Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What a waste of 100 nominations – politicalbetting.com

123457»

Comments

  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,529
    edited October 2022


    Rishi Sunak
    @RishiSunak
    ·
    11m
    1/ Boris Johnson delivered Brexit and the great vaccine roll-out.

    He led our country through some of the toughest challenges we have ever faced, and then took on Putin and his barbaric war in Ukraine.

    We will always be grateful to him for that.
    Rishi Sunak
    @RishiSunak
    2/ Although he has decided not to run for PM again, I truly hope he continues to contribute to public life at home and abroad.

    Good start.

    Mendacious bullshit, of course, but necessary and appropriate

    Sigh. So not surprised by Boris. Disappointed, but not surprised. He just cannot change.

    1) Boris may have had 100+ backers or not: if he didn't then we will find out through a leak at some point. I have no idea and I'm past caring.

    2) Once again he gets MPs to march up the hill for him and then cannot be bothered to march them down again: he just runs away.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    She actually seems to enjoy life as a backbencher, but I'd love to see May back in the Cabinet just for the laughs.

    But new generation, supporters to reward etc.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648
    Sunak might get a genuine honeymoon period, albeit tempered by the difficult winter. Him becoming PM is a significant moment and could shift the narrative away from the divisive politics of the last 6 years.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Personally, I doubt it. But she’s been in for a month. I would leave her in it, and signal no reshuffle until after the locals.

    I think a conscious decision to stop the bloodlust will settle nerves all round.

    Not sure why I’m giving advice to the Tory party, but I think this makes sense.

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,587
    Jonathan said:


    Rishi Sunak
    @RishiSunak
    ·
    11m
    1/ Boris Johnson delivered Brexit and the great vaccine roll-out.

    He led our country through some of the toughest challenges we have ever faced, and then took on Putin and his barbaric war in Ukraine.

    We will always be grateful to him for that.
    Rishi Sunak
    @RishiSunak
    2/ Although he has decided not to run for PM again, I truly hope he continues to contribute to public life at home and abroad.

    Ouch.
    "at home or, preferably, abroad" I read that as.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Great pic choice on the BBC, of Sunak laughing whilst looking at a sombre Johnson.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    RefUK reporting a membership surge since Boris pulled out and Rishi became set to be PM

    @TiceRichard
    Thanks Rishi and Boris

    Member numbers soaring for
    @reformparty_uk
    in last 2 hours since Boris pulled out
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    HYUFD said:

    RefUK reporting a membership surge since Boris pulled out and Rishi became set to be PM

    @TiceRichard
    Thanks Rishi and Boris

    Member numbers soaring for
    @reformparty_uk
    in last 2 hours since Boris pulled out

    Good news. Push all the nutters out of parliamentary politics and let them wank themselves to exhaustion at fringe meetings in Lowestoft and Scunthorpe.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    HYUFD said:
    And former MEP for the Tories too, his current party.
    Also currently chairman of the Freedom Association.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648
    kle4 said:

    Great pic choice on the BBC, of Sunak laughing whilst looking at a sombre Johnson.

    Yes, that photo was what inspired my comment above. There is a sense that the media wants to move on and there is goodwill towards Sunak.

    image
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    HYUFD said:

    RefUK reporting a membership surge since Boris pulled out and Rishi became set to be PM

    @TiceRichard
    Thanks Rishi and Boris

    Member numbers soaring for
    @reformparty_uk
    in last 2 hours since Boris pulled out

    Unsurprising, though weird. Their hero Boris isn't jumping ship, and Rishi was at the heart of Boris's government.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724

    HYUFD said:

    RefUK reporting a membership surge since Boris pulled out and Rishi became set to be PM

    @TiceRichard
    Thanks Rishi and Boris

    Member numbers soaring for
    @reformparty_uk
    in last 2 hours since Boris pulled out

    Good news. Push all the nutters out of parliamentary politics and let them wank themselves to exhaustion at fringe meetings in Lowestoft and Scunthorpe.
    Soar == 11 people

    Three of whom's debit cards were rejected.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275

    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Personally, I doubt it. But she’s been in for a month. I would leave her in it, and signal no reshuffle until after the locals.

    I think a conscious decision to stop the bloodlust will settle nerves all round.

    Not sure why I’m giving advice to the Tory party, but I think this makes sense.

    A health secretary needs to look the part , as in not looking like they have a loyalty card for KFC.

    You really have to practice what you’re supposed to preach . No ones going to take her seriously. I say this as someone who needs to lose a few pounds but I’m not in charge of health for the government.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724
    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Based on the rumour she wanted smoking back in pubs, erm... no.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724
    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    I think Javid.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    HYUFD said:

    RefUK reporting a membership surge since Boris pulled out and Rishi became set to be PM

    @TiceRichard
    Thanks Rishi and Boris

    Member numbers soaring for
    @reformparty_uk
    in last 2 hours since Boris pulled out

    Good news. Push all the nutters out of parliamentary politics and let them wank themselves to exhaustion at fringe meetings in Lowestoft and Scunthorpe.
    Soar == 11 people

    Three of whom's debit cards were rejected.
    Four of whom attempted to pay with unused traveller’s cheques and 4% consols.

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    That's very naive of you:

    The World Economic Forum is in Davos, which is the same ski resort as Klosters. And Klosters is well known as the ski playground of (a) the British Royal Family and (b) Nat Rothschild.
    Not the same ski resort at all! They are just connected by the Davosdan chute.

    Posh people go to Davos - the flash money to Klosters and the fast set to St Anton.
  • FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    She's an intelligent person. But Health seems an odd choice.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Based on the rumour she wanted smoking back in pubs, erm... no.

    I think that was a Twitter joke.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724

    kle4 said:

    Nadhim Zahawi wins the coveted dupe award.

    "Published at 9PM"

    image

    https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1584275806498344960

    "What's that behind you Nadhim?

    Oh, it's your career!"
    He must be one ditched. Some others kept, but he's shown himself to be king of the fools
    Perhaps but the case for keeping Nadhim Zahawi is that he seems to have been an efficient enough manager, and Whitehall could probably use some quiet competence after the last several years. The same might apply to Alok Sharma.
    Sharma is the COP manager. It seems a role he has done very well and as the main COP event in UK is long gone why change him for what reason?

