Howdy, Stranger!

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

Braverman’s leadership bid is like a visit to a gay bar – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited August 4 in General
Braverman’s leadership bid is like a visit to a gay bar – politicalbetting.com

Tories turn on Suella Braverman: “She’s lost all her mates and pissed off the gays so I think she will bugger off to Reform," a Tory MP said. "She has no chance of being leader and she thinks she is bigger than she is so what is there left for her?”https://t.co/vMXmfx0HyG

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,271
    Were you the only political bettor in the village?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    LGBT is like apples, pears, oranges and crescent wrenches.
  • What a weird post.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,143

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
    All in arseless leather chaps though.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited July 13

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
    A few times when party conferences were held in Manchester we used to decamp to The Village and discussed politics and the relative hotness of some guys.

    We even discussed what 80s songs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would request to the DJ.

    It was a short journey from the conference venue/Midland Hotel to The Village on Portland Street.
  • The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161
    Definitely a Shit or Bust strategy from Braverman. Does she really think that there are enough totally bonkers Tory MPs to put her in the final two?

    Mind, her approach probably makes her a shoo-in with the membership if she does make it that far.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,471

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
    A few times when party conferences were held in Manchester we used to decamp to The Village and discussed politics and the relative hotness of some guys.

    We even discussed what 80s songs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would request to the DJ.

    It was a short journey from the conference venue/Midland Hotel to The Village on Portland Street.
    I guess Blair and Brown would have requested 'Things can only get Wetter', given it was Manchester.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    On our deathbeds, it should be changes like that which give us hope for the world.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,870
    Braverman will be unlikely to get through the Tory MPs round however if she did she would have a chance in the membership vote

    'NEW JLP survey of 500 Conservative members for
    @gbnews


    *Potential matchups*

    Braverman 35% vs Badenoch 32%

    Tugendhat 30% vs Badenoch 30%

    Tugendhat 31% vs Jenrick 25%

    Braverman 37% vs Tugendhat 31%

    Badenoch 34% vs Jenrick 24%'
    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1810999695650471947
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    edited July 13
    HYUFD said:

    Braverman will be unlikely to get through the Tory MPs round however if she did she would have a chance in the membership vote

    'NEW JLP survey of 500 Conservative members for
    @gbnews


    *Potential matchups*

    Braverman 35% vs Badenoch 32%

    Tugendhat 30% vs Badenoch 30%

    Tugendhat 31% vs Jenrick 25%

    Braverman 37% vs Tugendhat 31%

    Badenoch 34% vs Jenrick 24%'
    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1810999695650471947

    Clear evidence that the Tories’ toxic membership should be kept well away from the decision.

    In your own best interests.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    You don't think that it is just because she is totally hatstand then?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,271

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
    "It's the surplus votes
    That really drive you insane
    Let's do a recount again"
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Braverman will be unlikely to get through the Tory MPs round however if she did she would have a chance in the membership vote

    'NEW JLP survey of 500 Conservative members for
    @gbnews


    *Potential matchups*

    Braverman 35% vs Badenoch 32%

    Tugendhat 30% vs Badenoch 30%

    Tugendhat 31% vs Jenrick 25%

    Braverman 37% vs Tugendhat 31%

    Badenoch 34% vs Jenrick 24%'
    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1810999695650471947

    Clear evidence that the Tories’ toxic membership should be kept well away from the decision.

    In your own best interests.
    JohnO and myself had our regular PB Tory lunch today, we heartily agree with you.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Not hating gays is just moral sanity though, it's not part of a commie plot.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    edited July 13
    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    edited July 13
    I'm very unsure even REF would want her.

    She could clearly start an argument in an empty room and you could easily imagine her and Farage butting heads day in and day out...

    EDIT: I think the DUP would probably be a better fit her?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,143
    The least stylish man in Britain, and that's including Fabricant.

    https://x.com/Number10cat/status/1812178016157508045
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808
    The thread header feels more like personal opinion than useful betting advice.

