They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead (too many people are wise to it). But even if he is still a draw for voters, Tory MPs need to consider if that's sustainable should he ever get high office again.
No, it's over for Johnson. A few decades of newspaper columns, after-dinner speeches, occasional forays into the discourse, and copious extramarital shagging await. But never again those bright, sunlit uplands.
And basically self inflicted. Had it not have been for Paterson, Partygate and Pincher, he could well still be there.
Indeed. And the warning signs were visible well before he ever became PM.He was brought down by flaws in his character that were long-standing, and which he ?sadly? could not change.
I lost by betting against Boris becoming leader. His flaws were obvious, and even mirrored Jeremy Corbyn's.
It's interesting that the three things that brought him down - as mentioned below, Paterson, Partygate and Pincher - all, IIRC, came out *after* he had been seriously ill with Covid. I do wonder if his already-poor judgement had been made even worse in the weeks and months following that. Especially considering the pressure he was under wrt dealing with Covid.
Interesting. I think I'd put it a bit differently. Before 2020, Boris had excellent judgement of one specific thing- how far you can cross the line and get away with it. The unwelcome truth for his enemies that he had spent a lifetime getting away with it.
But, like taking a corner faster than you should, you really need quicksilver instincts to do that successfully. And a combination of the Big C, advancing years and a new baby blurred those instincts fatally.
I think that's a great angle on it.
But whatever it is, he was unsuited to be PM in the first place. But his saving grace in history is:
1) He had reasonable instincts on Covid, esp. the vaccines. 2) He had excellent instincts on Ukraine. 3) He beat Corbyn, whose views on the two above might have proved 'interesting' if he had been PM.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead (too many people are wise to it). But even if he is still a draw for voters, Tory MPs need to consider if that's sustainable should he ever get high office again.
No, it's over for Johnson. A few decades of newspaper columns, after-dinner speeches, occasional forays into the discourse, and copious extramarital shagging await. But never again those bright, sunlit uplands.
And basically self inflicted. Had it not have been for Paterson, Partygate and Pincher, he could well still be there.
Covid - pure and simple. Not only did it affect his own health and well being but it prevented him playing his role as Britain's Chief Optimist keeping us positive, upbeat, enjoying life and not thinking too much about politics. He was the leader for the "Roaring Twenties" but not for the 20s we've had so far.
Is there a way back? He spent twenty years manoeuvring his way to the top to find the job he craved and desired wasn't what he expected or wanted. He'll be 60 next June - could he find a "safe" seat in a midterm by-election, much as Portillo did in 1999? Would he want it?
His character pure and simple. It was always going to find a way.
Fascinating to read the PiS-influenced (if not controlled) media this evening. Warnings from the National Electoral Commission about the results and you just get a hint the PiS may be trying to steal the election at the eleventh hour and getting ready to explain why Law & Justice have won a majority after all.
The actual numbers continue to suggest PiS have come up short and Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition have advanced as have the Third Way (nearly doubling their seats).
With 73% counted, the Civic Coalition/Third Way/Left bloc lead PiS/Confederation 52%-44% in terms of votes which pretty much reflects last night's exit polls. The fact they were voting late in Warsaw, Krakow and elsewhere makes me think there are more anti-PiS votes to come.
It's a worrying time and both EU and UN observers have reported on the institutional bias towards Law & Justice in the media and elsewhere.
That's the trouble with populists - they don't like it when they strop being popular.
Ah, the lost leader. How your heart must weep for the past
You’re currently persuading yourself to vote for Starmer, so presumably you’ve got a scrunched up wee having to eat a shit sandwich face for the future.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
Rishi Sunak has whatever the opposite of 'electoral magic' is but the Cons have to stick with him into the GE. If they changed PM again people would start to view them as a joke rather than a serious political party.
So far the downwards trajectory of Sunak's net approval matches the scenario I sketched out in my thread header a few weeks back and suggests that Labour remains on course to win a majority. I agree with you that replacing him is not really an option for the Tories. Sad!
You're more cautious than me, I think, in that I'm expecting a chunky majority. Although I'm trying to keep a lid on this because I don't want to get to election morning-after and find myself feeling a bit pissed off about Labour winning with *only* a small majority. Labour GE wins of any kind are not exactly littered through history let's face it.
My preferred outcome would be a tory majority of exactly 1. That would mean the little shit would have to soldier on in scenes of total chaos as he would be beholden to the lunatic whims of every single tory backbencher. He is already given to impulsivity and rank cowardice with a 70 or whatever seat majority so watching him try and spectacularly fail to manage a razor thin one would be wonderful.
....and that one is Peter Bone right-wing flasher extraordinaire
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead
It really isn't essentially dead. There are an awful lot of people I speak to who in conversation say they still like him. It runs along the lines of, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I like him.' Or, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I did well by him.' etc. My friend in Surrey would vote tory like a shot if he was back. So would my sister.
He's the only tory with star appeal who had the pizzazz to reach into the red wall and scoop up dozens of seats that the tories will now lose.
As I say, I'm not endorsing him. I loathe him as a person whilst admiring his ability to win.
Since 1992 only David Cameron won a Conservative majority: of such slender proportions that two years later Theresa May felt she needed to go back to the country to increase it. Boris Johnson won an 80 seat majority. And they dumped him.
I fear him like no other.
The rest of the current bunch are, frankly, either useless or nuts (or both). Labour majority every time with them.
Ah, the lost leader. How your heart must weep for the past
You’re currently persuading yourself to vote for Starmer, so presumably you’ve got a scrunched up wee having to eat a shit sandwich face for the future.
Yep
Relax, Starmer will have rinsed out every aspect of Wokism from Labour come the GE.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead (too many people are wise to it). But even if he is still a draw for voters, Tory MPs need to consider if that's sustainable should he ever get high office again.
No, it's over for Johnson. A few decades of newspaper columns, after-dinner speeches, occasional forays into the discourse, and copious extramarital shagging await. But never again those bright, sunlit uplands.
And basically self inflicted. Had it not have been for Paterson, Partygate and Pincher, he could well still be there.
And he could have survived Partygate, if he'd been a bit more apologetic a bit earlier.
Lots of stress. People looking to unwind. It was wrong, especially given what others were going to through. Deeply sorry it occurred.
They are all, though, indicative of the deeper and unsupportable character flaw. He always has, and always will, seek immediate gratification so, if lying provides an immediate benefit in that moment, he will lie.
Yes, a different politician would have taken a hit on Partygate early on rather than claiming, falsely, everything was above board. Similarly, with Pincher, he could have said, "I knew about it but gave him a second chance... and I shouldn't have". But, in both cases, he'd have had to take a bit of short term pain and it was more convenient in the moment to lie.
That character flaw would have easily found issues to attach itself to, even if Paterson hadn't been corrupt, COVID hadn't happened, and Pincher hadn't been a drunken lech.
Rishi Sunak has whatever the opposite of 'electoral magic' is but the Cons have to stick with him into the GE. If they changed PM again people would start to view them as a joke rather than a serious political party.
So far the downwards trajectory of Sunak's net approval matches the scenario I sketched out in my thread header a few weeks back and suggests that Labour remains on course to win a majority. I agree with you that replacing him is not really an option for the Tories. Sad!
You're more cautious than me, I think, in that I'm expecting a chunky majority. Although I'm trying to keep a lid on this because I don't want to get to election morning-after and find myself feeling a bit pissed off about Labour winning with *only* a small majority. Labour GE wins of any kind are not exactly littered through history let's face it.
My preferred outcome would be a tory majority of exactly 1. That would mean the little shit would have to soldier on in scenes of total chaos as he would be beholden to the lunatic whims of every single tory backbencher. He is already given to impulsivity and rank cowardice with a 70 or whatever seat majority so watching him try and spectacularly fail to manage a razor thin one would be wonderful.
....and that one is Peter Bone right-wing flasher extraordinaire
Suck the marrow out of this bone...