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724

    Christopher Hope📝
    @christopherhope

    Blimey! It was just seven days ago that I received a text from a Tory MP saying: “Rishi PM. Hunt CX. Penny FS. And it’s a done deal.”

    Liz Truss was PM and the text looked like fanciful plotting. Not any more.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    So Badenoch and Donelan probably keep their posts as does Hunt. Raab is back in possibly with Williamson. Mordaunt should get a better gig too. Wallace blotted his copy book by backing Boris but is unlikely to be shifted. Who else keeps a place?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    We are on the brink of getting our first British Asian Prime Minister. Spare a thought for us with Indian mums who are about to get absolutely rinsed about our lack of success.

    https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1584292613212946432

    “So he’s not Prime Minister, then? Oh dear! I’m glad my mothers not alive to see this….
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    Actually it isn't (the Jewish bit I mean). At least not anyone who isn't 101 years old.

    The anti-globalist, anti-WEF, anti-Bill Gates lot are complete nutters but it is not based on antisemitism. The world (at least theirs) has moved on from any of that long ago. It is a massively complex and tightly drawn conspiracy delusion which has little place for anything as simple or crass as antisemitism.

    As Topping mentions it involves the idea of The Great Reset, of the Covid pandemic being a cover for massive population reduction, of Blackrock buying up all the property in America and owning almost all the businesses in the world, of contrails being chemicals sprayed over us for some unknown but nefarious reason, of Bill Gates owning all the means of food production and making us eat insects and of the move to electric cars and smart meters being all part of an ambition to remove the ability for people to do anything without the Governments permission.

    If it has any racial component, it is most often directed at the Chinese. Indeed, Israel is often seen as the last standout hope against this Globalisation. No idea why exactly except for the fact they are seen as opponents of various Islamic countries who are swept up in this great delusion.

    I think the Israel thing is a mind-merge as many of them have roots in the apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist communities in America (Meggido, etc, with the “goodies” fighting alongside the Jews)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited October 2022
    kle4 said:

    So Badenoch and Donelan probably keep their posts as does Hunt. Raab is back in possibly with Williamson. Mordaunt should get a better gig too. Wallace blotted his copy book by backing Boris but is unlikely to be shifted. Who else keeps a place?

    The other benefit to eschewing a reshuffle is that proven failures like Raab and Williamson can be kept away from high office.

    Raab was effectively sacked for incompetence, and Williamson for both incompetence and as a security risk. Neither deserves a rentrée.

    I’d add Braverman to this.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    It’s really quite extraordinary when you think about it .

    When Sunak lost to Truss he must have thought that’s the chance gone to be PM.

    No one could have forecast the series of events of the last few months .
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    edited October 2022

    kle4 said:

    So Badenoch and Donelan probably keep their posts as does Hunt. Raab is back in possibly with Williamson. Mordaunt should get a better gig too. Wallace blotted his copy book by backing Boris but is unlikely to be shifted. Who else keeps a place?

    The other benefit to eschewing a reshuffle is that proven failures like Raab and Williamson can be kept away from high office.

    Raab was effectively sacked for incompetence, and Williamson for both incompetence and as a security risk. Neither deserves a rentrée.

    I’d add Braverman to this.
    ...and Patel, the serial security risk.

    And whilst we are on the subject of security risks, perhaps Sunak should instigate an investigation into Johnson's unaccompanied meeting as FS with Lebedev. That might resolve the particularly unpleasant headache that is Johnson, for Sunak and for good.
  • kle4 said:

    So Badenoch and Donelan probably keep their posts as does Hunt. Raab is back in possibly with Williamson. Mordaunt should get a better gig too. Wallace blotted his copy book by backing Boris but is unlikely to be shifted. Who else keeps a place?

    Sorry to gibble re: proper punctuation, but shirley it's Bad'enoch.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
  • Where is the Gerald Nabarro of the 21st century??? Or the Victor Grayson? Or the Lambert Simnel?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    Actually it isn't (the Jewish bit I mean). At least not anyone who isn't 101 years old.

    The anti-globalist, anti-WEF, anti-Bill Gates lot are complete nutters but it is not based on antisemitism. The world (at least theirs) has moved on from any of that long ago. It is a massively complex and tightly drawn conspiracy delusion which has little place for anything as simple or crass as antisemitism.

    As Topping mentions it involves the idea of The Great Reset, of the Covid pandemic being a cover for massive population reduction, of Blackrock buying up all the property in America and owning almost all the businesses in the world, of contrails being chemicals sprayed over us for some unknown but nefarious reason, of Bill Gates owning all the means of food production and making us eat insects and of the move to electric cars and smart meters being all part of an ambition to remove the ability for people to do anything without the Governments permission.

    If it has any racial component, it is most often directed at the Chinese. Indeed, Israel is often seen as the last standout hope against this Globalisation. No idea why exactly except for the fact they are seen as opponents of various Islamic countries who are swept up in this great delusion.

    I think the Israel thing is a mind-merge as many of them have roots in the apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist communities in America (Meggido, etc, with the “goodies” fighting alongside the Jews)
    In various of the fundy Christian sects, Jews are seen as "nearly there" - just needing a bit of evangelising to turn them into the Right Kind of fundy. There's a long history of this - see Cromwell etc..
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,557
    edited October 2022
    nico679 said:

    It’s really quite extraordinary when you think about it .

    When Sunak lost to Truss he must have thought that’s the chance gone to be PM.

    No one could have forecast the series of events of the last few months .

    It's lucky that he hadn't resigned his seat in parliament just before the Truss administration imploded.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    Actually it isn't (the Jewish bit I mean). At least not anyone who isn't 101 years old.

    The anti-globalist, anti-WEF, anti-Bill Gates lot are complete nutters but it is not based on antisemitism. The world (at least theirs) has moved on from any of that long ago. It is a massively complex and tightly drawn conspiracy delusion which has little place for anything as simple or crass as antisemitism.