    Clearly at least one Tory MP doesn't like her.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    No regular PB’er can possibly be in want of reading stuff from some twat making shit up.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited July 13
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Braverman will be unlikely to get through the Tory MPs round however if she did she would have a chance in the membership vote

    'NEW JLP survey of 500 Conservative members for
    @gbnews


    *Potential matchups*

    Braverman 35% vs Badenoch 32%

    Tugendhat 30% vs Badenoch 30%

    Tugendhat 31% vs Jenrick 25%

    Braverman 37% vs Tugendhat 31%

    Badenoch 34% vs Jenrick 24%'
    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1810999695650471947

    Clear evidence that the Tories’ toxic membership should be kept well away from the decision.

    In your own best interests.
    Not only do the Tories need a new electorate, they also need a new membership.

    As I mentioned late yesterday, I urged a colleague to join, as they are just the sort of sane centre-right person that the Tories need to drag them back towards sanity.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,114
    Britain's Henry Patten wins the Men's Doubles at Wimbledon, alongside Finland's Harri Heliovaara!

    They defeat Australian pair Thompson and Purcell 6-7, 7-6, 7-6
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    The thread header feels more like personal opinion than useful betting advice.

    Clearly at least one Tory MP doesn't like her.

    Read the article, Danny Krueger and Sir John Hayes have ditched her, they were the cornerstone of her last leadership bid.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
    A few times when party conferences were held in Manchester we used to decamp to The Village and discussed politics and the relative hotness of some guys.

    We even discussed what 80s songs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would request to the DJ.

    It was a short journey from the conference venue/Midland Hotel to The Village on Portland Street.
    I bet you stayed at the YMCA.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    edited July 13
    HYUFD said:

    Braverman will be unlikely to get through the Tory MPs round however if she did she would have a chance in the membership vote

    'NEW JLP survey of 500 Conservative members for
    @gbnews


    *Potential matchups*

    Braverman 35% vs Badenoch 32%

    Tugendhat 30% vs Badenoch 30%

    Tugendhat 31% vs Jenrick 25%

    Braverman 37% vs Tugendhat 31%

    Badenoch 34% vs Jenrick 24%'
    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1810999695650471947

    Other than Jenrick (who's leadership bid looks down and out before he's even got off the ground) they look pretty evenly matched.

    Kemi possibly taken a hit with the membership over her reported "nervous breakdown" comment?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
    A few times when party conferences were held in Manchester we used to decamp to The Village and discussed politics and the relative hotness of some guys.

    We even discussed what 80s songs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would request to the DJ.

    It was a short journey from the conference venue/Midland Hotel to The Village on Portland Street.
    I bet you stayed at the YMCA.
    I've danced to the YMCA but never stayed at one.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sicked the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    Are you really? I remember meeting you in Manchester at a PB meet up many years ago. A very enjoyable evening with Mr Nick Palmer as well (although I missed the threesome, if there was one). I didn't realise how young you must have been.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sicked the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    Are you really? I remember meeting you in Manchester at a PB meet up many years ago. A very enjoyable evening with Mr Nick Palmer as well (although I missed the threesome, if there was one). I didn't realise how young you must have been.
    I had just turned 36 then.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,380
    edited July 13
    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    (sorry I seem to be replying to you twice today. It's not me being a cow, it's genuinely coincidental. Apologies)

    Who are these "Torys" of which you speak? Politics in the 2020s is paternalistic (maternalistic?), revolving around the desires of the boomers, authoritarian and leveraging tech and software advances to suppress people. We've accepted government oversight of our own private life and everyday movement, what we look at and do online,and we did so with glee because it gave us the ability to oppress others. Suella Braverman, despite the performative outrage against her, was merely saying out loud and rudely what had been said more politely previously.

