi and Truss deeply flawed, but I don’t think anyone was predicting this level of failure.
The worry is that Labour doesn’t seem to have much to show for its time in the wilderness.
A near-wipeout of Tory MPs would not, of course, change the number and composition of the membership.
Next Con leader election: Braverman vs Patel, with Patel rejected by the fossil membership for being too moderate.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/02/two-men-charged-over-alleged-assault-on-prince-andrew-heckler
The need for part time working is obvious, but as usual the DoH thinks this is the 1950s.
I hear Liz Truss’s team is worried about the prospect of MPs not turning up to listen to her speech tomorrow. Some MPs are heading home early because of train strikes; others because they can’t cope with any more. Govt aides today texting MPs asking if they plan to attend…
Of course, many of them never arrived in the first place.
Even in 1997, the winning Conservative got 47% of the vote (the worst performance was 43% in October 1974). Compared with the 75% Thomas Inskip got in 1935 and the TWO by-elections where the Conservative was unopposed (imagine that now?), Suella Braverman isn't really trying.
What started to make me suspicious was her silence on the energy bung; she refused to show leadership. More than that, though, was her ghastly loyalty to Boris.
Both were calculated to win over the membership, but revealed a kind of cowardice and tendency to dissembling.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
Electronic currencies aren't a scam as such, either.
"Investment" in bullshit topped with "block chain" and "We expect growth in the 12,340% range" definitely is a scam.
And using all the graphics cards in the world to mine electronic currency is as mad as a box of frogs on every possible level.
99% of crypto "business" are either bullshit where the founders have conned themselves, or are actually cons. Hence the long and growing list of frauds, lost money, missing executives, missing executives with the only key to the wallet etc etc
I ❤️ Kwasi.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1577353120111558656
They know what they have to do - purge the party of her and Kwarteng
Oh
Dear
God
More please!!!
The roasters tried to tear gas me earlier on this year.