    As Topping mentions it involves the idea of The Great Reset, of the Covid pandemic being a cover for massive population reduction, of Blackrock buying up all the property in America and owning almost all the businesses in the world, of contrails being chemicals sprayed over us for some unknown but nefarious reason, of Bill Gates owning all the means of food production and making us eat insects and of the move to electric cars and smart meters being all part of an ambition to remove the ability for people to do anything without the Governments permission.

    If it has any racial component, it is most often directed at the Chinese. Indeed, Israel is often seen as the last standout hope against this Globalisation. No idea why exactly except for the fact they are seen as opponents of various Islamic countries who are swept up in this great delusion.

    Firstly, I said that it's a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. I did not say that all uses of the term are used in that same way.
    Secondly, the ecosystem of conspiracy theories is a matted web, and anti-globalist draw from the well of antisemitic conspiracy theories usually without care to distance themselves from it. The consciously associate themselves with antisemites without usually distancing themselves from them. That's a big problem.

    The reason I spelled out the "what I recommend" is to give a fair hearing to someone who wants to talk about something that is adjacent to antisemitism whilst warning them that it is antisemitism-adjacent. I believe in giving people a fair hearing if they have an original thought, but I have never seen any from LuckGuy1983 so I won't be holding my breath.

    If your point it to say that there are other pathways from "globalism" to "some obviously damnfool idea" then I agree. I chose antisemitism because it seems the least controversially evil I can think of. Sadly, islamophobia seems to be "ok" with some people so I wanted to constrain the argument to something that we all know is wrong.
    All fair points. I misunderstood your assertions. Antisemitism is such an old trope now (even though it is still a serious problem) that it has almost lost much of its impact. It is like calling people Nazis or fascists. The Great Reset conspiracy theorists are far more dangerous than this as they have based their ideas on legitimate concerns with relevance to today's society and so are much more adept at hoodwinking people.
  • Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
    And there you go conflating arguments again. If you actually read what was written by Malmesbury and myself it was explicitly rejecting the conspiracy bullshit. But you can't the use that as an argument to say that the last few decades of globalisation have not been without consequences and that we should not look at anything other than the bottom line.
  • StarryStarry Posts: 111
    kle4 said:

    Starry said:

    ydoethur said:

    nico679 said:

    The 62 MPs who supported the oaf should be removed from parliament for being treasonous scum and sent to Rwanda .

    Rwanda doesn't deserve them.
    Why Rwanda? Remember, it's a perfectly safe forward-thinking country. Hardly a punishment. Sounds quite lovely even.
    Shipping off asylum seekers somewhere else is wrong, I feel. The niceness or not of Rwanda is secondary.
    The comments were not about asylum seekers but an amusing comment about shipping off Boris' supporters. Not minding because Rwanda is such a paradise was just a joke. Of course Patel and Dorries would hate it.
    The actual Rwanda policy is pure evil. Economics can be debated, but this one stems from cold-hearted hatred. I'd love to see Braverman on that plane, getting a taste of her own medicine.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited October 2022

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
    And there you go conflating arguments again. If you actually read what was written by Malmesbury and myself it was explicitly rejecting the conspiracy bullshit. But you can't the use that as an argument to say that the last few decades of globalisation have not been without consequences and that we should not look at anything other than the bottom line.
    You said 50 years originally, but this contemporary wave of globalisation really kicked in from, say, 1990.

    Unless of course you are banging on about the bloody EU again.

    Economics have consequences, but you are not making any acute point, just airily complaining about globalisation and GDP.
    Its LBC-level stuff and only one step adjacent from the WEF nonsense.

    There is no shortage of things to complain about in the IMF consensus, but also an abundance of reasons why contemporary globalisation has been an astonishing boon in all sorts of ways, and not just in middle income countries.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
    It’s not a shadowy ideology. Just the mindless repetition of shallow nostrums.

    Offshoring = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years….
    Supply chain management = have no stock = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years

    Etc etc.

    When we complain of the quality of thought in government, why would you expect the quality of thought to be that much higher in the private sector?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
    It’s not a shadowy ideology. Just the mindless repetition of shallow nostrums.

    Offshoring = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years….
    Supply chain management = have no stock = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years

    Etc etc.

    When we complain of the quality of thought in government, why would you expect the quality of thought to be that much higher in the private sector?
    I don’t!
    As I say, dodgy British management…
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
    It’s not a shadowy ideology. Just the mindless repetition of shallow nostrums.

    Offshoring = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years….
    Supply chain management = have no stock = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years

    Etc etc.

    When we complain of the quality of thought in government, why would you expect the quality of thought to be that much higher in the private sector?
    I don’t!
    As I say, dodgy British management…
    I’ve seen this across Europe and the US. The downfall of Boeing is a case in point.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
    I don’t think it’s uniquely British. It was the mantra of shareholder value at all costs (ignoring resilience and stakeholder value) that led to the offshoring pressure. To misquote Chuck Price, if you don’t dance while the music is playing you were marked down and often fired by the teenaged scribblers.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,803

    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Based on the rumour she wanted smoking back in pubs, erm... no.

    I must admit, I had a certain sympathy for Coffey at health. The anti-smoking agemda, culminating with the smoking ban in pubs, still rankles with me.
    I'm not a smoker, just a libertarian.
    The argument is lost, the world has moved on and the overton window has shifted.
    But this is actually the best time to be overturning the smoking ban. In practice, none of the pubs I go to would abandon their practice of forcing smokers outside. But they would be doing so out of choice, not because the state had forced them to. Perfect!
    Incidentally, pre-smoking ban, one of the few places you could reliably get a smoke free pub (or at least a smoke free room in a pub) was Werherspoons.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Based on the rumour she wanted smoking back in pubs, erm... no.

    I must admit, I had a certain sympathy for Coffey at health. The anti-smoking agemda, culminating with the smoking ban in pubs, still rankles with me.
    I'm not a smoker, just a libertarian.
    The argument is lost, the world has moved on and the overton window has shifted.
    But this is actually the best time to be overturning the smoking ban. In practice, none of the pubs I go to would abandon their practice of forcing smokers outside. But they would be doing so out of choice, not because the state had forced them to. Perfect!
    Incidentally, pre-smoking ban, one of the few places you could reliably get a smoke free pub (or at least a smoke free room in a pub) was Werherspoons.
    What about the people who have to work in pubs?