    And that's just the Brits. Whilst the Democrats lounge around enabling a senile who shits his pants whilst dithering over which inadequate to replace him with, the Republicans are fully set up to implement Project 2025 and other darling little hobbyhorses and will hit the ground running on January

    There is no knot of politicians organised and desiring liberty, freedom and the small state. There is no bunch of resistance fighters to ride to the rescue. We just swapped one set of authoritarians with another.

    (as you may tell, I am rather irritated today. Apols :( )
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    Recently, Waddington attended a dinner for about 250 Conservative party members in his local area. “I looked around the room and thought: ‘I might be the only person in this room still alive in 20 years’,” he says. “So in that eventuality, where will the money come from, the outreach, the campaigning?” He thinks that this ageing membership affects policy decisions, too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/13/meet-the-young-tories-fighting-to-change-their-old-party-where-do-we-go-now
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,444
    Chaos at the start of British F4 at Zandvoort.

    https://x.com/VincentJBruins/status/1812129880739303695

    All drivers apparently okay. The cars... less so.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    Chaos at the start of British F4 at Zandvoort.

    https://x.com/VincentJBruins/status/1812129880739303695

    All drivers apparently okay. The cars... less so.

    Pah, that has nothing on the Belgian Grand Prix of 1998.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o02s_g5AUUE
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    viewcode said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    (sorry I seem to be replying to you twice today. It's not me being a cow, it's genuinely coincidental. Apologies)

    Who are these "Torys" of which you speak? Politics in the 2020s is paternalistic (maternalistic?), revolving around the desires of the boomers, authoritarian and leveraging tech and software advances to suppress people. We've accepted government oversight of our own private life and everyday movement, what we look at and do online,and we did so with glee because it gave us the ability to oppress others. Suella Braverman, despite the performative outrage against her, was merely saying out loud and rudely what had been said more politely previously.

    And that's just the Brits. Whilst the Democrats lounge around enabling a senile who shits his pants whilst dithering over which inadequate to replace him with, the Republicans are fully set up to implement Project 2025 and other darling little hobbyhorses and will hit the ground running on January

    There is no knot of politicians organised and desiring liberty, freedom and the small state. There is no bunch of resistance fighters to ride to the rescue. We just swapped one set of authoritarians with another.

    (as you may tell, I am rather irritated today. Apols :( )
    Its a fair cop and projectionism on my part. I would like to think that the Tory party had a lot of people, well, like me. Of course, if they did we would not have had Liz Truss, we certainly would not have had that ridiculous Rwanda nonsense, we would have really tried to deliver on levelling up (and in fairness, for all his many faults, I do think that Boris meant it before Covid came and took all the money) and we would not be wasting time with all this anti-woke nonsense. Hey ho.

    (BTW, I am grateful for your responses, I always find your posts interesting.)
  • ajbajb Posts: 147

    Definitely a Shit or Bust strategy from Braverman. Does she really think that there are enough totally bonkers Tory MPs to put her in the final two?

    Mind, her approach probably makes her a shoo-in with the membership if she does make it that far.

    Does anyone have a good handle on the proportion of different factions in the remaining Tory MPs? I don't suppose we are lucky enough to have lost most of the headbangers?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,945
    edited July 13
    FPT

    https://archive.md/lVXvN

    Sunak held secret talks about Farage Red Wall deal

    The Tories are idiots.

    One of those involved was Craig Williams, but he was probably too busy placing bets on the election date. He ended up coming third behind RefUK.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    DavidL said:

    viewcode said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    (sorry I seem to be replying to you twice today. It's not me being a cow, it's genuinely coincidental. Apologies)

    Who are these "Torys" of which you speak? Politics in the 2020s is paternalistic (maternalistic?), revolving around the desires of the boomers, authoritarian and leveraging tech and software advances to suppress people. We've accepted government oversight of our own private life and everyday movement, what we look at and do online,and we did so with glee because it gave us the ability to oppress others. Suella Braverman, despite the performative outrage against her, was merely saying out loud and rudely what had been said more politely previously.