I wonder what Mrs Bone thought about it…
He separated from his wife a few years ago and moved his physio into his London apartment instead
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
There is not going to be an election until the last possible moment. There is always time for events and I think the effect distribution is skewed because how much worse could it get on the one hand vs a positive surprise (no, neither can I but still) on the other.
Getting rid of the leader is neither here nor there.
They aren’t going to hold an election in January with the campaign during Christmas.
Chance of Jan 2025 = NIL
CON would be heading for sub 100 if they tried that.
I can see January 2025. Some Conservatives think bad weather helps them as feckless Labour and LibDem voters stay at home in the warm.
There's no actual evidence, as far as I've seen, that poor weather benefits a particular party in the UK.
Indeed, you could argue it might hurt the Tories as people of working age are typically out of the house on a Thursday so might as well swing by the polling station given they are wet/cold anyway, whereas pensioners can legitimately turn on the central heating and stay at home all day. But there doesn't seem to be evidence either way, and I suspect it's negligible.
It would have been more important before widespread car ownership and the availability of postal votes to all who want one.
He hit one of his staffers repeatedly and shoved his cock in his face.
It’s a he is it? That’s a mildly unexpected twist, as the staffer might have said when having the Bone boner shoved in his face.
From the report into it, I'm not at all sure Bone was actually making a pass at the bloke. It seems the stuff in the hotel room was a deeply weird power-play which formed part of a wider campaign of bullying against a junior member of staff.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead (too many people are wise to it). But even if he is still a draw for voters, Tory MPs need to consider if that's sustainable should he ever get high office again.
No, it's over for Johnson. A few decades of newspaper columns, after-dinner speeches, occasional forays into the discourse, and copious extramarital shagging await. But never again those bright, sunlit uplands.
And basically self inflicted. Had it not have been for Paterson, Partygate and Pincher, he could well still be there.
Covid - pure and simple. Not only did it affect his own health and well being but it prevented him playing his role as Britain's Chief Optimist keeping us positive, upbeat, enjoying life and not thinking too much about politics. He was the leader for the "Roaring Twenties" but not for the 20s we've had so far.
Is there a way back? He spent twenty years manoeuvring his way to the top to find the job he craved and desired wasn't what he expected or wanted. He'll be 60 next June - could he find a "safe" seat in a midterm by-election, much as Portillo did in 1999? Would he want it?
His character pure and simple. It was always going to find a way.
Boris Johnson's superpower is the ability to make other people contort themselves to excuse his awful behaviour.
"Allowing low-level offenders to avoid jail and deporting foreign criminals earlier are among government plans aimed at tackling severe overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales.
Figures from earlier this year revealed that 61% of prisons were overcrowded.
The justice secretary is due to set out details of his plan for easing pressure in Parliament on Monday afternoon.
Alex Chalk has already said he wants some offenders to do community work rather than short stints in prison."
Seems sensible to me 'We need to keep people safe – and that means moving away from short-term prison sentences that make hardened criminals rather than rehabilitated offenders. So we need to look again at low-level offenders. Because while the overall reoffending rate is 25 per cent, the rate for people who spend fewer than 12 months in prison is over 50 per cent.
A short stretch of a few months inside isn’t enough time to rehabilitate criminals, but is more than enough to dislocate them from the family, work and home connections that keep them from crime. Too often, offenders routinely turn back to crime as soon as they walk out of the prison gates.
No prison system should further criminalise offenders or trap criminals who might otherwise take the right path in a cycle of criminality through a merry-go-round of short sentences...We choose to lock up the most dangerous criminals for longer and to cut reoffending by stopping the costly spiral of crime.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead
It really isn't essentially dead. There are an awful lot of people I speak to who in conversation say they still like him. It runs along the lines of, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I like him.' Or, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I did well by him.' etc. My friend in Surrey would vote tory like a shot if he was back. So would my sister.
He's the only tory with star appeal who had the pizzazz to reach into the red wall and scoop up dozens of seats that the tories will now lose.
As I say, I'm not endorsing him. I loathe him as a person whilst admiring his ability to win.
Since 1992 only David Cameron won a Conservative majority: of such slender proportions that two years later Theresa May felt she needed to go back to the country to increase it. Boris Johnson won an 80 seat majority. And they dumped him.
I fear him like no other.
The rest of the current bunch are, frankly, either useless or nuts (or both). Labour majority every time with them.
It's not that he hasn't got his fans, or that he wouldn't do reasonably well in a General Election. It's that there isn't a route any more. Too many of his colleagues realise that his character defects cannot be managed in a way that wouldn't make a Johnson Premiership a chaotic mess. They've moved on and it is extremely hard now to see how they go back.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
How are we the only two people on here who think this? It seems so obvious
Lots of people (inc me) think the Cons would be trailing by less in the polls if Boris Johnson had somehow survived. But he made that impossible by his conduct. It was so bad that even Tory MPs could stomach it no longer.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead
It really isn't essentially dead. There are an awful lot of people I speak to who in conversation say they still like him. It runs along the lines of, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I like him.' Or, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I did well by him.' etc. My friend in Surrey would vote tory like a shot if he was back. So would my sister.
He's the only tory with star appeal who had the pizzazz to reach into the red wall and scoop up dozens of seats that the tories will now lose.
As I say, I'm not endorsing him. I loathe him as a person whilst admiring his ability to win.
Since 1992 only David Cameron won a Conservative majority: of such slender proportions that two years later Theresa May felt she needed to go back to the country to increase it. Boris Johnson won an 80 seat majority. And they dumped him.
I fear him like no other.
The rest of the current bunch are, frankly, either useless or nuts (or both). Labour majority every time with them.
It's not that he hasn't got his fans, or that he wouldn't do reasonably well in a General Election. It's that there isn't a route any more. Too many of his colleagues realise that his character defects cannot be managed in a way that wouldn't make a Johnson Premiership a chaotic mess. They've moved on and it is extremely hard now to see how they go back.
Well you may be correct about that.
But when they are reduced to a rump of 80-150 MPs, and they have lost their second General Election in a row, then they may well seek him out. If it's not too late for him by then.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
On topic, more or less: In the US, taller candidates often have a small advantage. Is there any polling that shows his height is hurting Sunak?
Negligible, I'd have thought.
Not sure there's polling evidence, although I do note the recent word cloud on Sunak didn't appear to feature references to his height (although it did to a minor degree mention his ethnicity, and to a larger degree some very rude words, so "short-arse" wasn't apparently missed out for reasons of taste but because it wasn't at the front of people's minds).
Sunak is, I think, the same height as Churchill - who of course lost one landslide election, but I doubt people were thinking at that time, "Well, he won a World War, but he'd be no bloody use getting a jar off the top shelf". The other big height disparity was Thatcher versus her opponents, and it didn't seem to do her much harm.
I'm not so sure. It's not that he's short, more that he's kind of generally quite tiny. I do think that's a handicap for a male politician.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
The CPS is appallingly underfunded, to the extent that retailers are increasingly privately prosecuting repeat shoplifters.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
Worse - that they weren’t dropping 95% of cases. The Rabbi told me it wasnt about winning. Or getting any punishment for offenders. But putting a stone in their shoe and making sure that the offence is recorded properly.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
She grandstands - reminds me of Johnson. Her Commons speech saying that 'transmen are men and transwomen are women' was for attention I think. And she repeatedly supports homeopathy. Maybe she's not bright enough for PM?
"Allowing low-level offenders to avoid jail and deporting foreign criminals earlier are among government plans aimed at tackling severe overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales.
Figures from earlier this year revealed that 61% of prisons were overcrowded.
The justice secretary is due to set out details of his plan for easing pressure in Parliament on Monday afternoon.
Alex Chalk has already said he wants some offenders to do community work rather than short stints in prison."