    I don’t mind the German system of dedicated smoking establishments.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Based on the rumour she wanted smoking back in pubs, erm... no.

    I must admit, I had a certain sympathy for Coffey at health. The anti-smoking agemda, culminating with the smoking ban in pubs, still rankles with me.
    I'm not a smoker, just a libertarian.
    The argument is lost, the world has moved on and the overton window has shifted.
    But this is actually the best time to be overturning the smoking ban. In practice, none of the pubs I go to would abandon their practice of forcing smokers outside. But they would be doing so out of choice, not because the state had forced them to. Perfect!
    Incidentally, pre-smoking ban, one of the few places you could reliably get a smoke free pub (or at least a smoke free room in a pub) was Werherspoons.
    That's a really excellent point: we're simply not going back to the old world of incredibly smokey pubs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    If “productivity analysis” says your offshoring strategy is wrong and you decide to ignore it, I can’t help you.

    The problem is likely pisspoor British management quality rather than some shadowy global ideology that must be guarded against.
    It’s not a shadowy ideology. Just the mindless repetition of shallow nostrums.

    Offshoring = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years….
    Supply chain management = have no stock = quick win, big bonus, fuck what happens in 3 years

    Etc etc.

    When we complain of the quality of thought in government, why would you expect the quality of thought to be that much higher in the private sector?
    I don’t!
    As I say, dodgy British management…
    I’ve seen this across Europe and the US. The downfall of Boeing is a case in point.
    Although Boeing didn't offshore to save money - indeed its overseas partners (*cough* Kawasaki and Mitsubishi in Japan *cough*) were often higher cost than in the US - it did it for political reasons, and to lock-in foreign flag-carriers with Boeing planes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160

    Sunak might get a genuine honeymoon period, albeit tempered by the difficult winter. Him becoming PM is a significant moment and could shift the narrative away from the divisive politics of the last 6 years.

    I hope so.

    FWIW, he's clearly smart and sensible. He doesn't believe in free owls. He's Eurosceptic, but not a nutter.

    We could do a lot worse at this point in our history.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,803

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Based on the rumour she wanted smoking back in pubs, erm... no.

    I must admit, I had a certain sympathy for Coffey at health. The anti-smoking agemda, culminating with the smoking ban in pubs, still rankles with me.
    I'm not a smoker, just a libertarian.
    The argument is lost, the world has moved on and the overton window has shifted.
    But this is actually the best time to be overturning the smoking ban. In practice, none of the pubs I go to would abandon their practice of forcing smokers outside. But they would be doing so out of choice, not because the state had forced them to. Perfect!
    Incidentally, pre-smoking ban, one of the few places you could reliably get a smoke free pub (or at least a smoke free room in a pub) was Werherspoons.
    What about the people who have to work in pubs?

    I don’t mind the German system of dedicated smoking establishments.
    My response to that would be nobody *has* to work in a pub just as nobody has to frequent a pub.
    But I do accept this is at best a grey area.
    My views may be extreme (though I'd note they wouldn't have been considered extreme 20 years ago) but they're not strongly held. In practice, I don't want to be going to a smoky pub. But in principle, I want this to be because of the pressures of the market, not the state!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    As a CEO (and someone who's been involved at pretty high levels of business for a long time), I've not seen what you've seen.

    Everything we do is based around two sided position papers: in it a problem is identified, a solution proposed, the alternatives described, and the financial impacts and risks discussed. (All in two sides. Some people have sneakily used 6 pt text, but that's another story.)

    It is certainly true that certain things are fashionable. With manufacturing in China, the cycle was: (1) It is cheaper than the UK (which it was for a long-time), then it was (2) Well, it's not cheaper per se, but supply chains are shorter, and therefore inventory requirements are smaller and therefore RoIs better. And now it's (3) China scores poorly on cost, labour availability, and we've been smacked around by Covid. Let's not invest there.

    Some stuff is coming back to the West. Other things - like textiles and toys and simple extruded components - is off to the next cheap Asian market (from Bangladesh to Vietnam).
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sunak might get a genuine honeymoon period, albeit tempered by the difficult winter. Him becoming PM is a significant moment and could shift the narrative away from the divisive politics of the last 6 years.

    I hope so.

    FWIW, he's clearly smart and sensible. He doesn't believe in free owls. He's Eurosceptic, but not a nutter.

    We could do a lot worse at this point in our history.
    We have done a lot worse hitherto. After trying all the other options it appears the Tory party is going to go for not entirely shit, no credit to them..
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited October 2022
    Just reflecting on the bonkers past few weeks…

    Has there ever been a worse piece of political spin than Truss’s “Anti-growth coalition?”

    Even Major’s “cones hotline” had a certain logic to it.

    I think Truss will become the benchmark of incompetence and idiocy against whom all politicians will be judged.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    ping said:

    Just reflecting on the bonkers past few weeks…

    Has there ever been a worse piece of political spin than Truss’s “Anti-growth coalition?”

    Even Major’s “cones hotline” had a certain logic to it.

    I think Truss will become the benchmark of incompetence and idiocy against whom all politicians will be judged.

    "Back to Basics" was another piece of spin that ended badly.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259
    ping said:

    Just reflecting on the bonkers past few weeks…

    Has there ever been a worse piece of political spin than Truss’s “Anti-growth coalition?”

    Even Major’s “cones hotline” had a certain logic to it.

    I think Truss will become the benchmark of incompetence and idiocy against whom all politicians will be judged.

    But if you have a “Truss” as a benchmark that implies a 2x Truss and a 3x Truss are conceivable…
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259

    ping said:

    Just reflecting on the bonkers past few weeks…

    Has there ever been a worse piece of political spin than Truss’s “Anti-growth coalition?”

    Even Major’s “cones hotline” had a certain logic to it.