    And that's just the Brits. Whilst the Democrats lounge around enabling a senile who shits his pants whilst dithering over which inadequate to replace him with, the Republicans are fully set up to implement Project 2025 and other darling little hobbyhorses and will hit the ground running on January

    There is no knot of politicians organised and desiring liberty, freedom and the small state. There is no bunch of resistance fighters to ride to the rescue. We just swapped one set of authoritarians with another.

    (as you may tell, I am rather irritated today. Apols :( )
    Its a fair cop and projectionism on my part. I would like to think that the Tory party had a lot of people, well, like me. Of course, if they did we would not have had Liz Truss, we certainly would not have had that ridiculous Rwanda nonsense, we would have really tried to deliver on levelling up (and in fairness, for all his many faults, I do think that Boris meant it before Covid came and took all the money) and we would not be wasting time with all this anti-woke nonsense. Hey ho.

    (BTW, I am grateful for your responses, I always find your posts interesting.)
    I'd sign up for that manifesto!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808
    edited July 13

    The thread header feels more like personal opinion than useful betting advice.

    Clearly at least one Tory MP doesn't like her.

    Read the article, Danny Krueger and Sir John Hayes have ditched her, they were the cornerstone of her last leadership bid.
    Her last leadership bid got nowhere.

    I don’t think Suella is the full package, but she is being blamed more for pointing out that Sunak was a pile of shit than he is being blamed for being a pile of shit. That's ridiculous and speaks to a party in deep denial. If they still think that they can get by without purging CCHQ of the spotty-little-Osbornite-herbert infestation, they're going to fade to nothing. Nobody wants a party offering Labour and Lib Dem policies but without the hokey charm.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    edited July 13
    i see the site is strenuously ignoring the fact that the Brits most likely to be homophobic are not Tory old people, but British Muslims of all ages

    London is arguably the most homophobic city in the UK. This is why. The level of stupid denial on this site only ever gets worse

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67429132

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rise-lgbtq-hate-crime-london-homophobic-attacks-clapham-brixton-b1112859.html

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-s-gay-rights-trailblazers-reflect-on-current-homophobic-tensions-1.6871961
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,870
    edited July 13
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Braverman will be unlikely to get through the Tory MPs round however if she did she would have a chance in the membership vote

    'NEW JLP survey of 500 Conservative members for
    @gbnews


    *Potential matchups*

    Braverman 35% vs Badenoch 32%

    Tugendhat 30% vs Badenoch 30%

    Tugendhat 31% vs Jenrick 25%

    Braverman 37% vs Tugendhat 31%

    Badenoch 34% vs Jenrick 24%'
    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1810999695650471947

    Clear evidence that the Tories’ toxic membership should be kept well away from the decision.

    In your own best interests.
    Depends who trying to appeal to

    'Among 2019 Tories who voted Labour, the rankings were:

    Boris and Cameron have joint lead with 9% each.
    Nigel Farage on 6%.
    Cleverly, Badenoch, and Tugendhat on 4%.
    The rest trail. Only Jenrick has 0% with this crowd…

    'For Reform defectors:

    Farage with 42%. Naturally…
    Boris and Braverman tied on 12%.
    Badenoch in a distant third with 4%.

    For LibDem movers:

    Boris with 10%. He didn’t just get red wall votes, remember…
    Cameron and Tugendhat joint second on 8%.
    Cleverly just behind on 6%.'

    https://order-order.com/2024/07/12/poll-shows-farage-and-boris-most-likely-to-lure-ex-tory-voters-back/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    No regular PB’er can possibly be in want of reading stuff from some twat making shit up.
    Bit harsh on yourself @IanB2

    Your poignant and sometimes dramatic accounts of your nomadic life with Graham, the dog, have never struck me as fantasy, more as a brutally honest account of the difficulties of human-canine love in a society which Simply Doesn't Understand
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    edited July 13