Seems sensible to me 'We need to keep people safe – and that means moving away from short-term prison sentences that make hardened criminals rather than rehabilitated offenders. So we need to look again at low-level offenders. Because while the overall reoffending rate is 25 per cent, the rate for people who spend fewer than 12 months in prison is over 50 per cent.
A short stretch of a few months inside isn’t enough time to rehabilitate criminals, but is more than enough to dislocate them from the family, work and home connections that keep them from crime. Too often, offenders routinely turn back to crime as soon as they walk out of the prison gates.
No prison system should further criminalise offenders or trap criminals who might otherwise take the right path in a cycle of criminality through a merry-go-round of short sentences...We choose to lock up the most dangerous criminals for longer and to cut reoffending by stopping the costly spiral of crime.
The words are sensible. But getting here because prisons and the criminal justice system have been underfunded for ages rather than because they believe in it is not. And does anyone expect that the kind of resources that will help rehabilitate petty criminals that would make this scheme successful will actually be made available? Of course not, they will do it on the cheap and fail as always.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
IIRC you posted this a couple of days ago. It doesn’t lose any of its horror on second reading.
The Police representative should have been profusely apologising for the synagogue having to do the job the judiciary has failed to.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
The CPS is appallingly underfunded, to the extent that retailers are increasingly privately prosecuting repeat shoplifters.
With shop lifting, private prosecutions used to quite common. Is this really a new thing?
On topic, more or less: In the US, taller candidates often have a small advantage. Is there any polling that shows his height is hurting Sunak?
Negligible, I'd have thought.
Not sure there's polling evidence, although I do note the recent word cloud on Sunak didn't appear to feature references to his height (although it did to a minor degree mention his ethnicity, and to a larger degree some very rude words, so "short-arse" wasn't apparently missed out for reasons of taste but because it wasn't at the front of people's minds).
Sunak is, I think, the same height as Churchill - who of course lost one landslide election, but I doubt people were thinking at that time, "Well, he won a World War, but he'd be no bloody use getting a jar off the top shelf". The other big height disparity was Thatcher versus her opponents, and it didn't seem to do her much harm.
I'm not so sure. It's not that he's short, more that he's kind of generally quite tiny. I do think that's a handicap for a male politician.
But what's the evidence for that really? Like I say, it didn't come up in the word cloud. No doubt it gets remarked on now and then, but I can't see it being more than background noise in terms of voting intention..
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
The CPS is appallingly underfunded, to the extent that retailers are increasingly privately prosecuting repeat shoplifters.
Shops are appallingly underfunded, to the extent that they promote repeat shoplifting by not having staff at tills.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
Ha.
Why ?
There are plenty of things politicians across the spectrum have said over the years and it’s thrown back at them. It’s part and parcel of the game. Why should she be any different. Her initial apology was hardly sincere and fulsome. It was full of caveats.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
I would fear Johnson if he was able to manage those aspects of his character that make it impossible for him to hold high office again.
Essentially, he is completely incapable of being honest to colleagues and, whilst his strained relationship with facts has long been known, it's hard now for colleagues to sustain the fantasy that it can be managed and controlled. In the absence of trust, dysfunctionality is inevitable.
I agree he has charisma, albeit the "good old Boris - he's a laugh" thing is essentially dead
It really isn't essentially dead. There are an awful lot of people I speak to who in conversation say they still like him. It runs along the lines of, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I like him.' Or, 'I know he's a bit naughty but I did well by him.' etc. My friend in Surrey would vote tory like a shot if he was back. So would my sister.
He's the only tory with star appeal who had the pizzazz to reach into the red wall and scoop up dozens of seats that the tories will now lose.
As I say, I'm not endorsing him. I loathe him as a person whilst admiring his ability to win.
Since 1992 only David Cameron won a Conservative majority: of such slender proportions that two years later Theresa May felt she needed to go back to the country to increase it. Boris Johnson won an 80 seat majority. And they dumped him.
I fear him like no other.
The rest of the current bunch are, frankly, either useless or nuts (or both). Labour majority every time with them.
It's not that he hasn't got his fans, or that he wouldn't do reasonably well in a General Election. It's that there isn't a route any more. Too many of his colleagues realise that his character defects cannot be managed in a way that wouldn't make a Johnson Premiership a chaotic mess. They've moved on and it is extremely hard now to see how they go back.
Well you may be correct about that.
But when they are reduced to a rump of 80-150 MPs, and they have lost their second General Election in a row, then they may well seek him out. If it's not too late for him by then.
They face a challenging time but surely not so bleak as to be turning to Boris Johnson again. He'll be a seedy old man by then.
"Allowing low-level offenders to avoid jail and deporting foreign criminals earlier are among government plans aimed at tackling severe overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales.
Figures from earlier this year revealed that 61% of prisons were overcrowded.
The justice secretary is due to set out details of his plan for easing pressure in Parliament on Monday afternoon.
Alex Chalk has already said he wants some offenders to do community work rather than short stints in prison."
Seems sensible to me 'We need to keep people safe – and that means moving away from short-term prison sentences that make hardened criminals rather than rehabilitated offenders. So we need to look again at low-level offenders. Because while the overall reoffending rate is 25 per cent, the rate for people who spend fewer than 12 months in prison is over 50 per cent.
A short stretch of a few months inside isn’t enough time to rehabilitate criminals, but is more than enough to dislocate them from the family, work and home connections that keep them from crime. Too often, offenders routinely turn back to crime as soon as they walk out of the prison gates.
No prison system should further criminalise offenders or trap criminals who might otherwise take the right path in a cycle of criminality through a merry-go-round of short sentences...We choose to lock up the most dangerous criminals for longer and to cut reoffending by stopping the costly spiral of crime.
This is the message "liberals" have been shouting for years but as soon as it is said, conservatives say they are being soft on criminals. Chalk may well lose his seat at the election but at least he's talking some sense on this.
It would be welcome if the start of the Conservative Party's return to sanity was to take a sensible and measured approach to law and order in general and prison policy and sentencing in particular.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
How are we the only two people on here who think this? It seems so obvious
Lots of people (inc me) think the Cons would be trailing by less in the polls if Boris Johnson had somehow survived. But he made that impossible by his conduct. It was so bad that even Tory MPs could stomach it no longer.
I think it is incorrect to think the party would be doing better if they'd kept Boris, because it omits to take into account what would have happened in the intervening year. It would not have been a static situation; the utter chaos which characterised the latter part of his premiership would only have got worse, the Standards Committee issue would have been a gigantic problem, further partygate scandals and other chickens would have been coming back to roost, he would probably not have defused the NI Protocol ticking bomb as Sunak did, and behind the scenes there would still have been Carrie.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Istr that you're quite attached to the word scum yourself. Is it different for non politicians?
She grandstands - reminds me of Johnson. Her Commons speech saying that 'transmen are men and transwomen are women' was for attention I think. And she repeatedly supports homeopathy. Maybe she's not bright enough for PM?
But which different leader? It's all very well speculating about Penny Morduant, and were there a vacancy she may well win. But then again, she may not. It could be a nutcase or chancer or ideological zealot. But I repeat myself.
Tory MPs have no idea what number is going to come up if they roll the leadership dice and dumping Sunak will only help if his replacement can clearly do a better job. Firstly, can someone do a better job of both articulating an attractive vision and running a government, and secondly, if there is such a person (or such people) what are their chances of winning and what are the risks if they don't?
I think that barring an almighty screw-up over a particular issue, Sunak is there for the duration now. It's just too disruptive and too risky for too little return to change leader yet again - particularly when running a leadership contest is, of itself, likely to hit Tory polling merely for the navel-gazing.
The problem is not the leader; the problem is the party.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Rightly or wrongly, Rayner's comment only enhanced her political position. Have we not learned by now that voters quite like politicians speaking their mind?
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
The CPS is appallingly underfunded, to the extent that retailers are increasingly privately prosecuting repeat shoplifters.