    I think Truss will become the benchmark of incompetence and idiocy against whom all politicians will be judged.

    "Back to Basics" was another piece of spin that ended badly.
    Only because the Mail deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted it.

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    If I were Rishi I would be tempted to keep the Cabinet almost entirely untouched, for the moment.

    Reshuffles are another form of instability, and ministers need to get on with their jobs.

    One reason for Cameron’s relative success is that he mostly got this.

    The only change I’d want to make really is Mordaunt in at the Foreign Office, with Cleverly offered BEIS perhaps in compensation. Rees-Mogg is incredibly toxic and probably needs to go immediately.

    He needs someone competent at Health. Is Therese Coffey any good?
    Based on the rumour she wanted smoking back in pubs, erm... no.

    I must admit, I had a certain sympathy for Coffey at health. The anti-smoking agemda, culminating with the smoking ban in pubs, still rankles with me.
    I'm not a smoker, just a libertarian.
    The argument is lost, the world has moved on and the overton window has shifted.
    But this is actually the best time to be overturning the smoking ban. In practice, none of the pubs I go to would abandon their practice of forcing smokers outside. But they would be doing so out of choice, not because the state had forced them to. Perfect!
    Incidentally, pre-smoking ban, one of the few places you could reliably get a smoke free pub (or at least a smoke free room in a pub) was Werherspoons.
    What about the people who have to work in pubs?

    I don’t mind the German system of dedicated smoking establishments.
    My response to that would be nobody *has* to work in a pub just as nobody has to frequent a pub.
    But I do accept this is at best a grey area.
    My views may be extreme (though I'd note they wouldn't have been considered extreme 20 years ago) but they're not strongly held. In practice, I don't want to be going to a smoky pub. But in principle, I want this to be because of the pressures of the market, not the state!
    You are wrong there. If you work in hospitality then you would be forced into working in smoky atmospheres. It is not just pubs - it was anywhere that people congregated indoors. In my younger days I did hospitality work and I came home every night stinking and reeking of stale smoke.

    The smoking ban is good legislation - like seat belts. Long may it endure!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    On topic - has Boris at least managed to identify 100 swivel-eyed loons? People who should on no account be given responsible jobs?
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited October 2022
    Sunak will need to carefully cleanse the party of Trussites and the Truss ideology. I think he has no choice. It was too serious to be swept under the carpet. The Truss experiment will haunt the party for decades to come unless it is fully cauterised. That project starts today.

    He needs the country to know that was not conservatism.

    It’s a pretty good mirror for what Starmer is doing wrt Corbyn/Corbynism.

    We live in weird political times.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited October 2022
    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163

    ping said:

    Just reflecting on the bonkers past few weeks…

    Has there ever been a worse piece of political spin than Truss’s “Anti-growth coalition?”

    Even Major’s “cones hotline” had a certain logic to it.

    I think Truss will become the benchmark of incompetence and idiocy against whom all politicians will be judged.

    "Back to Basics" was another piece of spin that ended badly.
    Only because the Mail deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted it.

    It was a stupid idea at the time. Harking back to past glories is rarely a recipe for success because the past is always viewed through rose-tinted glasses. Back to Basics was a failure for the same reason as Brexit.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    edited October 2022
    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    I am amazed that she has not stood down. She is surrounded by people some of whom spent weeks vilifying her and criticising her openly. Would you really want to stay surrounded by such people? Especially if you had £118K a year for life?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259

    ping said:

    Just reflecting on the bonkers past few weeks…

    Has there ever been a worse piece of political spin than Truss’s “Anti-growth coalition?”

    Even Major’s “cones hotline” had a certain logic to it.

    I think Truss will become the benchmark of incompetence and idiocy against whom all politicians will be judged.

    "Back to Basics" was another piece of spin that ended badly.
    Only because the Mail deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted it.

    It was a stupid idea at the time. Harking back to past glories is rarely a recipe for success because the past is always viewed through rose-tinted glasses. Back to Basics was a failure for the same reason as Brexit.
    It was envisaged as specifically around education and health. Do the basics and do them well. Not about past glories at all.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited October 2022

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    I am amazed that she has not stood down. She is surrounded by people some of whom spent weeks vilifying her and criticising her openly. Would you really want to stay surrounded by such people? Especially if you had £118K a year for life?
    The £118K isn’t direct pay - it covers stuff like security costs for public visits which, frankly, she may well need, given she’s made herself into a bit of a hate figure.

    I’d let her claim for security and nothing else.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    I am amazed that she has not stood down. She is surrounded by people some of whom spent weeks vilifying her and criticising her openly. Would you really want to stay surrounded by such people? Especially if you had £118K a year for life?
    The £118k isn’t an income for her. It’s to cover the cost of an office and staff to support her public duties. Of course that will be fungible (I’m sure her team will do her private stuff as well) but it’s basically a PA and a suite of rooms in London. Not especially extravagant.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    I am amazed that she has not stood down. She is surrounded by people some of whom spent weeks vilifying her and criticising her openly. Would you really want to stay surrounded by such people? Especially if you had £118K a year for life?
    The £118k isn’t an income for her. It’s to cover the cost of an office and staff to support her public duties. Of course that will be fungible (I’m sure her team will do her private stuff as well) but it’s basically a PA and a suite of rooms in London. Not especially extravagant.
    Thank you for the clarification. I had heard it referred to as a "PM pension" which would be very different from what you describe,
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    I am amazed that she has not stood down. She is surrounded by people some of whom spent weeks vilifying her and criticising her openly. Would you really want to stay surrounded by such people? Especially if you had £118K a year for life?
    The £118k isn’t an income for her. It’s to cover the cost of an office and staff to support her public duties. Of course that will be fungible (I’m sure her team will do her private stuff as well) but it’s basically a PA and a suite of rooms in London. Not especially extravagant.
    Thank you for the clarification. I had heard it referred to as a "PM pension" which would be very different from what you describe,
    I believe the official name is “public costs allowance”
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163

    ping said:

    Just reflecting on the bonkers past few weeks…

    Has there ever been a worse piece of political spin than Truss’s “Anti-growth coalition?”

