I find Tugendhat very whiny and his new found zeal to dump the ECHR looks desperate and needy . Cleverly would seem the best candidate to appeal to more of the public.
The risk with Tugendhat is that he tries to cosplay hard-as-nails, because he worries people think he's not, when he's really Mark Darcy.
He should own the Mark Darcy and be himself. FWIW, I don't think he is wet/soft (and has been consistently tough on China) but he can't help the fact he looks wet/soft.
Could he cope with the bullpit of frontline politics as the leader?
Looks soft? Well, maybe. (Perhaps we really need a hard-as-nails lawyer?)
From Wiki:
Tugendhat was promoted to lieutenant on 16 July 2005,[10] captain on 1 April 2007,[11] and to major on 1 January 2010.[12] He became a Territorial Army lieutenant colonel in July 2013.[13] He has been known to wear a tie associated with the Special Boat Service, prompting speculation that for part of his career he may have worked alongside them.[14]
Tugendhat served during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. He served in Afghanistan in a civilian capacity, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and helped set up the National Security Council of Afghanistan and the government in Helmand Province.[15] He later served as one of the military assistants to the Chief of the Defence Staff.[16]
On the second most important thread topic, I see Leon only has to pop up and provide some kind of opinion on news of the day for at least three triggered posters to jump on him with a combination of ad hom and meaningless retorts. Only Richard T actually engaged with the point.
People should calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened.
Why are you threatened by people replying to Leon?
He must enjoy it otherwise he wouldn't post things like his support for neo-nazi Björn Höcke.
I'm interested in peoples' reactions to him. I'm sure he enjoys triggering the simple folk on here and they duly oblige. So carry on pls.
Wait, what? A minute ago your advice was to 'calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened', now its 'carry on pls'
You seem confused. Which would be enjoyable if it wasn't so repetitive.
On the second most important thread topic, I see Leon only has to pop up and provide some kind of opinion on news of the day for at least three triggered posters to jump on him with a combination of ad hom and meaningless retorts. Only Richard T actually engaged with the point.
People should calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened.
Why are you threatened by people replying to Leon?
He must enjoy it otherwise he wouldn't post things like his support for neo-nazi Björn Höcke.
I'm interested in peoples' reactions to him. I'm sure he enjoys triggering the simple folk on here and they duly oblige. So carry on pls.
Wait, what? A minute ago your advice was to 'calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened', now its 'carry on pls'
You seem confused. Which would be enjoyable if it wasn't so repetitive.
Talking of repetitive what of the six posters who come on here daily pointing at the moon telling anyone not too bored to listen what a disaster Keir Starmer is and how certain it is he'll be booted out at the first opportunity.....
Having been in office seven weeks and having done nothing of consequence other than spike the imaginings of a few dreary Telegraph writers it feels quite desperate if not farcical. A long moment of right-wing hysteria..
The irony of these repetitive posters is that not a single one will admit that their EU vote dwarfs any damage Sir Keir could do in five years let alone seven weeks.
The last polling I saw had Cruz only 2% ahead but Democrats have been deluding themselves about their prospects in Texas for nearly all of my adult life and, so far, it has flattered to deceive.
I just liked the ad. There's no market up on the seat yet, AFAIK, and I'd want pretty long odds to bet on it, but it's not impossible.
The idea that Andy Burnham might be held responsible for that bloody shambles yesterday is not particularly rational, tempting though it is.
This is Ted Cruz, though...
When I were a lad Texas was reliably Democratic, as was the rest of the Old South. The switch in US politics has been amazing, and something which observers of politics should take note.
You may live long enough to see it come full circle!
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
The last polling I saw had Cruz only 2% ahead but Democrats have been deluding themselves about their prospects in Texas for nearly all of my adult life and, so far, it has flattered to deceive.
I just liked the ad. There's no market up on the seat yet, AFAIK, and I'd want pretty long odds to bet on it, but it's not impossible.
The idea that Andy Burnham might be held responsible for that bloody shambles yesterday is not particularly rational, tempting though it is.
This is Ted Cruz, though...
When I were a lad Texas was reliably Democratic, as was the rest of the Old South. The switch in US politics has been amazing, and something which observers of politics should take note.
You may live long enough to see it come full circle!
Sadly if the circle is completed, it might have to be soon!
Mr. S, as Sony are finding with Concord, DEI stuff is not necessarily popular even with liberal types.
Apparently it had $250m of funding. And recently had 25,000 sales and concurrent players online of 60. Which is phenomenal, if those stats are all accurate.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
I find Tugendhat very whiny and his new found zeal to dump the ECHR looks desperate and needy . Cleverly would seem the best candidate to appeal to more of the public.
The risk with Tugendhat is that he tries to cosplay hard-as-nails, because he worries people think he's not, when he's really Mark Darcy.
He should own the Mark Darcy and be himself. FWIW, I don't think he is wet/soft (and has been consistently tough on China) but he can't help the fact he looks wet/soft.
Could he cope with the bullpit of frontline politics as the leader?
Looks soft? Well, maybe. (Perhaps we really need a hard-as-nails lawyer?)
He was in the Adjuntant General's Corps and the Intelligence Corps. That's pretty much the definition of soft-as-clarts not hard-as-nails.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
I find Tugendhat very whiny and his new found zeal to dump the ECHR looks desperate and needy . Cleverly would seem the best candidate to appeal to more of the public.
The risk with Tugendhat is that he tries to cosplay hard-as-nails, because he worries people think he's not, when he's really Mark Darcy.
He should own the Mark Darcy and be himself. FWIW, I don't think he is wet/soft (and has been consistently tough on China) but he can't help the fact he looks wet/soft.
Could he cope with the bullpit of frontline politics as the leader?
Looks soft? Well, maybe. (Perhaps we really need a hard-as-nails lawyer?)
He was in the Adjuntant General's Corps and the Intelligence Corps. That's pretty much the definition of soft-as-clarts not hard-as-nails.
No soldier went without paper clips while he was on watch.
Although obvs I have no idea what he did in Iraq or Afghan.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
I find Tugendhat very whiny and his new found zeal to dump the ECHR looks desperate and needy . Cleverly would seem the best candidate to appeal to more of the public.
The risk with Tugendhat is that he tries to cosplay hard-as-nails, because he worries people think he's not, when he's really Mark Darcy.
He should own the Mark Darcy and be himself. FWIW, I don't think he is wet/soft (and has been consistently tough on China) but he can't help the fact he looks wet/soft.
Could he cope with the bullpit of frontline politics as the leader?
Looks soft? Well, maybe. (Perhaps we really need a hard-as-nails lawyer?)