Shops are appallingly underfunded, to the extent that they promote repeat shoplifting by not having staff at tills.
It’s more that shop lifters, across much of the Western world, have noticed that there is nothing to stop them
1) staff are forbidden to physically touch them 2) security staff are forbidden to physically touch them 3) if caught, the justice system imposes small fines, or community punishments that aren’t enforced anyway.
Historically, shop lifters would be physically tackled by staff. Who would then call the police. When staff assaults became an issue, security was brought in. Following cases of assault by security staff, allegations of racist abuse etc, the security staff were increasingly told not to intervene.
So instead of detaining the shop lifters for half an hour until the police arrived, the staff watch as they leave the store. Often being jeered at for doing nothing - if they can provoke a punch from a member of staff, they sue.
The logical next step on this, is physical barriers to entry/exit in stores. This is already happening.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Rightly or wrongly, Rayner's comment only enhanced her political position. Have we not learned by now that voters quite like politicians speaking their mind?
They do if they agree with them. It enhanced her position with elements in labour certainly.
But which different leader? It's all very well speculating about Penny Morduant, and were there a vacancy she may well win. But then again, she may not. It could be a nutcase or chancer or ideological zealot. But I repeat myself.
Tory MPs have no idea what number is going to come up if they roll the leadership dice and dumping Sunak will only help if his replacement can clearly do a better job. Firstly, can someone do a better job of both articulating an attractive vision and running a government, and secondly, if there is such a person (or such people) what are their chances of winning and what are the risks if they don't?
I think that barring an almighty screw-up over a particular issue, Sunak is there for the duration now. It's just too disruptive and too risky for too little return to change leader yet again - particularly when running a leadership contest is, of itself, likely to hit Tory polling merely for the navel-gazing.
The problem is not the leader; the problem is the party.
He hit one of his staffers repeatedly and shoved his cock in his face.
Also wanted massages too.
I assume the staffer concerned had some independent evidence, otherwise it is just his word against Bone's, surely?
It appears from the report that the complainant kept a contemporaneous record of incidents (which is a pretty sensible thing to do when a campaign of bullying starts in the event it leads towards dismissal or constructive dismissal). There were also witnesses to some of the conduct, he told others about it at the time and, although the hotel room stuff wasn't witnessed, the fact there was a hotel room isn't in dispute, and the report pretty sensibly says, "In the first place it is remarkable that a senior MP in his 60s should think it appropriate that he should be sharing a bedroom and bathroom with his employee, and an employee in his early 20s."
Bone also appears to have done himself no favours by vehemently denying everything at first, even when there was witness evidence for some of it. That meant his denials in respect of conduct in private lacked credibility. Bone went in so strongly on the complainant being a malicious fantasist that, when it turned out some of it was corroborated, it was pretty easy to find the rest was also very probably true. Had he admitted some of the more public behaviour, but stopped short of admitting the private stuff, he might have been able to limit the damage.
But which different leader? It's all very well speculating about Penny Morduant, and were there a vacancy she may well win. But then again, she may not. It could be a nutcase or chancer or ideological zealot. But I repeat myself.
Tory MPs have no idea what number is going to come up if they roll the leadership dice and dumping Sunak will only help if his replacement can clearly do a better job. Firstly, can someone do a better job of both articulating an attractive vision and running a government, and secondly, if there is such a person (or such people) what are their chances of winning and what are the risks if they don't?
I think that barring an almighty screw-up over a particular issue, Sunak is there for the duration now. It's just too disruptive and too risky for too little return to change leader yet again - particularly when running a leadership contest is, of itself, likely to hit Tory polling merely for the navel-gazing.
The problem is not the leader; the problem is the party.
They would win most seats with Boris Johnson. But he's no longer an MP. Not sure he has to be?
As a left-of-centre pragmatist it's Johnson whom I fear. Everyone else = Labour majority, probable landslide. Penny Mordaunt is getting like Liz Truss Mk II. I mean, she's really a bit ... strange at times. Perhaps most of the time. Holding a phallus doesn't a good PM make.
*This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson. He's a shit. But he is a shit who reaches parts no other tories can.
How are we the only two people on here who think this? It seems so obvious
Lots of people (inc me) think the Cons would be trailing by less in the polls if Boris Johnson had somehow survived. But he made that impossible by his conduct. It was so bad that even Tory MPs could stomach it no longer.
I think it is incorrect to think the party would be doing better if they'd kept Boris, because it omits to take into account what would have happened in the intervening year. It would not have been a static situation; the utter chaos which characterised the latter part of his premiership would only have got worse, the Standards Committee issue would have been a gigantic problem, further partygate scandals and other chickens would have been coming back to roost, he would probably not have defused the NI Protocol ticking bomb as Sunak did, and behind the scenes there would still have been Carrie.
Kinabalu's is a self fulfilling argument:
"The Cons would be trailing by less in the polls if Boris Johnson had somehow survived..."
Possibly true. Because to have somehow survived, Johnson would have had to not do the things which, since he did do them, meant he didn't survive.
FPT Leon: Has it occurred to you there may be a link between your inability to see how we are restricting ourselves, with illiberal Wokeness, and your inability to see the anti-Semitism in that mural?
I'm not accusing you of being as dim as Corbyn, but you do strike me as someone who is quite phenomenally lacking in perception, at times
It's fine. I'm really bad at ice skating and algebra - and much, much else - we all have our faults --------------
Yes, there's something in that. A friend commented on Suella Braverman's "remarkable" dress during her recent controversial conference speech. I was in the audience but didn't notice anything about her dress - who cares? By contrast, I could repeat lots of what she said, because I was interested in that.
My point, though, was that some of us see things instinctively in political terms rather than ethnic ones, and I dare say Corbyn is another person like that. Some of the "How could you possibly not see..." discussions reflect different ways of looking at stuff. Likewise Liz Truss's necklace or whatever it was, which I remember you thought very significant.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
The CPS is appallingly underfunded, to the extent that retailers are increasingly privately prosecuting repeat shoplifters.
Shops are appallingly underfunded, to the extent that they promote repeat shoplifting by not having staff at tills.
It’s more that shop lifters, across much of the Western world, have noticed that there is nothing to stop them
1) staff are forbidden to physically touch them 2) security staff are forbidden to physically touch them 3) if caught, the justice system imposes small fines, or community punishments that aren’t enforced anyway.
Historically, shop lifters would be physically tackled by staff. Who would then call the police. When staff assaults became an issue, security was brought in. Following cases of assault by security staff, allegations of racist abuse etc, the security staff were increasingly told not to intervene.
So instead of detaining the shop lifters for half an hour until the police arrived, the staff watch as they leave the store. Often being jeered at for doing nothing - if they can provoke a punch from a member of staff, they sue.
The logical next step on this, is physical barriers to entry/exit in stores. This is already happening.
A few years back I saw a hilarious episode in my local supermarket. I was at the checkout when a checkout lady shouted, and started chasing after a man who was carrying heavy bags towards an exit. This exit (now closed...) had two automatic doors. One to the right, one to the left. He chose the right-hand one, and stood like a muppet as they did not open - because they were out of operation. After about twenty seconds, he turned around and went through the other set of doors.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Rightly or wrongly, Rayner's comment only enhanced her political position. Have we not learned by now that voters quite like politicians speaking their mind?
"Allowing low-level offenders to avoid jail and deporting foreign criminals earlier are among government plans aimed at tackling severe overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales.
Figures from earlier this year revealed that 61% of prisons were overcrowded.
The justice secretary is due to set out details of his plan for easing pressure in Parliament on Monday afternoon.
Alex Chalk has already said he wants some offenders to do community work rather than short stints in prison."
Seems sensible to me 'We need to keep people safe – and that means moving away from short-term prison sentences that make hardened criminals rather than rehabilitated offenders. So we need to look again at low-level offenders. Because while the overall reoffending rate is 25 per cent, the rate for people who spend fewer than 12 months in prison is over 50 per cent.