    Even Major’s “cones hotline” had a certain logic to it.

    I think Truss will become the benchmark of incompetence and idiocy against whom all politicians will be judged.

    "Back to Basics" was another piece of spin that ended badly.
    Only because the Mail deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted it.

    It was a stupid idea at the time. Harking back to past glories is rarely a recipe for success because the past is always viewed through rose-tinted glasses. Back to Basics was a failure for the same reason as Brexit.
    It was envisaged as specifically around education and health. Do the basics and do them well. Not about past glories at all.
    But that is not how they ran with it. "Back to Basics and commonsense British values" was the pitch. "Old core values" and "decency" also featured and it was all a bit rich from a man having an affair with one of his ministers, a govt that had "Shagger" Norris in it (remember him? :D ) and not to forget the legendary David Mellor affair with his football shirt!

    And all that is even before we get to the Cash for Questions scandal.

    Oh yeah, back to basics... what a great choice!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    ping said:

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    I am amazed that she has not stood down. She is surrounded by people some of whom spent weeks vilifying her and criticising her openly. Would you really want to stay surrounded by such people? Especially if you had £118K a year for life?
    The £118K isn’t direct pay - it covers stuff like security costs for public visits which, frankly, she may well need, given she’s made herself into a bit of a hate figure.

    I’d let her claim for security and nothing else.
    No, she must be treated like her predecessors. It is an oversight in the system that exists because no one ever imagined that a PM would last for such a short time. But they are the rules as written.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    What?

    Remove the whip? Whatever for?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    I am amazed that she has not stood down. She is surrounded by people some of whom spent weeks vilifying her and criticising her openly. Would you really want to stay surrounded by such people? Especially if you had £118K a year for life?
    The £118k isn’t an income for her. It’s to cover the cost of an office and staff to support her public duties. Of course that will be fungible (I’m sure her team will do her private stuff as well) but it’s basically a PA and a suite of rooms in London. Not especially extravagant.
    Thank you for the clarification. I had heard it referred to as a "PM pension" which would be very different from what you describe,
    She gets

    - about £20k redundancy payment
    - Up to £115k public costs allowance pa for staff and office space
    - security & chauffeur driven car
    - Everything else as standard for a minister

    Doesn’t seem outrageous (and I think it was quite spiteful of Starmer to call for her not to take the public costs allowance). Assume it is spent legitimately then she should be entitled to it.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    Back later. I have some coding to do...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    .

    I find much of the reporting of this absolutely extraordinary.

    It's the indulgence of Johnson involved in saying it's hard to say if he'd got 100 MPs or not.

    In reality, it's an obvious, massive lie. It's laughably false, and not even the most enthusiastic of Johnson cheerleaders really believes anything else. So why not just say it?

    It's treated as balance to treat utter, transparent bullsh1t as simply an alternative explanation of events. But it just isn't.

    And the lie matters. It's one Johnson doesn't need to tell at all. He could have just saidm "I didn't manage to attract sufficient support". Politicians sometimes lose - that's fine and everyone understands. But he had to lie... it's a serious psychological problem that makes him totally unsuitable for high office in future, and it's repeatedly glossed over.


    The Guardian has a decent analysis.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/23/boris-johnson-exit-from-tory-leadership-race-avoids-likely-humiliation
    ...The former prime minister’s statement confirming his decision to not stand was a classic of this Johnson genre: equal parts bullish insistence about his own ability to triumph, and a pretend modesty that he is choosing another path for the sake of unity.

    In reality many observers – and many Conservative MPs – remain deeply dubious about Johnson’s claim that he had secured the support of 102 parliamentary colleagues, given that fewer than half this number had said so publicly....


    But it's a very good point - similarly with Trump.

    The reluctance of the media - particularly around elections - to call out obvious lies, and worse, to report them as though they might be true, is dangerously enabling to the liars.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    edited October 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    As a CEO (and someone who's been involved at pretty high levels of business for a long time), I've not seen what you've seen.

    Everything we do is based around two sided position papers: in it a problem is identified, a solution proposed, the alternatives described, and the financial impacts and risks discussed. (All in two sides. Some people have sneakily used 6 pt text, but that's another story.)

    It is certainly true that certain things are fashionable. With manufacturing in China, the cycle was: (1) It is cheaper than the UK (which it was for a long-time), then it was (2) Well, it's not cheaper per se, but supply chains are shorter, and therefore inventory requirements are smaller and therefore RoIs better. And now it's (3) China scores poorly on cost, labour availability, and we've been smacked around by Covid. Let's not invest there.

    Some stuff is coming back to the West. Other things - like textiles and toys and simple extruded components - is off to the next cheap Asian market (from Bangladesh to Vietnam).
    That's fair, but hardly rebuts this part of the point, though:
    ...Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location....

    And completely lost in the calculation is any strategic resilience at the national level.

    I noted yesterday the fact that Korea has developed and entire new industry (EV battery manufacturing), where we haven't really started, and it's probably too late.

    Similar sized economies, and not dissimilar costs, but utterly different approaches to industrial policy.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,557
    What time does Rishi go to the palace if Mordaunt<100?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,557
    edited October 2022
    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    It wouldn't be good politics to do that.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,900
    edited October 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    What time does Rishi go to the palace if Mordaunt [has less than] 100?

    The nominations deadline is 2pm. Liz Truss will then need to go to the Palace first, if only by 10 minutes or so.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/23/rishi-sunak-set-become-pm-boris-johnson-pulls-tory-leadership/ (£££)

    *(Vanilla gets confused by less/greater than signs, which I've replaced in the quoted material.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great comments on some of my FB feeds from seething Cons members. Typical of the genre:

    "There is a remainer, globalist coup taking place at the heart of the British government."

    Unpick that puppy.

    Setting aside the endless "remainer" guff, the "globalist" thing they keep going on about is interesting.

    I assume the "globalists" behind this "coup" are the bankers and financiers etc who refused to support their IEA financial shithousery. So domestic and foreign banks and bankers and investors refusing to do whatever the loon right say is a coup. Because England should be able to do what it likes and the rest of the world should just say "thank you".