From Wiki:
Tugendhat was promoted to lieutenant on 16 July 2005,[10] captain on 1 April 2007,[11] and to major on 1 January 2010.[12] He became a Territorial Army lieutenant colonel in July 2013.[13] He has been known to wear a tie associated with the Special Boat Service, prompting speculation that for part of his career he may have worked alongside them.[14]
Tugendhat served during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. He served in Afghanistan in a civilian capacity, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and helped set up the National Security Council of Afghanistan and the government in Helmand Province.[15] He later served as one of the military assistants to the Chief of the Defence Staff.[16]
That's one thing that makes me question him. Despite that background, the Commons Foreign affairs committee, which he chaired, was pretty well AWOL on Afghanistan in the year or so before the withdrawal.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
If they're non-political then they don't need to be elected. And regardless of what happens in other countries, if we tried electing a president here it would end up political.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
I personally find the White Privilege concept illuminating and helpful but there's no doubt it triggers people and only some of those are the sort you want to trigger. For the rest (eg people who aren't particularly racist but are rather shallow/insouciant on the subject) it often does the opposite of its intention - instead of making them think it puts their backs up and stops them thinking. They get angry and shut down.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
Other countries seem to manage. I find the disconnect between EDI (see above) and the idea of equality for all and then the existence of someone who is born into being the national head of state to be rather stark, but that's just my bias showing.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
Both their Presidents are also ex politicians, the current German President Steinmeir was even SPD leader against Merkel in 2009 so basically the equivalent over here would be President Miliband or Hague. His predecessor but one as President was Christian Wulff, former CDU leader of Lower Saxony.
Even Higgins was a politician and former Labour member of the Dail and he has been criticised for making too many political and foreign policy statements that a ceremonial head of state should not be making.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
I personally find the White Privilege concept illuminating and helpful but there's no doubt it triggers people and only some of those are the sort you want to trigger. For the rest (eg people who aren't particularly racist but are rather shallow/insouciant on the subject) it often does the opposite of its intention - instead of making them think it puts their backs up and stops them thinking. They get angry and shut down.
Yes, but you'd need a total reprobate with terrible behaviour, a tin ear and abuse of the office to do it.
Edward VIII staying on the throne and being pro-Nazi all through the war, being perhaps exiled and despised by the end, could have led Attlee to junk it.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
It would be beyond amusing if JK Rowling were to offer the BBC a free six-part documentary on her and her work.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
I personally find the White Privilege concept illuminating and helpful but there's no doubt it triggers people and only some of those are the sort you want to trigger. For the rest (eg people who aren't particularly racist but are rather shallow/insouciant on the subject) it often does the opposite of its intention - instead of making them think it puts their backs up and stops them thinking. They get angry and shut down.
I find Tugendhat very whiny and his new found zeal to dump the ECHR looks desperate and needy . Cleverly would seem the best candidate to appeal to more of the public.
The risk with Tugendhat is that he tries to cosplay hard-as-nails, because he worries people think he's not, when he's really Mark Darcy.
He should own the Mark Darcy and be himself. FWIW, I don't think he is wet/soft (and has been consistently tough on China) but he can't help the fact he looks wet/soft.
Could he cope with the bullpit of frontline politics as the leader?
Looks soft? Well, maybe. (Perhaps we really need a hard-as-nails lawyer?)
From Wiki:
Tugendhat was promoted to lieutenant on 16 July 2005,[10] captain on 1 April 2007,[11] and to major on 1 January 2010.[12] He became a Territorial Army lieutenant colonel in July 2013.[13] He has been known to wear a tie associated with the Special Boat Service, prompting speculation that for part of his career he may have worked alongside them.[14]
Tugendhat served during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. He served in Afghanistan in a civilian capacity, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and helped set up the National Security Council of Afghanistan and the government in Helmand Province.[15] He later served as one of the military assistants to the Chief of the Defence Staff.[16]
That's one thing that makes me question him. Despite that background, the Commons Foreign affairs committee, which he chaired, was pretty well AWOL on Afghanistan in the year or so before the withdrawal.
During that period, the Lords Foreign Affairs select committee was complaining the government wasn't listening to their (as it turns out) prescient concerns.
Tugendhat did do quite a lot of pontificating after the event. Being conspicuously wise after the event is not a good look in a politician.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
If they're non-political then they don't need to be elected. And regardless of what happens in other countries, if we tried electing a president here it would end up political.
Lewis Hamilton would be a good president. He's one of the few people who can get the support of gammons and wokes. He's also already as rich as fuck so there should be no Chaz style carrier bags of cash from Qataris.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
Completely this. I see it at the Uni all the time. We are required to do endless courses to make sure we comply with x, y and z. its purely an arse covering by the Uni.
The other side is the abuse of the EDI principles by some. Of our cohort of young people, around a quarter have logged some degree of special requirements around exams, be it extra time, or rest breaks, or extra time + rest breaks. We bend over backwards to help them. The real world tends not to do the same thing. You don't get rest breaks every 30 minutes on the counter in Boots. Some of these students may have genuine issues. Most, I suspect, are just gaming the system to get an advantage.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
I don't think that's the case - it's possible to get exactly the same important points across while speaking British English and not borrowing American terminology. It's a style rather than substance point.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
If they're non-political then they don't need to be elected. And regardless of what happens in other countries, if we tried electing a president here it would end up political.
Political in the broad sense but you could perhaps keep the parties out of it.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
Completely this. I see it at the Uni all the time. We are required to do endless courses to make sure we comply with x, y and z. its purely an arse covering by the Uni.
The other side is the abuse of the EDI principles by some. Of our cohort of young people, around a quarter have logged some degree of special requirements around exams, be it extra time, or rest breaks, or extra time + rest breaks. We bend over backwards to help them. The real world tends not to do the same thing. You don't get rest breaks every 30 minutes on the counter in Boots. Some of these students may have genuine issues. Most, I suspect, are just gaming the system to get an advantage.
You shouldn't be able to get such assistance, without a medical diagnosis and writeup. If the school is giving it without a diagnosis etc, I think they would be in trouble....
The tidal wave of mental health and development problems in the cohorts going through the schools has been remarked upon by everyone involved.
For example, at the private school my youngest goes to, they are spending a lot of money on educating teachers (corse taught by medical professionals) on how to spot and deal with various issues - anxiety to the point of being unable to go to school is one that is a big issue at the moment.
Britons who fly into an apoplectic rage that ‘anti-semites’ blame Israel as well as Hamas would do well to look at events in Israel and reflect that is the one country in the Middle East where it is safe to join a trade union, to be gay, to follow any religion or none, and even to tell the Prime Minister he is a murderous knob.
Once again the BBC being utterly evenhanded between a terrorist organisation and (however much you dislike them) an elected democratic government
The Israeli government says the hostages were shot at close range in the last 48-72 hours. Hamas “disputes this and says they were killed in an Israeli air strike”
That’s going to be a simple question of fact.
Yes, although whether a BBC news crew is best placed to conduct post-mortems is questionable. In any case, it slightly misses the point which is that if there had been a negotiated settlement, the hostages would not have been shot or blown up.
Bluntly speaking the word of a terrorist organisation should be discounted.
A negotiated settlement would be good. Except that Hamas is unwilling to negotiate or step back from their genocidal intent.
You make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
You can only make peace when both sides are willing to settle.
Hamas are not (Bibi - or at least his extreme right flank - doesn’t want to, but can probably be strong armed into a settlement).
Do you really believe that withdrawing from Gaza and giving them self-government, for example, would result in a peaceful democratic society there?
On your first point: Can they?
If Bibi wasn't facing corruption charges, then maybe it would be possible. But his coalition - and his ministers - include people who have openly called for expelling all the Palestinians from the West Bank. Those Settler MPs aren't in any mood to compromise, no matter what the rest of world thinks.
Let's not forget, it was the Right in Israel that killed the last PM to get close to peace with the Palestinians.