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    edited July 13
    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    Equally pitiful
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,143
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    A majority of Tories voted against it in Westminster and Holyrood.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808
    This isn't an original thought - something similar was spoken about on the last Spectator TV, but the Tory leadership process is fatally flawed. MPs know that certain candidates are sure to win the members' run-off, so they vote against those candidates to stop them making it that far. That's what happened to Portillo. It means the candidates getting through are the most rubbish, not the best - like Sunak organising Truss to be in the final two with him, only to get his arse handed to him. I don't know what the answer is, short of depriving MPs of their role in the leadership contest. I'm interested in the concept of members selecting a shortlist and MPs voting on it - haven't decided whether I think that would work.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Leon said:

    i see the site is strenuously ignoring the fact that the Brits most likely to be homophobic are not Tory old people, but British Muslims of all ages

    London is arguably the most homophobic city in the UK. This is why. The ignore level of stupid denial on this site only ever gets worse

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67429132

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rise-lgbtq-hate-crime-london-homophobic-attacks-clapham-brixton-b1112859.html

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-s-gay-rights-trailblazers-reflect-on-current-homophobic-tensions-1.6871961

    I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Why has she pissed off the gays?

    Was it in relation to her comments about the Pride flag? Which she associated with the mutilation of children. I wouldn't say the Pride flag exclusively represents that......
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    I do sometimes wonder Leon if you are truly as shallow as you pretend to be. Currently you appear to be about 20 miles wide and 2 inches deep.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Shit, well that's shown me.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808
    ...

    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    I do sometimes wonder Leon if you are truly as shallow as you pretend to be. Currently you appear to be about 20 miles wide and 2 inches deep.
    It's all muscle.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    i see the site is strenuously ignoring the fact that the Brits most likely to be homophobic are not Tory old people, but British Muslims of all ages

    London is arguably the most homophobic city in the UK. This is why. The ignore level of stupid denial on this site only ever gets worse

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67429132

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rise-lgbtq-hate-crime-london-homophobic-attacks-clapham-brixton-b1112859.html

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-s-gay-rights-trailblazers-reflect-on-current-homophobic-tensions-1.6871961

    I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
    You have completely ignored it

    You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist

    If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam

    To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    Chaos at the start of British F4 at Zandvoort.

    https://x.com/VincentJBruins/status/1812129880739303695

    All drivers apparently okay. The cars... less so.

    Zack Scoular is an old school friend of my daughter's: he's just 16 and is racing in the British F4 season. He has a bright future ahead of him.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    edited July 13

    ...

    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    I do sometimes wonder Leon if you are truly as shallow as you pretend to be. Currently you appear to be about 20 miles wide and 2 inches deep.
    It's all muscle.
    Remember, I AM THE WOLF, above the tree-line. Like Nietszschtsche
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,870
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    Ann Widdecombe defected from the Tories to Reform precisely as she felt the Tories didn't want to turn the clock back enough
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Being from an ethnic minority does not mean someone should be treated with any less respect than anyone else.

    But being from an ethnic minority also doesn't mean that someone should be treated with any less scorn and derision when they behave like utter fuckwits.

    Braverman is an utter fuckwit, irrespective of her race. She should be treated accordingly
    Admirable bluntness.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808

    Why has she pissed off the gays?

    Was it in relation to her comments about the Pride flag? Which she associated with the mutilation of children. I wouldn't say the Pride flag exclusively represents that......

    Her overall NatCon speech was quite well delivered, but poorly conceived. She had a watertight case on immigration, and went on LGBT+.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,945
    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    You write novels I thought.
  • Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Virulent ABG?

    She was anti T if anything.

    She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.

    Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.