A short stretch of a few months inside isn’t enough time to rehabilitate criminals, but is more than enough to dislocate them from the family, work and home connections that keep them from crime. Too often, offenders routinely turn back to crime as soon as they walk out of the prison gates.
No prison system should further criminalise offenders or trap criminals who might otherwise take the right path in a cycle of criminality through a merry-go-round of short sentences...We choose to lock up the most dangerous criminals for longer and to cut reoffending by stopping the costly spiral of crime.
This is the message "liberals" have been shouting for years but as soon as it is said, conservatives say they are being soft on criminals. Chalk may well lose his seat at the election but at least he's talking some sense on this.
It would be welcome if the start of the Conservative Party's return to sanity was to take a sensible and measured approach to law and order in general and prison policy and sentencing in particular.
Yes, his conference speech was sensible too, apart from some routine partisan stuff.
He hit one of his staffers repeatedly and shoved his cock in his face.
Also wanted massages too.
I assume the staffer concerned had some independent evidence, otherwise it is just his word against Bone's, surely?
It appears from the report that the complainant kept a contemporaneous record of incidents (which is a pretty sensible thing to do when a campaign of bullying starts in the event it leads towards dismissal or constructive dismissal). There were also witnesses to some of the conduct, he told others about it at the time and, although the hotel room stuff wasn't witnessed, the fact there was a hotel room isn't in dispute, and the report pretty sensibly says, "In the first place it is remarkable that a senior MP in his 60s should think it appropriate that he should be sharing a bedroom and bathroom with his employee, and an employee in his early 20s."
Bone also appears to have done himself no favours by vehemently denying everything at first, even when there was witness evidence for some of it. That meant his denials in respect of conduct in private lacked credibility. Bone went in so strongly on the complainant being a malicious fantasist that, when it turned out some of it was corroborated, it was pretty easy to find the rest was also very probably true.
Thanks, makes sense. For the IEP to be so clear in its condemnation there had to be more than "he said, er, he said".
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Istr that you're quite attached to the word scum yourself. Is it different for non politicians?
But which different leader? It's all very well speculating about Penny Morduant, and were there a vacancy she may well win. But then again, she may not. It could be a nutcase or chancer or ideological zealot. But I repeat myself.
Tory MPs have no idea what number is going to come up if they roll the leadership dice and dumping Sunak will only help if his replacement can clearly do a better job. Firstly, can someone do a better job of both articulating an attractive vision and running a government, and secondly, if there is such a person (or such people) what are their chances of winning and what are the risks if they don't?
I think that barring an almighty screw-up over a particular issue, Sunak is there for the duration now. It's just too disruptive and too risky for too little return to change leader yet again - particularly when running a leadership contest is, of itself, likely to hit Tory polling merely for the navel-gazing.
The problem is not the leader; the problem is the party.
Has anyone talked about the Steve Bell sacking? My feeling is that it's a poor decision by the Guardian. Cartoonists should be given the leeway to challenge anything they want particularly in a so called radical paper like the Guardian. The template should be Charlie Hebdo.
The 'Je suis Charlie' campaign which attracted 1,300,000 demonstrators and most world leaders was about free speech not the sensitivity of assorted countries. Nor about bad taste a line which Steve Bell sometimes crosses. But that's what cartoonists are for
Employed cartoonists are there to entertain their readers. There’s no right to lifetime employment, and he ceased being an asset to the publication quite some time back.
This was paid for, not free speech, and it’s risible to equate the two things.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
The CPS is appallingly underfunded, to the extent that retailers are increasingly privately prosecuting repeat shoplifters.
Shops are appallingly underfunded, to the extent that they promote repeat shoplifting by not having staff at tills.
It’s more that shop lifters, across much of the Western world, have noticed that there is nothing to stop them
1) staff are forbidden to physically touch them 2) security staff are forbidden to physically touch them 3) if caught, the justice system imposes small fines, or community punishments that aren’t enforced anyway.
Historically, shop lifters would be physically tackled by staff. Who would then call the police. When staff assaults became an issue, security was brought in. Following cases of assault by security staff, allegations of racist abuse etc, the security staff were increasingly told not to intervene.
So instead of detaining the shop lifters for half an hour until the police arrived, the staff watch as they leave the store. Often being jeered at for doing nothing - if they can provoke a punch from a member of staff, they sue.
The logical next step on this, is physical barriers to entry/exit in stores. This is already happening.
Our local Co-op, with the ineptness that only the Co-op can manage, has recently installed self-checkout tills.
These are right by the entry/exit door. So shoplifters now regularly go to the self-checkout, scan all their items, bag them up... and just walk out with their shopping in the bag without paying.
We are no better than the Nazis in about 1935. This sickness has to be extirpated, people need to do long long jail times
The people that did this are either thick or verging on mentally ill or just seeking a kind of self-serving narcissistic notoriety.
To think that the actions of Israel has any reflection whatsoever on Jewish people (adults and especially children) elsewhere is an extreme form of tribal collectivist thinking.
The sane majority have far too many of these people amongst us.
Topping on PT was arguing that anger at Israel logically means anger at Jews. Not sure if he meant it or was just messing about.
The government pays money to various Jewish institutions - typically schools and synagogues to hire extra private security.
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
Embarrassing that they're having to privately do the job of the Police and the CPS.
The CPS is appallingly underfunded, to the extent that retailers are increasingly privately prosecuting repeat shoplifters.
Shops are appallingly underfunded, to the extent that they promote repeat shoplifting by not having staff at tills.
It’s more that shop lifters, across much of the Western world, have noticed that there is nothing to stop them
1) staff are forbidden to physically touch them 2) security staff are forbidden to physically touch them 3) if caught, the justice system imposes small fines, or community punishments that aren’t enforced anyway.
Historically, shop lifters would be physically tackled by staff. Who would then call the police. When staff assaults became an issue, security was brought in. Following cases of assault by security staff, allegations of racist abuse etc, the security staff were increasingly told not to intervene.
So instead of detaining the shop lifters for half an hour until the police arrived, the staff watch as they leave the store. Often being jeered at for doing nothing - if they can provoke a punch from a member of staff, they sue.
The logical next step on this, is physical barriers to entry/exit in stores. This is already happening.
A few years back I saw a hilarious episode in my local supermarket. I was at the checkout when a checkout lady shouted, and started chasing after a man who was carrying heavy bags towards an exit. This exit (now closed...) had two automatic doors. One to the right, one to the left. He chose the right-hand one, and stood like a muppet as they did not open - because they were out of operation. After about twenty seconds, he turned around and went through the other set of doors.
They caught him outside the local chemists.
I was told, by a local lawyer, that way some of the supermarket “local” shops franchises are being run, the owners are responsible for stock loss from theft. This has led to increase in assaults on shop lifters.
There’s one Tesco local, where the manager physically deals with the shop lifters, semi-regularly. He regards his occasional court appearances as a part of the job - according to the lawyer.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Istr that you're quite attached to the word scum yourself. Is it different for non politicians?
Has anyone talked about the Steve Bell sacking? My feeling is that it's a poor decision by the Guardian. Cartoonists should be given the leeway to challenge anything they want particularly in a so called radical paper like the Guardian. The template should be Charlie Hebdo.
The 'Je suis Charlie' campaign which attracted 1,300,000 demonstrators and most world leaders was about free speech not the sensitivity of assorted countries. Nor about bad taste a line which Steve Bell sometimes crosses. But that's what cartoonists are for
Employed cartoonists are there to entertain their readers. There’s no right to lifetime employment, and he ceased being an asset to the publication quite some time back.
This was paid for, not free speech, and it’s risible to equate the two things.