Israel has long been willing to trade land for peace and indeed were hoping to do so 10 years after that PM was killed.
There are (left and right) nutters everywhere and one shouldn't look at society threw the lens of a nutter.
You say that, but every month that goes by, they acquire more land in the West Bank.
I am all for defensible Israeli borders. Indeed, the UK should be an ally of Israel in defence of those borders.
But we also need to know where those borders are, rather than allowing them to expand on a monthly basis as settlements are expanded, and the Palestinians there are slowly strangled.
Because the creeping expansion of the settlements is an invasion too.
Yes, but you'd need a total reprobate with terrible behaviour, a tin ear and abuse of the office to do it.
Edward VIII staying on the throne and being pro-Nazi all through the war, being perhaps exiled and despised by the end, could have led Attlee to junk it.
Edward VIII would only have stayed on the throne had the Nazis invaded the UK and Hitler kept him there. Had he remained pro Nazi as King by the time of war he would have been replaced by George VI by Parliament even had Wallace never entered the picture
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
If they're non-political then they don't need to be elected. And regardless of what happens in other countries, if we tried electing a president here it would end up political.
Lewis Hamilton would be a good president. He's one of the few people who can get the support of gammons and wokes. He's also already as rich as fuck so there should be no Chaz style carrier bags of cash from Qataris.
Those funds were for Charles' charities and done when he was Prince of Wales not King
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
I don't think that's the case - it's possible to get exactly the same important points across while speaking British English and not borrowing American terminology. It's a style rather than substance point.
Perhaps ironically, it's a about being culturally sensitive and not using the colonialist mentality of dropping another, bigger culture's issues and behaviour patterns on people.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
Completely this. I see it at the Uni all the time. We are required to do endless courses to make sure we comply with x, y and z. its purely an arse covering by the Uni.
The other side is the abuse of the EDI principles by some. Of our cohort of young people, around a quarter have logged some degree of special requirements around exams, be it extra time, or rest breaks, or extra time + rest breaks. We bend over backwards to help them. The real world tends not to do the same thing. You don't get rest breaks every 30 minutes on the counter in Boots. Some of these students may have genuine issues. Most, I suspect, are just gaming the system to get an advantage.
You shouldn't be able to get such assistance, without a medical diagnosis and writeup. If the school is giving it without a diagnosis etc, I think they would be in trouble....
(Snip)
My best friend at school 35 years ago got extra time in exams due to his dyslexia. Which he openly admitted he did not have; we all knew he did not have, and I think the school suspected it. His dad had got a friend to do the diagnosis, to give his son an advantage.
It wasn't really to anyone's advantage to shop him.
It also makes me think of the many people signed off as being too ill for work.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
I would understand engineer as a code word for technocrat in a political context. She has had plenty of opportunity to be that in her fairly lengthy ministerial career,. She wasn't.
She also thinks the Conservatives failed in the last election because they were too managerial. Which as we are not to supposed to say "is a view", and not a particularly useful one I would suggest if you are trying to renew for 2030. More importantly it cuts across the idea Badenoch is a roll-up-her-sleeves-and-get-things-done kind of girl. Her whole campaign is riven with inconsistency.
I actually think Badenoch's problem isn't so much her pointless aggression, it's her laziness.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
Completely this. I see it at the Uni all the time. We are required to do endless courses to make sure we comply with x, y and z. its purely an arse covering by the Uni.
The other side is the abuse of the EDI principles by some. Of our cohort of young people, around a quarter have logged some degree of special requirements around exams, be it extra time, or rest breaks, or extra time + rest breaks. We bend over backwards to help them. The real world tends not to do the same thing. You don't get rest breaks every 30 minutes on the counter in Boots. Some of these students may have genuine issues. Most, I suspect, are just gaming the system to get an advantage.
You shouldn't be able to get such assistance, without a medical diagnosis and writeup. If the school is giving it without a diagnosis etc, I think they would be in trouble....
The tidal wave of mental health and development problems in the cohorts going through the schools has been remarked upon by everyone involved.
For example, at the private school my youngest goes to, they are spending a lot of money on educating teachers (corse taught by medical professionals) on how to spot and deal with various issues - anxiety to the point of being unable to go to school is one that is a big issue at the moment.
I suspect that if you use the correct form of words, the GP will sign the form. There is no way 1 in 4 of our students has genuine needs of extra time. I even see it in the exams. One is a situation (the student is playing the role of the pharmacist, I play a patient). Nominal time to complete - 10 mins. Extra timers get 25% extra. In almost all cases the extra timers complete in under 10 minutes. Its a ploy.
We also have issues around sit down exams. If the student puts in a claim for mitigating circumstances they can turn a failed exam into a first sit (i.e. the first attempt doesn't count). So the claims fly in - bad back is common, hard to prove, as is migraines.
An other uni found almost all students had some claim so they changed the rule. If you sat the exam you were asserting you were "fit to sit". Our uni lacks the guts to do it, but I wish they would.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Mr. Topping, rather sad we never got to find out how Sharon leading Kadima might've gotten on, both regarding the peace process and reorganising Israel's less than splendid electoral system.
Funny how the PR and coalition advocates rarely mention Israel.
Israel’s election problems are not caused by PR. They are caused by the sharp divided in Israeli society. They would be worse still under a majoritarian electoral system.
On the second most important thread topic, I see Leon only has to pop up and provide some kind of opinion on news of the day for at least three triggered posters to jump on him with a combination of ad hom and meaningless retorts. Only Richard T actually engaged with the point.
People should calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened.
Why are you threatened by people replying to Leon?
He must enjoy it otherwise he wouldn't post things like his support for neo-nazi Björn Höcke.
I'm interested in peoples' reactions to him. I'm sure he enjoys triggering the simple folk on here and they duly oblige. So carry on pls.
Wait, what? A minute ago your advice was to 'calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened', now its 'carry on pls'
You seem confused. Which would be enjoyable if it wasn't so repetitive.
On the second most important thread topic, I see Leon only has to pop up and provide some kind of opinion on news of the day for at least three triggered posters to jump on him with a combination of ad hom and meaningless retorts. Only Richard T actually engaged with the point.
People should calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened.
Why are you threatened by people replying to Leon?
He must enjoy it otherwise he wouldn't post things like his support for neo-nazi Björn Höcke.
I'm interested in peoples' reactions to him. I'm sure he enjoys triggering the simple folk on here and they duly oblige. So carry on pls.
Wait, what? A minute ago your advice was to 'calm down about Leon and not feel so threatened', now its 'carry on pls'
You seem confused. Which would be enjoyable if it wasn't so repetitive.
Talking of repetitive what of the six posters who come on here daily pointing at the moon telling anyone not too bored to listen what a disaster Keir Starmer is and how certain it is he'll be booted out at the first opportunity.....
Having been in office seven weeks and having done nothing of consequence other than spike the imaginings of a few dreary Telegraph writers it feels quite desperate if not farcical. A long moment of right-wing hysteria..
The irony of these repetitive posters is that not a single one will admit that their EU vote dwarfs any damage Sir Keir could do in five years let alone seven weeks.