    I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    You write novels I thought.
    Yes but they are just so fucking BORING! ;)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,239
    Braverman gets one point for using a semicolon




  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,093
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    i see the site is strenuously ignoring the fact that the Brits most likely to be homophobic are not Tory old people, but British Muslims of all ages

    London is arguably the most homophobic city in the UK. This is why. The ignore level of stupid denial on this site only ever gets worse

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67429132

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rise-lgbtq-hate-crime-london-homophobic-attacks-clapham-brixton-b1112859.html

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-s-gay-rights-trailblazers-reflect-on-current-homophobic-tensions-1.6871961

    I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
    Many years ago my then girlfriend witnesses an assault she thought was racist.

    We phoned the police - several other people did.

    When the police arrived (near Leicester Sq, London so about 2 min) a policeman asked who had reported the assault. We put our hands up. Who’d reported it as a racial assault? Again hands.

    He came over, blanked my girlfriend and aggressively told me that it couldn’t be a racist assault since both the attackers and the victim were black. He seemed to have the idea that reporting it as such was an offence.

    At this point, my girlfriend (Ghanaian) interjected that she’d reported it as a racial assault. And being a lawyer, she started naming bits of law….
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    i see the site is strenuously ignoring the fact that the Brits most likely to be homophobic are not Tory old people, but British Muslims of all ages

    London is arguably the most homophobic city in the UK. This is why. The ignore level of stupid denial on this site only ever gets worse

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67429132

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rise-lgbtq-hate-crime-london-homophobic-attacks-clapham-brixton-b1112859.html

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-s-gay-rights-trailblazers-reflect-on-current-homophobic-tensions-1.6871961

    I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
    You have completely ignored it

    You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist

    If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam

    To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
    The idea that these Muslims and African Christian fundamentalists form a significant part of the Tory membership and might have a decisive impact on the selection of the new leader has the advantage of novelty and curiosity but, no, its nonsense.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    You write novels I thought.
    There's a story about Kingsley Amis in his later years

    Apparently he went right off fiction from about the age of 40, accordimg to Martin (and in this, he is like most men)

    He would sit there trying to read a novel, but speaking aloud his frustrations at the fact is it fiction

    "And then Annabel Lennox said"

    Kingsley, interrupting: NO SHE DIDN'T

    "After that we all went to Box Hill"

    Kingsley, interrupting: NO YOU DIDN'T

    And so on

    I entirely sympathise with him. Also, he managed to win a Booker Prize in his later years without ever reading any fiction for several decades (even tho it was for a desperately medicore book). Respect

  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987

    Were you the only political bettor in the village?

    No.
    I now have a vision of a group of political geeks sitting in the corner of a gay bar discussing the finer points of AV, oblivious to their surroundings.
    "It's the surplus votes
    That really drive you insane
    Let's do a recount again"
    I'm now humming that last line to myself as the tune from "Let's face the music and dance"


    Before the ballots have fled,
    But while there's moonlight and music and love and romance,
    Let's do a recount -- again.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Shit, well that's shown me.

    You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were

    1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets

    and

    2) The smoking ban.

    I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.

    Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,840
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    It is at this point that we pause to reflect on the fact that the Conservative backbenchers just installed Bob Blackman as the new chairman of their committee.

    The liberalisation of attitudes under Cameron was evidently an aberration. The Conservative Party is going to respond to defeat by tacking rightwards and indulging religious and other forms of bigotry. They are an enemy to gay people.

    Of course, whilst Labour are better nowadays, we would do well to remember that it was only five years ago that they were led by the former Iranian state TV presenter and celebrity friend of Hamas, one J Corbyn, who was elected and lionised with great enthusiasm by the party membership. They clearly weren't that bothered by how many gays were thrown off tall buildings or strung up from cranes by their Islamist buddies, either.

    The moral of this story - and this applies to all of us, not just the gays - is never, ever to trust politicians to uphold your rights, because they will drop you right in the shit without batting an eyelid if it's convenient to their broader positioning. Be like a boxer, always keep your guard up, always be ready to strike back.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,444
    rcs1000 said:

    Chaos at the start of British F4 at Zandvoort.

    https://x.com/VincentJBruins/status/1812129880739303695

    All drivers apparently okay. The cars... less so.