Yes: you can get away with being offensive if you're funny. I'm not sure anything Steve Bell has ever produced has been funny. (He's not alone in this, of course. Almost no political cartoonists are ever funny.) It's hard to see what the Guardian are paying him for.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
I could collect all the comments on here from the male members of this forum that show precisely that it was her attractiveness which interested them in her. It was embarrassing seeing it. But not at all unexpected. Though quite interesting seeing how many different ways of saying "phwoar - I fancy her" men could come up with.
She had an opportunity at the conference to make a good speech. She made a risible one. Just as during her previous goes at being leader when she spoke it revealed her vacuity of thinking. She has achieved nothing as Minister. And she has nothing to say. She also has a problem with the truth. I have said this from the start. That is why I have criticised her.
That is why I have criticised Badenoch - because she too has turned out to be an empty suit. And my views on Braverman have also been clear. There is no-one of any substance in the Tories at present.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
Ha.
Why ?
There are plenty of things politicians across the spectrum have said over the years and it’s thrown back at them. It’s part and parcel of the game. Why should she be any different. Her initial apology was hardly sincere and fulsome. It was full of caveats.
Yes. I've voted Conservative in the past. I'm hardly likely to warm to a politician who thinks I'm scum, even if she subsequently tries to backtrack.
Has anyone talked about the Steve Bell sacking? My feeling is that it's a poor decision by the Guardian. Cartoonists should be given the leeway to challenge anything they want particularly in a so called radical paper like the Guardian. The template should be Charlie Hebdo.
The 'Je suis Charlie' campaign which attracted 1,300,000 demonstrators and most world leaders was about free speech not the sensitivity of assorted countries. Nor about bad taste a line which Steve Bell sometimes crosses. But that's what cartoonists are for
Employed cartoonists are there to entertain their readers. There’s no right to lifetime employment, and he ceased being an asset to the publication quite some time back.
This was paid for, not free speech, and it’s risible to equate the two things.
Yes: you can get away with being offensive if you're funny. I'm not sure anything Steve Bell has ever produced has been funny. (He's not alone in this, of course. Almost no political cartoonists are ever funny.) It's hard to see what the Guardian are paying him for.
Bell has always produced invective, rather than funny cartoons. Think angry shouting men who man the Corbyn shrines on high streets on the weekend.
His product has taken a small turn in an ugly direction, more recently, but the style is the same.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
I could collect all the comments on here from the male members of this forum that show precisely that it was her attractiveness which interested them in her. It was embarrassing seeing it. But not at all unexpected. Though quite interesting seeing how many different ways of saying "phwoar - I fancy her" men could come up with.
(Snip).
Please do collect them, and compare them about comments made about other politicians.
If you think she has 'vacuity of thinking', by all means attack that. Discounting her because you think her only appeal is that men find her attractive is not a valid or attractive argument, and one that says more about you than her.
Has anyone talked about the Steve Bell sacking? My feeling is that it's a poor decision by the Guardian. Cartoonists should be given the leeway to challenge anything they want particularly in a so called radical paper like the Guardian. The template should be Charlie Hebdo.
The 'Je suis Charlie' campaign which attracted 1,300,000 demonstrators and most world leaders was about free speech not the sensitivity of assorted countries. Nor about bad taste a line which Steve Bell sometimes crosses. But that's what cartoonists are for
Employed cartoonists are there to entertain their readers. There’s no right to lifetime employment, and he ceased being an asset to the publication quite some time back.
This was paid for, not free speech, and it’s risible to equate the two things.
Yes: you can get away with being offensive if you're funny. I'm not sure anything Steve Bell has ever produced has been funny. (He's not alone in this, of course. Almost no political cartoonists are ever funny.) It's hard to see what the Guardian are paying him for.
As a long-time Guardian reader and subscriber I have rarely found Steve Bell's cartoons funny and often found them puerile, sometimes offensive.
He's no loss imo although I know he does have his fans and no doubt there will be letters of protest but I'm sure the Guardian will just shrug and move on.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Rightly or wrongly, Rayner's comment only enhanced her political position. Have we not learned by now that voters quite like politicians speaking their mind?
Did it 'enhance' her position?
Judging by the behaviour of a large number of conservative politicians I would have said she was quite prescient in the use of the term.
Has anyone talked about the Steve Bell sacking? My feeling is that it's a poor decision by the Guardian. Cartoonists should be given the leeway to challenge anything they want particularly in a so called radical paper like the Guardian. The template should be Charlie Hebdo.
The 'Je suis Charlie' campaign which attracted 1,300,000 demonstrators and most world leaders was about free speech not the sensitivity of assorted countries. Nor about bad taste a line which Steve Bell sometimes crosses. But that's what cartoonists are for
Employed cartoonists are there to entertain their readers. There’s no right to lifetime employment, and he ceased being an asset to the publication quite some time back.
This was paid for, not free speech, and it’s risible to equate the two things.
Yes: you can get away with being offensive if you're funny. I'm not sure anything Steve Bell has ever produced has been funny. (He's not alone in this, of course. Almost no political cartoonists are ever funny.) It's hard to see what the Guardian are paying him for.
Matt always manages to find a genuinely funny take on the political story of the day.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Istr that you're quite attached to the word scum yourself. Is it different for non politicians?
I'm unsure I'm quite 'attached' to the word.
But you use it, yes?
I don't think I regularly use it at all. Might be wrong, but I don't think I do. I'm also unsure if I've ever used it in quite the way she did, either.
I'm also not - thank God - a politician making a pre-written speech. I'm just a rando on t'Internet.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Rightly or wrongly, Rayner's comment only enhanced her political position. Have we not learned by now that voters quite like politicians speaking their mind?
Did it 'enhance' her position?
Judging by the behaviour of a large number of conservative politicians I would have said she was quite prescient in the use of the term.
There's plenty of "homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty," even Etonian, people on the left as well.
Blue Peter is 65 years young today! The very first broadcast of the longest running children’s TV show in the world was on 16 October 1958 - Happy Birthday. Read more at https://bbc.in/400f5Fy
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
That line is beneath you - and it is one you have said the likes of before. Saying the *only* reason someone could have support is because of her attractiveness says more about you than her, or them.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
You don’t half bear a grudge! Rayner made a full public apology for that comment, didn’t she? And it was two years ago. Give the lass a break.
My point is that she made a 'full public apology' - which some on here startlingly think was superb - after:
*) After she doubled down on the comments. *) A month. *) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
Rightly or wrongly, Rayner's comment only enhanced her political position. Have we not learned by now that voters quite like politicians speaking their mind?
Did it 'enhance' her position?
Judging by the behaviour of a large number of conservative politicians I would have said she was quite prescient in the use of the term.
There's plenty of "homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty," even Etonian, people on the left as well.
Maybe, but I was referring to the grifting, and the mean views and comments of various redwall tories to the families with very little cash for food and energy. Especially that Allan Carr lookalike.
Yes the Tories may get more seats with Mordaunt as leader. The issue is they wouldn't get her as leader.
Why on earth does anyone still rate her after her ludicrous and vacuous speech during the party conference? It was an embarrassment.
She carried a sword. She doesn't represent the Badenoch or Braverman wings.
Ah, so she represents the Empty Headed Wing and is the one the male members would like to f***. If only they could.
I see it now.
I've met Penny a few times, she's engaging company, she even follows me on Twitter.
Edit - She and I share a similar sense of humour, that's the sort of PM we want.
She has all the elements, but when placed in a situation where she needs to perform (sword-carrying aside) she crumbles. Conference was her chance to showcase her leadership bid - everyone knew that's what it was. Suella grabbed the chance and delivered her speech brilliantly (regardless of the contents), and PM didn’t. It's sad.
Fascinating to read the PiS-influenced (if not controlled) media this evening. Warnings from the National Electoral Commission about the results and you just get a hint the PiS may be trying to steal the election at the eleventh hour and getting ready to explain why Law & Justice have won a majority after all.
The actual numbers continue to suggest PiS have come up short and Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition have advanced as have the Third Way (nearly doubling their seats).