PS. Yesterday someone posted to say he was being. inundated with rich people wanting to leave the UK because of the damage Sir Keir was doing. We were told we were going to lose the rich people and those great entrepreneurs who have been funding the health serrvice.
They were queuing up at his office in an unknown nirvana so they could get out as fast as they could.
I couldn't work out whether this was Dyson with his overseas vaccuum cleaner business or those losing the £300 winter fuel allowance?
Anyway I'm sure we all had a good laugh ..................well with that and United losing
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
I don't think that's the case - it's possible to get exactly the same important points across while speaking British English and not borrowing American terminology. It's a style rather than substance point.
But, that's taking a risk because it's not the approved terminology to talk about the issues. Just try arguing that 'experience' means the same as 'lived experience' (because that's what experience means) or that 'person of colour' is the same as swapping those words round (which is entirely semantics), or flying the wrong type of pride flag, which changes annually.
It's all about style not substance, and there are plenty who'd ride in behind any criticism of language and they'd almost certainly shout the loudest.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Yes, if we were selecting another PM in power then Tugendhat or Cleverly would probably be my picks.
LOTO is a different skill set though and for that reason while Tugendhat is my preference, followed by Jenrick I also think Patel could be effective
Do the Tories want a potential PM with a vision, a malleable leader who can be pushed around, an entertaining feel good LotO or someone to sell them soothing yarns about righteous they are?
The Bundnis Wagenknecht (BSW) performance is noteworthy. 16% in Thuringia, 12% in Saxony from a standing start.
For those numbskulls who insist on throwing terms like "Left" and "Right" around, BSW are a problem. Socially conservative, anti immigration, nationalist but wanting a strong socialist State. I suspect they are much closer to parts of the AfD voter base than the leaderships of either party would want to admit. I'm not sure where AfD stands on economics/finance for example.
While the parallels are far from obvious and exact, a BSW-style grouping emerging from out of anti-Labour Independents (who are currently more about Gaza) and supporters of a more Corbyn-style approach isn't inconceivable in the UK but unlikely currently.
I sense a schism between the Reform leadership (Farage and Tice) and some of the voters/members. Yes, they can agree on immigration but beyond that, the Thatcherite musings of the leadership don't, I suspect, chime with the membership/voters who want public money spent in WWC areas and were enthusiastic supporters of elements of Johnson' "levelling up" agenda.
Your description of BSW sounds depressingly like the Nazi party in the 1930s. Let's hope that German people aren't seduced by such thinking.
Whereas the AfD is like the Nazi party in the 1940s?
The Bundnis Wagenknecht (BSW) performance is noteworthy. 16% in Thuringia, 12% in Saxony from a standing start.
For those numbskulls who insist on throwing terms like "Left" and "Right" around, BSW are a problem. Socially conservative, anti immigration, nationalist but wanting a strong socialist State. I suspect they are much closer to parts of the AfD voter base than the leaderships of either party would want to admit. I'm not sure where AfD stands on economics/finance for example.
While the parallels are far from obvious and exact, a BSW-style grouping emerging from out of anti-Labour Independents (who are currently more about Gaza) and supporters of a more Corbyn-style approach isn't inconceivable in the UK but unlikely currently.
I sense a schism between the Reform leadership (Farage and Tice) and some of the voters/members. Yes, they can agree on immigration but beyond that, the Thatcherite musings of the leadership don't, I suspect, chime with the membership/voters who want public money spent in WWC areas and were enthusiastic supporters of elements of Johnson' "levelling up" agenda.
I'm mildly intrigued by a party naming itself after an individual. Even arch egoist Galloway would hesitate to see that as a successful strategy yet it at least seems to not be an obstacle in Germany.
It can work here. Did for SNP in 2011 - flagged Alex Salmond in the party descriptor on the ballot papers. "Alex Salmond for First Minister - SNP". Meant they were on the top of the paper too.
Britons who fly into an apoplectic rage that ‘anti-semites’ blame Israel as well as Hamas would do well to look at events in Israel and reflect that is the one country in the Middle East where it is safe to join a trade union, to be gay, to follow any religion or none, and even to tell the Prime Minister he is a murderous knob.
Once again the BBC being utterly evenhanded between a terrorist organisation and (however much you dislike them) an elected democratic government
The Israeli government says the hostages were shot at close range in the last 48-72 hours. Hamas “disputes this and says they were killed in an Israeli air strike”
That’s going to be a simple question of fact.
Yes, although whether a BBC news crew is best placed to conduct post-mortems is questionable. In any case, it slightly misses the point which is that if there had been a negotiated settlement, the hostages would not have been shot or blown up.
Bluntly speaking the word of a terrorist organisation should be discounted.
A negotiated settlement would be good. Except that Hamas is unwilling to negotiate or step back from their genocidal intent.
You make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
You can only make peace when both sides are willing to settle.
Hamas are not (Bibi - or at least his extreme right flank - doesn’t want to, but can probably be strong armed into a settlement).
Do you really believe that withdrawing from Gaza and giving them self-government, for example, would result in a peaceful democratic society there?
On your first point: Can they?
If Bibi wasn't facing corruption charges, then maybe it would be possible. But his coalition - and his ministers - include people who have openly called for expelling all the Palestinians from the West Bank. Those Settler MPs aren't in any mood to compromise, no matter what the rest of world thinks.
Let's not forget, it was the Right in Israel that killed the last PM to get close to peace with the Palestinians.
Israel has long been willing to trade land for peace and indeed were hoping to do so 10 years after that PM was killed.
There are (left and right) nutters everywhere and one shouldn't look at society threw the lens of a nutter.
You say that, but every month that goes by, they acquire more land in the West Bank.
I am all for defensible Israeli borders. Indeed, the UK should be an ally of Israel in defence of those borders.
But we also need to know where those borders are, rather than allowing them to expand on a monthly basis as settlements are expanded, and the Palestinians there are slowly strangled.
Because the creeping expansion of the settlements is an invasion too.
Britons who fly into an apoplectic rage that ‘anti-semites’ blame Israel as well as Hamas would do well to look at events in Israel and reflect that is the one country in the Middle East where it is safe to join a trade union, to be gay, to follow any religion or none, and even to tell the Prime Minister he is a murderous knob.
Once again the BBC being utterly evenhanded between a terrorist organisation and (however much you dislike them) an elected democratic government
The Israeli government says the hostages were shot at close range in the last 48-72 hours. Hamas “disputes this and says they were killed in an Israeli air strike”
That’s going to be a simple question of fact.
Yes, although whether a BBC news crew is best placed to conduct post-mortems is questionable. In any case, it slightly misses the point which is that if there had been a negotiated settlement, the hostages would not have been shot or blown up.
Bluntly speaking the word of a terrorist organisation should be discounted.
A negotiated settlement would be good. Except that Hamas is unwilling to negotiate or step back from their genocidal intent.
You make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
You can only make peace when both sides are willing to settle.
Hamas are not (Bibi - or at least his extreme right flank - doesn’t want to, but can probably be strong armed into a settlement).
Do you really believe that withdrawing from Gaza and giving them self-government, for example, would result in a peaceful democratic society there?
On your first point: Can they?
If Bibi wasn't facing corruption charges, then maybe it would be possible. But his coalition - and his ministers - include people who have openly called for expelling all the Palestinians from the West Bank. Those Settler MPs aren't in any mood to compromise, no matter what the rest of world thinks.