    English exceptionalism at its best. Do they think we are the US?
    The key phrase is "WEF" which I think is supposed to stand for World Economic Forum but it isn't a huge leap to get to other meanings.
    Given that the World Economic Forum as far as I know has no formal or informal connections with Israel or Jewishness (forgive me if antisemitism isn't what you're driving at), is every globalist takeover of the world to be ignored because the very concept is considered antisemitic? In which case, would anyone like to take over the world with me? It seems easy if nobody is allowed to say anything about it.
    "Globalism" is a term used by antisemites as a cipher for Judaism. This is well known.

    Nobody's stopping you from talking about it, but in my experience people who do talk about it often have some very vague notion about some Judeo-capitalist conspiracy and are remarkably short on either evidence or even a coherent narrative.
    My advice would be if you really think there is some plot to "take over the world", to identify who specifically you think is behind this, their motives, the means by which you think they hope to achieve this, and the reasons you believe this.

    Falling back on the canard that "nobody's allowed to say anything about it" is begging the question: the idea of enforced silence is part of the conspiracy theory. You are literally assuming some of the contents of the conspiracy theory to try to tell us that the conspiracy theory is credible.
    "Globalism" is also used by the Left in the US to describe the process (as they see it) by which big multinationals ship jobs overseas, to near slavery conditions at the other end. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed and the middle classes squeezed.
    Yep and on that basis I think I would class myself as anti-globalist. But without any of the conspiracy garbage. It is a rather selfish and parochial view I accept, but I don't think the growth of the global markets have helped Western populations overall. It has made a lot of people very rich but at the cost of reducing the living standards and future prospects for workers in the US and Europe. I am not convinced that GDP in its raw form is a great measure of progress for a country. At least not for a European country.

    None of this requires great conspiracies. Just as the argument between left and right, statism and individuality, progresses without any need for conspiracies or evil cabals. It is just questioning whether the generally accepted trajectory of Western economies over the last 5 decades have been to the long term benefit of their citizens.
    This.

    The conspiracy stuff is bullshit. On the other hand, there is a culture of "all manufacturing must be outsourced. And I must have the cheapest possible labour provided for me, to treat as completely disposable." in many industries and many western countries.

    Total bollocks I’m afraid.
    I've seen it in action. To the point where onshore investment is almost characterised as... immoral.

    I recall one chap who got spitting angry at the suggestion that not sending all the manufacturing in a sector to China was an option.

    It's what's been taught at every level of management for decades. Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location. Even when productivity analysis says that is actually the more expensive option.
    As a CEO (and someone who's been involved at pretty high levels of business for a long time), I've not seen what you've seen.

    Everything we do is based around two sided position papers: in it a problem is identified, a solution proposed, the alternatives described, and the financial impacts and risks discussed. (All in two sides. Some people have sneakily used 6 pt text, but that's another story.)

    It is certainly true that certain things are fashionable. With manufacturing in China, the cycle was: (1) It is cheaper than the UK (which it was for a long-time), then it was (2) Well, it's not cheaper per se, but supply chains are shorter, and therefore inventory requirements are smaller and therefore RoIs better. And now it's (3) China scores poorly on cost, labour availability, and we've been smacked around by Covid. Let's not invest there.

    Some stuff is coming back to the West. Other things - like textiles and toys and simple extruded components - is off to the next cheap Asian market (from Bangladesh to Vietnam).
    That's fair, but hardly rebuts this part of the point, though:
    ...Instead of investment - just find the new cheapest location....

    And completely lost in the calculation is any strategic resilience at the national level.

    I noted yesterday the fact that Korea has developed and entire new industry (EV battery manufacturing), where we haven't really started, and it's probably too late.

    Similar sized economies, and not dissimilar costs, but utterly different approaches to industrial policy.
    Eh?

    I was referring solely to @Malmesbury's experience (in corporates) of people demanding that things were offshored.

    There was nothing in his comment about industrial policy. So, I didn't have any great desire to address it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,900
    edited October 2022
    Yokes said:

    On topic, so exactly why cant anyone else, with mere hours to go, get the nominations other than Sunak?

    Penny Mordaunt aims to do just that. And, at least in principle, Jacob Rees-Mogg or any other erstwhile Boris fan could declare now and aim to sweep up en bloc all of Boris's 102-ish supporters. So can anyone else, although realistically it is too late to start, given how many MPs are already committed to rival campaigns.

    The deadline is 2pm.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,457

    Yokes said:

    On topic, so exactly why cant anyone else, with mere hours to go, get the nominations other than Sunak?

    Penny Mordaunt aims to do just that. And, at least in principle, Jacob Rees-Mogg or any other erstwhile Boris fan could declare now and aim to sweep up en bloc all of Boris's 102-ish supporters. So can anyone else, although realistically it is too late to start, given how many MPs are already committed to rival campaigns.

    The deadline is 2pm.
    There are 8 hours left. Virtually no-one is coming over to Penny.

    It's over.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    I am glad to see that the Clown is not going to be PM. That has put a brighter start in the day and it is not even dawn yet :smiley:
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,053

    Andy_JS said:

    What time does Rishi go to the palace if Mordaunt [has less than] 100?

    The nominations deadline is 2pm. Liz Truss will then need to go to the Palace first, if only by 10 minutes or so.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/23/rishi-sunak-set-become-pm-boris-johnson-pulls-tory-leadership/ (£££)

    *(Vanilla gets confused by less/greater than signs, which I've replaced in the quoted material.)
    He could leave her in for PMQs for a giggle.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,706
    edited October 2022
    Chris Mason said on BBC that Charles is only back in London this evening.

    Which means if Sunak takes over this evening he wouldn't enter Downing Street in daylight - which is usually seen as important for the images etc.

    Remember Gordon Brown reportedly made a big point about leaving in daylight when he had stayed for several days after the 2010 GE.

    So even IF Sunak is declared the winner today, he may wait till Tuesday morning to go and see Charles.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,457
    MikeL said:

    Chris Mason said on BBC that Charles is only back in London this evening.