With 73% counted, the Civic Coalition/Third Way/Left bloc lead PiS/Confederation 52%-44% in terms of votes which pretty much reflects last night's exit polls. The fact they were voting late in Warsaw, Krakow and elsewhere makes me think there are more anti-PiS votes to come.
It's a worrying time and both EU and UN observers have reported on the institutional bias towards Law & Justice in the media and elsewhere.
That's the trouble with populists - they don't like it when they strop being popular.
It's now 95% counted, and watching TVP (the state channel) a bit earlier, I've never seen so little prominence given to the latest results - in most countries you can't move for bar and pie charts, maps, what the chamber will look like, likely shape of next government etc - TVP merely showed the results as a scroll across the bottom, while still showing exit poll projections!
Looking at district results, PiS look to be down by 6-12 points v 2019, Warsaw still has 23% to count.
Also, maybe someone with more knowledge of Polish politics than me (Stodge?) - could President Duda (PiS) simply refuse to call Tusk to form a new government, and the current government stays as a caretaker? What happens then? - although the below comments from him could be viewed as positive overall in terms of his role here.
But which different leader? It's all very well speculating about Penny Morduant, and were there a vacancy she may well win. But then again, she may not. It could be a nutcase or chancer or ideological zealot. But I repeat myself.
Tory MPs have no idea what number is going to come up if they roll the leadership dice and dumping Sunak will only help if his replacement can clearly do a better job. Firstly, can someone do a better job of both articulating an attractive vision and running a government, and secondly, if there is such a person (or such people) what are their chances of winning and what are the risks if they don't?
I think that barring an almighty screw-up over a particular issue, Sunak is there for the duration now. It's just too disruptive and too risky for too little return to change leader yet again - particularly when running a leadership contest is, of itself, likely to hit Tory polling merely for the navel-gazing.
The problem is not the leader; the problem is the party.
"Liz Truss task force to challenge Treasury orthodoxy with alternative ‘Growth Budget’"
She's doing an amazing job driving this agenda forward.
Hm. Count me as agenda-critical, I'm afraid.
It's a very good idea to introduce greater awareness of the impact of taxation on behaviour to our official economical forecasts. Hopefully this will make it harder for the OBR to get away with spouting so much shite.
The debate I heard in the Commons today whilst driving was painful in its worthiness, it’s earnestness and an almost intolerable smugness. And I didn’t even disagree with what they are saying. Our political class are something else.
Blue Peter is 65 years young today! The very first broadcast of the longest running children’s TV show in the world was on 16 October 1958 - Happy Birthday. Read more at https://bbc.in/400f5Fy
Apparently 2 dead in Brussels shooting. Both are Swedish football fans there for a match. Shooter still on the loose, videos are out there on Twitter. I think we are likely to see many more incidents like this, sadly.
The debate I heard in the Commons today whilst driving was painful in its worthiness, it’s earnestness and an almost intolerable smugness. And I didn’t even disagree with what they are saying. Our political class are something else.
Some years ago, there was a TV program where a group of minor politicians (and some others) had to respond to a crisis. A war game as it were.
As things escalated in London, they had to make a decision about closing or not closing flood doors on part of the Tube network. Close them, and if the crisis went that way, the people define them would be trapped and drown. Leave them open and many more would drown.
The politicians were quite clear that they would only make a decision that was at no cost to themselves or their position of being caring
So they did nothing. In the game, the tube flooded and hundreds died.
Blue Peter is 65 years young today! The very first broadcast of the longest running children’s TV show in the world was on 16 October 1958 - Happy Birthday. Read more at https://bbc.in/400f5Fy
Fascinating to read the PiS-influenced (if not controlled) media this evening. Warnings from the National Electoral Commission about the results and you just get a hint the PiS may be trying to steal the election at the eleventh hour and getting ready to explain why Law & Justice have won a majority after all.
The actual numbers continue to suggest PiS have come up short and Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition have advanced as have the Third Way (nearly doubling their seats).
With 73% counted, the Civic Coalition/Third Way/Left bloc lead PiS/Confederation 52%-44% in terms of votes which pretty much reflects last night's exit polls. The fact they were voting late in Warsaw, Krakow and elsewhere makes me think there are more anti-PiS votes to come.
It's a worrying time and both EU and UN observers have reported on the institutional bias towards Law & Justice in the media and elsewhere.
That's the trouble with populists - they don't like it when they strop being popular.
It's now 95% counted, and watching TVP (the state channel) a bit earlier, I've never seen so little prominence given to the latest results - in most countries you can't move for bar and pie charts, maps, what the chamber will look like, likely shape of next government etc - TVP merely showed the results as a scroll across the bottom, while still showing exit poll projections!
Looking at district results, PiS look to be down by 6-12 points v 2019, Warsaw still has 23% to count.
Also, maybe someone with more knowledge of Polish politics than me (Stodge?) - could President Duda (PiS) simply refuse to call Tusk to form a new government, and the current government stays as a caretaker? What happens then? - although the below comments from him could be viewed as positive overall in terms of his role here.
Comments
But whatever it is, he was unsuited to be PM in the first place. But his saving grace in history is:
1) He had reasonable instincts on Covid, esp. the vaccines.
2) He had excellent instincts on Ukraine.
3) He beat Corbyn, whose views on the two above might have proved 'interesting' if he had been PM.
I see it now.
Edit - She and I share a similar sense of humour, that's the sort of PM we want.
Fascinating to read the PiS-influenced (if not controlled) media this evening. Warnings from the National Electoral Commission about the results and you just get a hint the PiS may be trying to steal the election at the eleventh hour and getting ready to explain why Law & Justice have won a majority after all.
The actual numbers continue to suggest PiS have come up short and Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition have advanced as have the Third Way (nearly doubling their seats).
With 73% counted, the Civic Coalition/Third Way/Left bloc lead PiS/Confederation 52%-44% in terms of votes which pretty much reflects last night's exit polls. The fact they were voting late in Warsaw, Krakow and elsewhere makes me think there are more anti-PiS votes to come.
It's a worrying time and both EU and UN observers have reported on the institutional bias towards Law & Justice in the media and elsewhere.
That's the trouble with populists - they don't like it when they strop being popular.
That’s a mildly unexpected twist, as the staffer might have said when having the Bone boner shoved in his face.
I actually rate her, but don't fancy her. Now, if I was to go solely on attractiveness I'd be firmly on team Rayner (*), but I think she's not particularly good, the 'scum' comment being an example.
I'd rather have Mordaunt than Rayner as PM. But preferably neither.
(*) I lived with a lovely redhead for four years.
He's the only tory with star appeal who had the pizzazz to reach into the red wall and scoop up dozens of seats that the tories will now lose.
As I say, I'm not endorsing him. I loathe him as a person whilst admiring his ability to win.
Since 1992 only David Cameron won a Conservative majority: of such slender proportions that two years later Theresa May felt she needed to go back to the country to increase it. Boris Johnson won an 80 seat majority. And they dumped him.
I fear him like no other.
The rest of the current bunch are, frankly, either useless or nuts (or both). Labour majority every time with them.
Yes, a different politician would have taken a hit on Partygate early on rather than claiming, falsely, everything was above board. Similarly, with Pincher, he could have said, "I knew about it but gave him a second chance... and I shouldn't have". But, in both cases, he'd have had to take a bit of short term pain and it was more convenient in the moment to lie.
That character flaw would have easily found issues to attach itself to, even if Paterson hadn't been corrupt, COVID hadn't happened, and Pincher hadn't been a drunken lech.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5322659/tory-mp-peter-bone-affair-married-physio/
Rishi doesn't have the appeal Boris did to Reform and Redwall voters, albeit he does slightly better than Boris with Bluewall voters
https://x.com/skynews/status/1713870853807484954
Janet Yellen: 'We can certainly afford two wars', US Treasury secretary says
There ought to be a "humanitarian corridor from Gaza" to let people seek refuge in neighbouring states.