Let's not forget, it was the Right in Israel that killed the last PM to get close to peace with the Palestinians.
Israel has long been willing to trade land for peace and indeed were hoping to do so 10 years after that PM was killed.
There are (left and right) nutters everywhere and one shouldn't look at society threw the lens of a nutter.
You say that, but every month that goes by, they acquire more land in the West Bank.
I am all for defensible Israeli borders. Indeed, the UK should be an ally of Israel in defence of those borders.
But we also need to know where those borders are, rather than allowing them to expand on a monthly basis as settlements are expanded, and the Palestinians there are slowly strangled.
Because the creeping expansion of the settlements is an invasion too.
Absolutely. I think it's a chicken and egg thing.
Some people say that Israel was seeing what would happen and hoping for peace on that flank if they abandoned Gaza in 2005. The subsequent election of Hamas and spiralling violence showed them that there is no point in conceding land if it's not going to bring peace and hence the "sod it" approach to, and expansion in the West Bank. Israel has form in using such circumstances to increase its reach, most notably in 1947-48. At that time all Arab countries were lining up to invade ahead of the UN vote and had already begun operations against the Jewish settlements. The Jews won and thought "sod it" if they want us off the map we are going to expand Israel beyond the agreed settlement remit and hence the "Nakba".
Others say that Israel should have handed back both Gaza and the West Bank and it's no surprise that Hamas fires rockets from Gaza because Israel continues to occupy the West Bank.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
Completely this. I see it at the Uni all the time. We are required to do endless courses to make sure we comply with x, y and z. its purely an arse covering by the Uni.
The other side is the abuse of the EDI principles by some. Of our cohort of young people, around a quarter have logged some degree of special requirements around exams, be it extra time, or rest breaks, or extra time + rest breaks. We bend over backwards to help them. The real world tends not to do the same thing. You don't get rest breaks every 30 minutes on the counter in Boots. Some of these students may have genuine issues. Most, I suspect, are just gaming the system to get an advantage.
You shouldn't be able to get such assistance, without a medical diagnosis and writeup. If the school is giving it without a diagnosis etc, I think they would be in trouble....
The tidal wave of mental health and development problems in the cohorts going through the schools has been remarked upon by everyone involved.
For example, at the private school my youngest goes to, they are spending a lot of money on educating teachers (corse taught by medical professionals) on how to spot and deal with various issues - anxiety to the point of being unable to go to school is one that is a big issue at the moment.
I suspect that if you use the correct form of words, the GP will sign the form. There is no way 1 in 4 of our students has genuine needs of extra time. I even see it in the exams. One is a situation (the student is playing the role of the pharmacist, I play a patient). Nominal time to complete - 10 mins. Extra timers get 25% extra. In almost all cases the extra timers complete in under 10 minutes. Its a ploy.
We also have issues around sit down exams. If the student puts in a claim for mitigating circumstances they can turn a failed exam into a first sit (i.e. the first attempt doesn't count). So the claims fly in - bad back is common, hard to prove, as is migraines.
An other uni found almost all students had some claim so they changed the rule. If you sat the exam you were asserting you were "fit to sit". Our uni lacks the guts to do it, but I wish they would.
GPS shouldn’t be diagnosing dyslexia etc? Surely that is a specialists role?
Do the Tories want a potential PM with a vision, a malleable leader who can be pushed around, an entertaining feel good LotO or someone to sell them soothing yarns about righteous they are?
What they need as a first priority is someone in the Kinnock/Starmer/Howard style. The essential job is to get the party to regenerate, with the expectation of losing well in 2028 and handing over to someone who none of us currently know but who can become Prime Minister in 2033.
Yes, if the government does badly in the next four years, there's a chance of winning the 2029 GE (see Starmer), but that's very much the cherry on top. Think of a football manager who has the job of avoiding relegation but wouldn't mind a run in the Bristol Street Motors Trophy.
Of course nobody can say that out loud, but it's what all the candidates and voters need to be thinking. Whether or not that matches what they want is another matter. Parties often struggle with this on the first attempt.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
If they're non-political then they don't need to be elected. And regardless of what happens in other countries, if we tried electing a president here it would end up political.
Lewis Hamilton would be a good president. He's one of the few people who can get the support of gammons and wokes. He's also already as rich as fuck so there should be no Chaz style carrier bags of cash from Qataris.
175% increase in the number of young black women in 2024 compared to the same period in 2020. 148% increase in the number of registrations of Hispanic women. 7% increase in the number of republicans.
The US system means that new registrations are always likely to peak in Presidential election years but we have never seen anything quite like this. Not even with Obama. It seems likely to me that this huge wave of new registrations are going to make the weighting of the various polling companies somewhat out of touch and they are likely to be underestimating Harris as a result.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Yes, if we were selecting another PM in power then Tugendhat or Cleverly would probably be my picks.
LOTO is a different skill set though and for that reason while Tugendhat is my preference, followed by Jenrick I also think Patel could be effective
The other thing to remember is that this is not the government choosing a Prime Minister. It’s a collection of 80 year old red faced golf club bores in blazers with brass buttons and a regimental tie (does the Pay Corps have a regimental tie?) and their blue rinsed wives in twinsets and pearls, choosing someone who agrees with their particular views.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Lead them where? That is the question. It won't be any nearer to power.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Yes, if we were selecting another PM in power then Tugendhat or Cleverly would probably be my picks.
LOTO is a different skill set though and for that reason while Tugendhat is my preference, followed by Jenrick I also think Patel could be effective
The other thing to remember is that this is not the government choosing a Prime Minister. It’s a collection of 80 year old red faced golf club bores in blazers with brass buttons and a regimental tie (does the Pay Corps have a regimental tie?) and their blue rinsed wives in twinsets and pearls, choosing someone who agrees with their particular views.
Whereas the Labour leader is chosen entirely by men in flat 'hats with whippets voting with chalk marks on the working face of a coal mine.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Lead them where? That is the question. It won't be any nearer to power.
It could hardly be much further from power than Sunak took them.
Do the Tories want a potential PM with a vision, a malleable leader who can be pushed around, an entertaining feel good LotO or someone to sell them soothing yarns about righteous they are?
What they need as a first priority is someone in the Kinnock/Starmer/Howard style. The essential job is to get the party to regenerate, with the expectation of losing well in 2028 and handing over to someone who none of us currently know but who can become Prime Minister in 2033.
Yes, if the government does badly in the next four years, there's a chance of winning the 2029 GE (see Starmer), but that's very much the cherry on top. Think of a football manager who has the job of avoiding relegation but wouldn't mind a run in the Bristol Street Motors Trophy.
Of course nobody can say that out loud, but it's what all the candidates and voters need to be thinking. Whether or not that matches what they want is another matter. Parties often struggle with this on the first attempt.
It's a WW1 "objective for today: kill more Germans" situation. The Conservatives need to get people who are currently supporting Reform, Lib Dems and Labour to switch to them. In big numbers.
Edit. And stop further losses of their own supporters.
Do the Tories want a potential PM with a vision, a malleable leader who can be pushed around, an entertaining feel good LotO or someone to sell them soothing yarns about righteous they are?