    Zack Scoular is an old school friend of my daughter's: he's just 16 and is racing in the British F4 season. He has a bright future ahead of him.
    He'll need money behind him if that future's as a racing driver. Lots of good talent gets to the levels below F3/F4 and gets no further - not due to lack of talent, but lack of funding.

    God luck to him though!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    i see the site is strenuously ignoring the fact that the Brits most likely to be homophobic are not Tory old people, but British Muslims of all ages

    London is arguably the most homophobic city in the UK. This is why. The ignore level of stupid denial on this site only ever gets worse

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67429132

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rise-lgbtq-hate-crime-london-homophobic-attacks-clapham-brixton-b1112859.html

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-s-gay-rights-trailblazers-reflect-on-current-homophobic-tensions-1.6871961

    I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
    You have completely ignored it

    You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist

    If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam

    To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
    The idea that these Muslims and African Christian fundamentalists form a significant part of the Tory membership and might have a decisive impact on the selection of the new leader has the advantage of novelty and curiosity but, no, its nonsense.
    I'm talking about the much much larger issue: the impact on gays in daily British life. If we continue down the road of importing Islam, we import more homophobia. It's as simple as that
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    FF43 said:

    Braverman gets one point for using a semicolon




    Negative two points for the failed attempt at an ironic winking smiley though ;-)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    You write novels I thought.
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Apols, I seem to been having trouble with blockquotes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
    People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987

    Why has she pissed off the gays?

    Was it in relation to her comments about the Pride flag? Which she associated with the mutilation of children. I wouldn't say the Pride flag exclusively represents that......

    She's run out of other people to piss off?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Shit, well that's shown me.

    You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were

    1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets

    and

    2) The smoking ban.

    I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.

    Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
    Erm point of order.

    I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,334
    edited July 13
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
    People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
    [Edit}: quite so.

    On the other hand, the C of E *is* an agency of the State - certainly of the Crown - yet its employees are entitled to discriminate.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
    People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
    That's why I would have defined the separation between the two more clearly. To force a collection of religious believers to sanction something that is against their faith is completely incompatible with religious freedom. You may not understand or approve of a religious organisation that doesn't see same sex unions as a sacrament in the same way as they view opposite sex unions, but it's really not your job to approve.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,093

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Being from an ethnic minority does not mean someone should be treated with any less respect than anyone else.

    But being from an ethnic minority also doesn't mean that someone should be treated with any less scorn and derision when they behave like utter fuckwits.

    Braverman is an utter fuckwit, irrespective of her race. She should be treated accordingly
    Indeed, philosophically, to deny someone has the agency to be an utter fuckwit is to dehumanise them. To treat them as not fully human.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517
    edited July 13

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Shit, well that's shown me.

    You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were

    1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets

    and

    2) The smoking ban.

    I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.

    Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
    Erm point of order.

    I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
    Quite so, I was but a lurker at the time, but I remember the kerfuffle. From the off it seemed quite odd, for an Islamist attack - explicitly and zealously aimed at left wing Norwegians? One man with a deep deep plan? That's not the Islamist MO, they go after everyone, en masse, with pure intent to terrorise, a la Bataclan, 9/11. 7/7. Israel's October attack, etc
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    edited July 13
    @BatteryCorrectHorse
    Really?? 🫨🫨
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,986
    edited July 13

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Virulent ABG?

    She was anti T if anything.

    She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.

    Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.

    I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.

    I'm not sure that's true or correct.

    I have a little knowledge of this - for a Council Headquarters building with three flagpoles, one should always have the Union flag. The second usually has the flag or standard of the authority and the third is the one which will have different flags though often the St George's Flag in England if there is nothing else going on.