Shame on the Arab world for turning their backs on their brethren and denying them refuge, while claiming to support Palestinians.
A short stretch of a few months inside isn’t enough time to rehabilitate criminals, but is more than enough to dislocate them from the family, work and home connections that keep them from crime. Too often, offenders routinely turn back to crime as soon as they walk out of the prison gates.
No prison system should further criminalise offenders or trap criminals who might otherwise take the right path in a cycle of criminality through a merry-go-round of short sentences...We choose to lock up the most dangerous criminals for longer and to cut reoffending by stopping the costly spiral of crime.
To do that, we need to reform our approach to sentencing. On Monday, I will set out how we will take the right long-term decisions to make the justice system work to protect the public, increase punishment for the most dangerous, and cut crime.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/14/alex-chalk-low-level-offenders-help-clean-up-graffiti/
Racist attacks on them are quite standard.
Some of the er… interesting… left get upset by this.
At one community meeting I attended, the Police representative said that the local synagogue was being “insensitive” by bringing a private prosecution against each and every racist attacker they identified.
The local Imam stood up to say that was garbage and asked what the “sensitive” percentage of racists to be prosecuted was?
But when they are reduced to a rump of 80-150 MPs, and they have lost their second General Election in a row, then they may well seek him out. If it's not too late for him by then.
*) After she doubled down on the comments.
*) A month.
*) After a Conservative MP was murdered.
It was a typical 'forced' apology.
If posters on here did not laud her for it, I would not feel the need to point out it was a really, rally poor thing for her to have done, and which showed her to have the political instincts of a Dodo.
She grandstands - reminds me of Johnson. Her Commons speech saying that 'transmen are men and transwomen are women' was for attention I think. And she repeatedly supports homeopathy. Maybe she's not bright enough for PM?
Her recent Conference speech was risible.
The Police representative should have been profusely apologising for the synagogue having to do the job the judiciary has failed to.
Why ?
There are plenty of things politicians across the spectrum have said over the years and it’s thrown back at them. It’s part and parcel of the game. Why should she be any different. Her initial apology was hardly sincere and fulsome. It was full of caveats.
It would be welcome if the start of the Conservative Party's return to sanity was to take a sensible and measured approach to law and order in general and prison policy and sentencing in particular.
I did find this detailed report.
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-1904---the-conduct-of-mr-peter-bone-mp.pdf
1) staff are forbidden to physically touch them
2) security staff are forbidden to physically touch them
3) if caught, the justice system imposes small fines, or community punishments that aren’t enforced anyway.
Historically, shop lifters would be physically tackled by staff. Who would then call the police. When staff assaults became an issue, security was brought in. Following cases of assault by security staff, allegations of racist abuse etc, the security staff were increasingly told not to intervene.
So instead of detaining the shop lifters for half an hour until the police arrived, the staff watch as they leave the store. Often being jeered at for doing nothing - if they can provoke a punch from a member of staff, they sue.
The logical next step on this, is physical barriers to entry/exit in stores. This is already happening.
Bone also appears to have done himself no favours by vehemently denying everything at first, even when there was witness evidence for some of it. That meant his denials in respect of conduct in private lacked credibility. Bone went in so strongly on the complainant being a malicious fantasist that, when it turned out some of it was corroborated, it was pretty easy to find the rest was also very probably true. Had he admitted some of the more public behaviour, but stopped short of admitting the private stuff, he might have been able to limit the damage.
"The Cons would be trailing by less in the polls if Boris Johnson had somehow survived..."
Possibly true. Because to have somehow survived, Johnson would have had to not do the things which, since he did do them, meant he didn't survive.
Has it occurred to you there may be a link between your inability to see how we are restricting ourselves, with illiberal Wokeness, and your inability to see the anti-Semitism in that mural?
I'm not accusing you of being as dim as Corbyn, but you do strike me as someone who is quite phenomenally lacking in perception, at times
It's fine. I'm really bad at ice skating and algebra - and much, much else - we all have our faults
--------------
Yes, there's something in that. A friend commented on Suella Braverman's "remarkable" dress during her recent controversial conference speech. I was in the audience but didn't notice anything about her dress - who cares? By contrast, I could repeat lots of what she said, because I was interested in that.
My point, though, was that some of us see things instinctively in political terms rather than ethnic ones, and I dare say Corbyn is another person like that. Some of the "How could you possibly not see..." discussions reflect different ways of looking at stuff. Likewise Liz Truss's necklace or whatever it was, which I remember you thought very significant.
They caught him outside the local chemists.
There’s no right to lifetime employment, and he ceased being an asset to the publication quite some time back.
This was paid for, not free speech, and it’s risible to equate the two things.
These are right by the entry/exit door. So shoplifters now regularly go to the self-checkout, scan all their items, bag them up... and just walk out with their shopping in the bag without paying.
There’s one Tesco local, where the manager physically deals with the shop lifters, semi-regularly. He regards his occasional court appearances as a part of the job - according to the lawyer.
She had an opportunity at the conference to make a good speech. She made a risible one. Just as during her previous goes at being leader when she spoke it revealed her vacuity of thinking. She has achieved nothing as Minister. And she has nothing to say. She also has a problem with the truth. I have said this from the start. That is why I have criticised her.
That is why I have criticised Badenoch - because she too has turned out to be an empty suit. And my views on Braverman have also been clear. There is no-one of any substance in the Tories at present.
His product has taken a small turn in an ugly direction, more recently, but the style is the same.
If you think she has 'vacuity of thinking', by all means attack that. Discounting her because you think her only appeal is that men find her attractive is not a valid or attractive argument, and one that says more about you than her.
He's no loss imo although I know he does have his fans and no doubt there will be letters of protest but I'm sure the Guardian will just shrug and move on.
He is a national treasure.
I'm also not - thank God - a politician making a pre-written speech. I'm just a rando on t'Internet.
BBC Press Office @bbcpress
Blue Peter is 65 years young today! The very first broadcast of the longest running children’s TV show in the world was on 16 October 1958 - Happy Birthday. Read more at https://bbc.in/400f5Fy
https://nitter.net/bbcpress/status/1713839725398692306#m
https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1713974158650950001?s=20
Fuck me. It's like a helicopter gunship turned into a dog. No way should anyone have that on the street, or anywhere else
The owner was, all too predictably, a pathetic man of about 30, 5 foot 5 and with a totally shit car, trying to compensate. Wanker
Looking at district results, PiS look to be down by 6-12 points v 2019, Warsaw still has 23% to count.
https://wybory.gov.pl/sejmsenat2023/en/sejm/wynik/pl
Also, maybe someone with more knowledge of Polish politics than me (Stodge?) - could President Duda (PiS) simply refuse to call Tusk to form a new government, and the current government stays as a caretaker? What happens then? - although the below comments from him could be viewed as positive overall in terms of his role here.
https://tvpworld.com/73458900/president-duda-thanks-poles-for-gigantic-turnout-in-election
Children attacked by XL Bully
https://x.com/BullyWatchUK/status/1712881957300740155?s=20
Two women mauled by XL Bully - hospitalised
https://x.com/BBCNews/status/1713158373502263313?s=20
@zarahsultana
“I have seen kids write their names on the palms of their hands, because when they die they want people to know who they are.”
– An aid worker for @MedicalAidPal speaking in Gaza.
When Israel is given the green-light to commit war crimes, remember what that means.
https://twitter.com/zarahsultana
===
trouble for Starmer in his back yard?
As things escalated in London, they had to make a decision about closing or not closing flood doors on part of the Tube network. Close them, and if the crisis went that way, the people define them would be trapped and drown. Leave them open and many more would drown.
The politicians were quite clear that they would only make a decision that was at no cost to themselves or their position of being caring
So they did nothing. In the game, the tube flooded and hundreds died.
The 18-29 turnout was higher than the 60+.