What they need as a first priority is someone in the Kinnock/Starmer/Howard style. The essential job is to get the party to regenerate, with the expectation of losing well in 2028 and handing over to someone who none of us currently know but who can become Prime Minister in 2033.
Yes, if the government does badly in the next four years, there's a chance of winning the 2029 GE (see Starmer), but that's very much the cherry on top. Think of a football manager who has the job of avoiding relegation but wouldn't mind a run in the Bristol Street Motors Trophy.
Of course nobody can say that out loud, but it's what all the candidates and voters need to be thinking. Whether or not that matches what they want is another matter. Parties often struggle with this on the first attempt.
Britons who fly into an apoplectic rage that ‘anti-semites’ blame Israel as well as Hamas would do well to look at events in Israel and reflect that is the one country in the Middle East where it is safe to join a trade union, to be gay, to follow any religion or none, and even to tell the Prime Minister he is a murderous knob.
Once again the BBC being utterly evenhanded between a terrorist organisation and (however much you dislike them) an elected democratic government
The Israeli government says the hostages were shot at close range in the last 48-72 hours. Hamas “disputes this and says they were killed in an Israeli air strike”
That’s going to be a simple question of fact.
Yes, although whether a BBC news crew is best placed to conduct post-mortems is questionable. In any case, it slightly misses the point which is that if there had been a negotiated settlement, the hostages would not have been shot or blown up.
Bluntly speaking the word of a terrorist organisation should be discounted.
A negotiated settlement would be good. Except that Hamas is unwilling to negotiate or step back from their genocidal intent.
You make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
You can only make peace when both sides are willing to settle.
Hamas are not (Bibi - or at least his extreme right flank - doesn’t want to, but can probably be strong armed into a settlement).
Do you really believe that withdrawing from Gaza and giving them self-government, for example, would result in a peaceful democratic society there?
On your first point: Can they?
If Bibi wasn't facing corruption charges, then maybe it would be possible. But his coalition - and his ministers - include people who have openly called for expelling all the Palestinians from the West Bank. Those Settler MPs aren't in any mood to compromise, no matter what the rest of world thinks.
Let's not forget, it was the Right in Israel that killed the last PM to get close to peace with the Palestinians.
Israel has long been willing to trade land for peace and indeed were hoping to do so 10 years after that PM was killed.
There are (left and right) nutters everywhere and one shouldn't look at society threw the lens of a nutter.
You say that, but every month that goes by, they acquire more land in the West Bank.
I am all for defensible Israeli borders. Indeed, the UK should be an ally of Israel in defence of those borders.
But we also need to know where those borders are, rather than allowing them to expand on a monthly basis as settlements are expanded, and the Palestinians there are slowly strangled.
Because the creeping expansion of the settlements is an invasion too.
As I said, Israel has been doing this throughout (and before) its history. In a combat/war situation they take advantage of their military superiority to expand their territory or reshape it in the way they want.
But then again, no October 7th, no such expansion as that tweet describes in the West Bank.
Just fell in the longest rapids in the freezing water of the world’s third deepest river canyon. White water canoeing. I’d like to say I shrugged it off with blithe and alpha insouciance but it was bloody terrifying. You are entirely out of control and hurtled down deep churning water towards hideous rocks, again and again
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Yes, if we were selecting another PM in power then Tugendhat or Cleverly would probably be my picks.
LOTO is a different skill set though and for that reason while Tugendhat is my preference, followed by Jenrick I also think Patel could be effective
The other thing to remember is that this is not the government choosing a Prime Minister. It’s a collection of 80 year old red faced golf club bores in blazers with brass buttons and a regimental tie (does the Pay Corps have a regimental tie?) and their blue rinsed wives in twinsets and pearls, choosing someone who agrees with their particular views.
The Tory Party grassroots are quite a wise selectorate. Their problem is what they're given by the MPs. They had Sunak sniffed out as a useless twat far earlier than most here - the trouble is that a gauche political operator (whilst I have respect for her ambition and guts) like Truss was the only other person on the ballot.
Just fell in the longest rapids in the freezing water of the world’s third deepest river canyon. White water canoeing. I’d like to say I shrugged it off with blithe and alpha insouciance but it was bloody terrifying. You are entirely out of control and hurtled down deep churning water towards hideous rocks, again and again
Oh give over it's a well-navigated and popular tourist experience. If you looked to your left or right you might have seen 10-yr olds doing what you were doing and getting at times catapulted into the water.
So now they fuck up the school inspection system. To please the unions
This government is like a bad parody of a bad lefty government
Er no. The school inspection system was already completely fucked up - by the school inspection system.
Unlike some on here I do believe in having an effective inspection system that grades schools and gives parents what the information they ned to make choices. But the current OFSTED regime is not it. One word judgements belong in the Colosseum or the firing squad, not school standards.
At the end of this Labour government English education will be considerably worse and we will likely have followed Scotland down the PISA rankings. This is all about producer interest; pleasing the teacher unions (the same guys that insisted on closing the schools for two years for covid, so they could all lie on the sofa, and now belatedly we realise this has crocked all the kids). We’re fucked
I would like to propose a new PB button, which I shall call the "Moving the goalposts" button.
This is will work alongside the existing "Like" and "Report" buttons, and should be used in the following scenario:
Person A says something Person B produces evidence suggesting A might not be true Person A ignores said evidence completely and instead makes a vaguely related point in a way that suggests they are refuting person B, when they are in fact ignoring whatever point they made
So.
Person A: God Labour have really fucked up the schools inspection service, just look at case X Person B: The schools inspection service was fucked up under the Conservatives, and case X happened when they were in power Person A: Labour are really going to fuck up education, we'll falling down the Pisa Ratings for sure
In this circumstance, I'd invite you all to smash the "Moving the Goalposts" button.
Even after years on here, I still get surprised when I see ardently argued contributions where the writer clearly has just NOT FUCKING READ the post to which they are responding.
Barty's a master of that. Even when you're actually expressing tentative agreement with one of his less contentious ideas, he'll still manage to argue doggedly against whatever he imagines you might have written.
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
Just recall for a moment the agonies the Germans went through to end up without a King of the Germans/HRE/monarchy etc. And ditto the island of Ireland, where the process is by no means complete after a multitude of deaths.
Good luck to them all. But don't ignore the luck which gives us our system too. When you have a head of state who in descent you really can trace back to about 800 AD (no DNA testing please), we should be slow to mess with it.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Lead them where? That is the question. It won't be any nearer to power.
It could hardly be much further from power than Sunak took them.
Nah, that was down to Johnson and Truss. Sunak was a poor PM, but much of that was down to the toxic inheritance he got from his two immediate predecessors.
(I'm of the view that Sunak would still have lost even if he had been a brilliant PM. The country wanted a change, which is one reason why SKS got such a massive majority on a relatively low percentage.)
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Lead them where? That is the question. It won't be any nearer to power.
It could hardly be much further from power than Sunak took them.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are broadly right. Indeed, despite disliking Patel, I can't help wonder if she wouldn't be the best person to lead the Conservatives now.
Yes, if we were selecting another PM in power then Tugendhat or Cleverly would probably be my picks.