    There's a strict protocol around which flags are flown and when including PRIDE and Armed Forces Day flags. A Council can fly the flag of a town or area with which it is twinned and especially if there is a twinning ceremony going on. Sometimes the flag of a country which has significant representation in a particular area will be shown - for example, Newham flies the Indian Flag on Republic Day (January 26th this year). All of this will be agreed in advance.

    When Hamas attacked Israel in October last year, there was an instruction from the MHCLG to all Councils to fly the Israeli flag - the problem was not all Councils had an Israeli flag (why would they?).

    The flag flying instructions come from MHCLG not the Home Office.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,093
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
    People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
    [Edit}: quite so.

    On the other hand, the C of E *is* an agency of the State - certainly of the Crown - yet its employees are entitled to discriminate.
    The reason the Church of England was left out was, apart from the issue of the state imposing on religion, the point that if you impose a policy on one religion….
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,334

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
    People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
    That's why I would have defined the separation between the two more clearly. To force a collection of religious believers to sanction something that is against their faith is completely incompatible with religious freedom. You may not understand or approve of a religious organisation that doesn't see same sex unions as a sacrament in the same way as they view opposite sex unions, but it's really not your job to approve.
    OTOH it is very much a Scottish legal tradition to see marriage as a purely civil contract, rather than a religious one. Indeed, for very many years - until the Evangelical revival in the early C19, supported by the majority in Westminster* started to interfere, essentially - there was absolutely no need to involve a minister of religion in one's marriage.

    *terrified of their heirs going to Scotland and getting married there
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Shit, well that's shown me.

    You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were

    1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets

    and

    2) The smoking ban.

    I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.

    Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
    Erm point of order.

    I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
    Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,935

    Leon said:

    fpt

    Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?

    It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint

    If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more

    And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway

    The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck

    I do sometimes wonder Leon if you are truly as shallow as you pretend to be. Currently you appear to be about 20 miles wide and 2 inches deep.
    Well it is worth noting that although he rants on here he doesn't actually do anything about it. Most on here seems to be involved in stuff, you know councillors, campaigners, activists in groups, etc etc.

    We post less and do more.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,334

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?

    It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?

    It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
    It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
    So did I and I'm in my forties.

    I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.

    One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.

    It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
    True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
    For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/03/clause-8-restrictions-on-prosecution#column_1525
    Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
    The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
    People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
    [Edit}: quite so.

    On the other hand, the C of E *is* an agency of the State - certainly of the Crown - yet its employees are entitled to discriminate.
    The reason the Church of England was left out was, apart from the issue of the state imposing on religion, the point that if you impose a policy on one religion….
    OTOH, that sect was the only one which *is* a state sect in the first place.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,239

    Why has she pissed off the gays?

    Was it in relation to her comments about the Pride flag? Which she associated with the mutilation of children. I wouldn't say the Pride flag exclusively represents that......

    Her overall NatCon speech was quite well delivered, but poorly conceived. She had a watertight case on immigration, and went on LGBT+.
    For my sins I read the text of Braverman's speech to NatCon. It's one long moan that she got ignored by people who are more tolerant and generally nicer than she is.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,517

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Shit, well that's shown me.

    You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were

    1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets

    and

    2) The smoking ban.

    I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.

    Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
    Erm point of order.

    I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
    Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
    lol.

    "So OK just replace what I loudly claimed but with an entirely different event at a vastly different time, whatevs, who needs these minor factual details"
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,334

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.

    Yes, it must be that.

    Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.

    For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.

    So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.

    Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.

    Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
    Pathetic, simpering drivel
    Shit, well that's shown me.

    You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were

    1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets

    and

    2) The smoking ban.

    I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.

    Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
    Erm point of order.

    I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
    Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
    Ah, that I do remember well.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    I haven't seen any homophobic comments by Braverman. If I have missed them please signpost me.

    The funny thing is that whilst gay marriage obviously split the Tories when it was introduced, it's effectively become a non-issue now. Unlike the fox hunting ban which Tory leadership contenders down the years have flirted with overturning.

This discussion has been closed.