    Which means if Sunak takes over this evening he wouldn't enter Downing Street in daylight - which is usually seen as important for the images etc.

    Remember Gordon Brown made a big point about leaving in daylight when he had stayed for several days after the 2010 GE.

    So even IF Sunak is declared the winner today, he may wait till Tuesday morning to go and see Charles.

    I don't see the harm in waiting until Tuesday morning.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    edited October 2022
    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    It is hard to see why she would want to remain a politician; what cause or policy can she now champion with any credibility?

    Meanwhile, we should get some reassurance from having seen that some Conservatives at least are still capable of coming up with a plan and implementing it.

    It would be fascinating to know what levers were pulled on Johnson to get him to do what many said he wouldn’t - although as others have said the story could just as easily be that his support was never there. I’d guess his list was coming under pressure over the weekend and he was losing people as well as gaining them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863

    Yokes said:

    On topic, so exactly why cant anyone else, with mere hours to go, get the nominations other than Sunak?

    Penny Mordaunt aims to do just that. And, at least in principle, Jacob Rees-Mogg or any other erstwhile Boris fan could declare now and aim to sweep up en bloc all of Boris's 102-ish supporters. So can anyone else, although realistically it is too late to start, given how many MPs are already committed to rival campaigns.

    The deadline is 2pm.
    There are 8 hours left. Virtually no-one is coming over to Penny.

    It's over.
    Few MPs want another week and a members contest, with all the bad blood and blue and blue it would generate in the media and on social media.

    Penny’s earned her kudos and simply needs to cash it in.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648
    MikeL said:

    Chris Mason said on BBC that Charles is only back in London this evening.

    Which means if Sunak takes over this evening he wouldn't enter Downing Street in daylight - which is usually seen as important for the images etc.

    Remember Gordon Brown reportedly made a big point about leaving in daylight when he had stayed for several days after the 2010 GE.

    So even IF Sunak is declared the winner today, he may wait till Tuesday morning to go and see Charles.

    It was dark by the time Cameron went to the palace.

    https://youtu.be/GI27QSraM4M
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,457
    Saw the trailer for the new Crown series.

    Fantastical nonsense.

    Think I'll give it a miss.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    Now we can turn our attention to Sunak’s cabinet….
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    edited October 2022
    IanB2 said:

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    It is hard to see why she would want to remain a politician; what cause or policy can she now champion with any credibility? ....
    It is hard to see what cause or policy she ever championed with any credibility. Or ability...

    It is why I thought she would never be any use in high office.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,053
    IanB2 said:

    Now we can turn our attention to Sunak’s cabinet….

    Yes. It’ll be a right pain to find furniture to match that dreadful decoration.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,231
    PB brain, please help, my brain has deserted me…
    I am on a drop zone in statistically* the sunniest place in Europe and it’s raining so I’m bored. I am trying to find the nuclear apocalypse film that @Leon was getting his knickers in a twist about a couple of weeks ago, but I can’t remember what it’s called. Please help! Thank you, sorry for being too lazy to hunt back through threads…oh.

    I think I will actually post this because it has amused me no end. Very self-indulgent, sorry. (The film is called Threads, and writing the last line of the paragraph caused me to remember that)

    *I haven’t actually checked the stats.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,457
    IanB2 said:

    Now we can turn our attention to Sunak’s cabinet….

    We will get 48 hours of tediously woke takes on his ethnicity and religion (with people virtue-signalling about it all over LinkedIn) until we get to that. It might spill into what it means for "the Asian community" and relations with India too.

    Oh Lord, spare me.

    I supported Rishi because he's by far the best candidate for the job. But it can never just be about that these days.
  • NEW THREAD

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited October 2022
    Good morning. It's a bright day. It's a new dawn. Rejoice!

    Hopefully now we will see the back of:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg's endless drivel
    Nadine Dorries' deranged starry-eyed sycophancy
    Stanley Johnson telling the nation how wonderful his son is
    and
    Michael Fabricant's wig
    Bond villain Sir Richard Drax
    Sir Deadwood Leigh
    Christopher NoHope
    Peter Bonehead
    John Dreadwood
    etc. etc. ...

    but above all the wicked clown and arch LIAR IN CHIEF, Boris Johnson

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    IanB2 said:

    ping said:

    I wonder if Sunak can engineer a way to remove the whip from Liz Truss?

    I guess the instinct in the Tory party will be to try to forget and bury the truss experiment, but it won’t work.

    It is hard to see why she would want to remain a politician; what cause or policy can she now champion with any credibility?

    Meanwhile, we should get some reassurance from having seen that some Conservatives at least are still capable of coming up with a plan and implementing it.

    It would be fascinating to know what levers were pulled on Johnson to get him to do what many said he wouldn’t - although as others have said the story could just as easily be that his support was never there. I’d guess his list was coming under pressure over the weekend and he was losing people as well as gaining them.
    At least the conservative party have managed to 'sort out' the mess in a week or so.

    On Johnson; there is enough circumstantial evidence to see what was probably going on - not enough actual support amongst MP's. He was supported by the likely enemies of Sunak and backbenchers under pressure from their constituents/local party. Not a winning force. So he built an 'off ramp' where he can claim to be 'standing aside to save the party'. To his credit, at least took this step. It is one way in which he is an improvement over Trump.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,557
    maxh said:

    PB brain, please help, my brain has deserted me…
    I am on a drop zone in statistically* the sunniest place in Europe and it’s raining so I’m bored. I am trying to find the nuclear apocalypse film that @Leon was getting his knickers in a twist about a couple of weeks ago, but I can’t remember what it’s called. Please help! Thank you, sorry for being too lazy to hunt back through threads…oh.

    I think I will actually post this because it has amused me no end. Very self-indulgent, sorry. (The film is called Threads, and writing the last line of the paragraph caused me to remember that)

    *I haven’t actually checked the stats.

    made the mistake of looking at Leon's profile picture while searching.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/Leon
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259
    IanB2 said:

    Now we can turn our attention to Sunak’s cabinet….

    He shouldn’t keep the Cheval Blanc next to the Grand-Echezeaux. Very different wines.
This discussion has been closed.