LOTO is a different skill set though and for that reason while Tugendhat is my preference, followed by Jenrick I also think Patel could be effective
The other thing to remember is that this is not the government choosing a Prime Minister. It’s a collection of 80 year old red faced golf club bores in blazers with brass buttons and a regimental tie (does the Pay Corps have a regimental tie?) and their blue rinsed wives in twinsets and pearls, choosing someone who agrees with their particular views.
I am not a member of any party, but I have to acknowledge that party membership and its profile is more shaped by people (like me) who don't join one than by those who do. Those who don't participate can't really complain about those who choose to do so. So I don't.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 26m Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 19m She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
These days "engineer" is usually used to describe computer coders, as opposed to cutting steel. I think Dilbert marks the demarcation. Note that Badenoch is a computer sciences graduate
On topic, the time we become a Republic is when a truly useless heir to the throne takes over. It's a lottery, and only a matter of time before another Prince Andrew is first born. It isn't 1688 where we import a distant relative from the Netherlands.
A Monarchy kept in power via apathy and doing nothing remotely interesting is inherently an unstable genetic losing bet.
Rubbish. Our "unstable" Monarchy has lasted for more than 350 years without interruption while the "stable" French have had, just since 1789, 16 constitutions including five republics, four monarchies and a dictatorship. It has survived mad kings, lost wars, political crises, domestic scandals and even Megan Markle and is still about the most popular national institution we have.
You never really know, but William seems pretty stable to me, and is likely to be around for another 40 or so years. Monarchy ain't going nowhere. And least not in most of ours lifetime, for sure.
The medium-to-long term prospects for the institution do look a lot better than they did.
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Without a revolution the monarchy is secure for a very simple reason. No party who is in a position to win an election will put the matter in a manifesto for the same reason they won't promise to double income tax. You increase your chance of losing and don't increase your chance of winning.
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Above all though voters would certainly prefer the King or Prince of Wales to the inevitable President Starmer or President Johnson or President Jenrick etc that would be the alternative.
Fair point, apart from perhaps Starmer, but whoever is elected is only there for four or five years, then has to seek election again. If re-election is allowed. Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
If they're non-political then they don't need to be elected. And regardless of what happens in other countries, if we tried electing a president here it would end up political.
Lewis Hamilton would be a good president. He's one of the few people who can get the support of gammons and wokes. He's also already as rich as fuck so there should be no Chaz style carrier bags of cash from Qataris.
It does look like Stride and Patel have the least momentum and the most likely 2 to go out. From my pov of wanting a sensible Tory party back in business, even if I wouldn't necessary want them in charge of anything, and being quite happy with a decent Lib Dem contingent again:
Stride - is the one who scares me. Sensible, talks like a real person, cares about solutions not just headlines, based in the South West where the Tories are in dire trouble. Good job he'll be the first out.
Patel - do you attack her on the bullying or the unofficial Israel lobbying? Either way, just too much baggage, and notably disloyal as the ship sank. No threat.
Jenrick - do you attack him on painting over the mural for children, or for taking bribes for Richard Desmond's planning permission? Corruption and cruelty. He's clearly got something about him and he's had a decent campaign, but no threat due to his baggage being so acute he won't get a hearing beyond it. He hasn't begun to address either in his campaign.
Cleverly - probably the best chance of holding the Tories together, and forging some purpose. He doesn't look like a revolutionary but strikes me as someone who could surprise on the upside and listen to the wider country. The local Tories here seem to be backing him in numbers, but he's visited multiple times over the past 18 months. Feels he'd be taken seriously in opposition seats.
Tugendhat - clearly a serious contender, but I find him stilted and the 'One Nation' label seems quite skin deep. Not sure he is all that tough and in throwing out red meat to keep the right on board, I suspect he'd be a bit all over the place as leader. Some respect but doesn't scare me as much as the others.
Badenoch - a risky choice but maybe the stand out candidate in the field. She would get heard, and take the fight to the Government. Problem is, she'd also keep the Tories warring and her politics is all about those fights and taking people on. Is she really going to win a battle with Doctor Who? If Labour can stay above the factional fights (big if) she could be yesterday's leader very quickly, just a reminder of the old Tory party who they threw out.
Above all the Tories need an opposition leader with 'oomph' who can really get into Starmer and his government. I don't see any 'oomph' from Stride and Cleverly or even Badenoch really regardless of their ideology and policy
Badenoch does have oomph. It might not be election winning oomph, but she'd probably give them some grief at PMQs. Jenrick seems to have a bit of oomph.
Badenoch does seem to be a very American MAGA-style politician though. It's a mistake I think, one made by both the outer stretches of the right and left, to become so fixated on and embedded in US culture war discourse that sound like they're talking a foreign language.
On a vaguely related topic I just did my online EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) training and found myself getting a bit irritated by parts of it. If someone with unblemished woke liberal credentials like me is finding himself getting irritated that suggests there is an issue.
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
Completely this. I see it at the Uni all the time. We are required to do endless courses to make sure we comply with x, y and z. its purely an arse covering by the Uni.
The other side is the abuse of the EDI principles by some. Of our cohort of young people, around a quarter have logged some degree of special requirements around exams, be it extra time, or rest breaks, or extra time + rest breaks. We bend over backwards to help them. The real world tends not to do the same thing. You don't get rest breaks every 30 minutes on the counter in Boots. Some of these students may have genuine issues. Most, I suspect, are just gaming the system to get an advantage.
You shouldn't be able to get such assistance, without a medical diagnosis and writeup. If the school is giving it without a diagnosis etc, I think they would be in trouble....
The tidal wave of mental health and development problems in the cohorts going through the schools has been remarked upon by everyone involved.
For example, at the private school my youngest goes to, they are spending a lot of money on educating teachers (corse taught by medical professionals) on how to spot and deal with various issues - anxiety to the point of being unable to go to school is one that is a big issue at the moment.
I suspect that if you use the correct form of words, the GP will sign the form. There is no way 1 in 4 of our students has genuine needs of extra time. I even see it in the exams. One is a situation (the student is playing the role of the pharmacist, I play a patient). Nominal time to complete - 10 mins. Extra timers get 25% extra. In almost all cases the extra timers complete in under 10 minutes. Its a ploy.
We also have issues around sit down exams. If the student puts in a claim for mitigating circumstances they can turn a failed exam into a first sit (i.e. the first attempt doesn't count). So the claims fly in - bad back is common, hard to prove, as is migraines.
An other uni found almost all students had some claim so they changed the rule. If you sat the exam you were asserting you were "fit to sit". Our uni lacks the guts to do it, but I wish they would.
GPS shouldn’t be diagnosing dyslexia etc? Surely that is a specialists role?
I never mentioned dyslexia. Its a range of things that are claimed including things such as anxiety etc that are hard to prove/disprove.
Comments
From Wiki:
Tugendhat was promoted to lieutenant on 16 July 2005,[10] captain on 1 April 2007,[11] and to major on 1 January 2010.[12] He became a Territorial Army lieutenant colonel in July 2013.[13] He has been known to wear a tie associated with the Special Boat Service, prompting speculation that for part of his career he may have worked alongside them.[14]
Tugendhat served during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. He served in Afghanistan in a civilian capacity, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and helped set up the National Security Council of Afghanistan and the government in Helmand Province.[15] He later served as one of the military assistants to the Chief of the Defence Staff.[16]
Having been in office seven weeks and having done nothing of consequence other than spike the imaginings of a few dreary Telegraph writers it feels quite desperate if not farcical. A long moment of right-wing hysteria..
The irony of these repetitive posters is that not a single one will admit that their EU vote dwarfs any damage Sir Keir could do in five years let alone seven weeks.
She was answering them so well why have the pulled the plug after only four or five?
Just how finely ground will that be?
I think, fundamentally, they're a beneficiary of the disorientating political whirlwinds. Ironically, the big existential risk comes from geopolitical detente / the re-emergence of consensus politics.
You want peace and love and harmony, Charles?
Are you sure?
Ironically what does it is the use of language and references borrowed from America that just don't scan in a British context. Chief amongst these is the word "privilege". This has a deeply embedded traditional meaning here, which is about poshness. Eton, the royals, the Bullingdon club etc. Yes I know its EDI meaning is different, but you have to spend so much time explaining that when other words would do the job far better. Why keep using it, when the average person's reaction is going to be "I ain't privileged, I grew up in a council house"? Another is the use of pronouns. It's another very American thing. Good for them, but it's not really a feature of British "liberal" (in the US sense) life.
Language is important - that's a pretty key message in EDI. So the language in which concepts are explained should be accessible, unambiguous and familiar. Not alien and emanating from US college campuses.
Trump 1.99 / 2
Harris 2.1 / 2.12
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927
Apparently it had $250m of funding. And recently had 25,000 sales and concurrent players online of 60. Which is phenomenal, if those stats are all accurate.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
26m
Interesting angle from Badenoch, playing herself up as an Engineer.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
19m
She connected being an Engineer to being problem-solver, to being a truth-teller & to prioritising practical outputs that reflect a proper understanding of the theoretical framework. Kinda interesting.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico
And it has nothing to do with majorities. Elections are usually won and lost on the switching of two or three million votes - 5% of the total population. There are enough proper royalists and not enough really keen, deal breaking, republicans. Good.
Buy Harris!!
Although obvs I have no idea what he did in Iraq or Afghan.
That's good to hear, Mrs Badenoch. Can you give us some examples of how you have used these skills in your ministerial career so far?
Despite that background, the Commons Foreign affairs committee, which he chaired, was pretty well AWOL on Afghanistan in the year or so before the withdrawal.
Anyway, the Germans and Irish seem to manage with non-political Presidents.
This short essay on it ("unpacking the invisible knapsack") is a good read imo.
https://www.pcc.edu/illumination/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2018/05/white-privilege-essay-mcintosh.pdf
She was a minister for pretty much all of 2019-24. What did she actually achieve?
Bit late in the year to be offering it as a service.
Ukraine's gas storage open for EU use, Naftogaz CEO assures despite Russian attacks
Despite a decline in gas storage due to stable price forecasts, Naftogaz highlights Ukraine's readiness to help the EU prepare for winter.
https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1830537149508092020
Even Higgins was a politician and former Labour member of the Dail and he has been criticised for making too many political and foreign policy statements that a ceremonial head of state should not be making.
https://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/2023/06/michael-d-higgins-may-have-pushed-his-luck-too-far-with-his-recent-comments-in-irish-foreign-policy-debate/
I'm amused by your implication that anyone who disagrees with you on this are either racist or shallow thinkers.
Perhaps, just perhaps, your views are wrong, and your thinking on why people disagree with you is itself 'shallow'...
Yes, but you'd need a total reprobate with terrible behaviour, a tin ear and abuse of the office to do it.
Edward VIII staying on the throne and being pro-Nazi all through the war, being perhaps exiled and despised by the end, could have led Attlee to junk it.
Mark Tyrrell, 55, charged with 21 offences including sexual assault and misconduct in public office
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/02/met-officer-mark-tyrrell-from-same-unit-as-david-carrick-and-wayne-couzens-charged-with-rape
I think the biggest risk for many organisations is to be seen out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
The safe step is to just do what they did with you as the worst they'll get is grumbles, rather than cancellation.
Tugendhat did do quite a lot of pontificating after the event.
Being conspicuously wise after the event is not a good look in a politician.
The other side is the abuse of the EDI principles by some. Of our cohort of young people, around a quarter have logged some degree of special requirements around exams, be it extra time, or rest breaks, or extra time + rest breaks. We bend over backwards to help them. The real world tends not to do the same thing. You don't get rest breaks every 30 minutes on the counter in Boots. Some of these students may have genuine issues. Most, I suspect, are just gaming the system to get an advantage.
The tidal wave of mental health and development problems in the cohorts going through the schools has been remarked upon by everyone involved.
For example, at the private school my youngest goes to, they are spending a lot of money on educating teachers (corse taught by medical professionals) on how to spot and deal with various issues - anxiety to the point of being unable to go to school is one that is a big issue at the moment.
I am all for defensible Israeli borders. Indeed, the UK should be an ally of Israel in defence of those borders.
But we also need to know where those borders are, rather than allowing them to expand on a monthly basis as settlements are expanded, and the Palestinians there are slowly strangled.
Because the creeping expansion of the settlements is an invasion too.
It wasn't really to anyone's advantage to shop him.
It also makes me think of the many people signed off as being too ill for work.
She also thinks the Conservatives failed in the last election because they were too managerial. Which as we are not to supposed to say "is a view", and not a particularly useful one I would suggest if you are trying to renew for 2030. More importantly it cuts across the idea Badenoch is a roll-up-her-sleeves-and-get-things-done kind of girl. Her whole campaign is riven with inconsistency.
I actually think Badenoch's problem isn't so much her pointless aggression, it's her laziness.
We also have issues around sit down exams. If the student puts in a claim for mitigating circumstances they can turn a failed exam into a first sit (i.e. the first attempt doesn't count). So the claims fly in - bad back is common, hard to prove, as is migraines.
An other uni found almost all students had some claim so they changed the rule. If you sat the exam you were asserting you were "fit to sit". Our uni lacks the guts to do it, but I wish they would.
Though it's not a word that usefully describes the GOP ticket.
They were queuing up at his office in an unknown nirvana so they could get out as fast as they could.
I couldn't work out whether this was Dyson with his overseas vaccuum cleaner business or those losing the £300 winter fuel allowance?
Anyway I'm sure we all had a good laugh ..................well with that and United losing
It's all about style not substance, and there are plenty who'd ride in behind any criticism of language and they'd almost certainly shout the loudest.
No-one wants to take any risks with EDI.
LOTO is a different skill set though and for that reason while Tugendhat is my preference, followed by Jenrick I also think Patel could be effective
The video is made by a settler, so gives a fairly unfiltered view of what's happening.
https://x.com/arnondeg/status/1829602366594900312
Some people say that Israel was seeing what would happen and hoping for peace on that flank if they abandoned Gaza in 2005. The subsequent election of Hamas and spiralling violence showed them that there is no point in conceding land if it's not going to bring peace and hence the "sod it" approach to, and expansion in the West Bank. Israel has form in using such circumstances to increase its reach, most notably in 1947-48. At that time all Arab countries were lining up to invade ahead of the UN vote and had already begun operations against the Jewish settlements. The Jews won and thought "sod it" if they want us off the map we are going to expand Israel beyond the agreed settlement remit and hence the "Nakba".
Others say that Israel should have handed back both Gaza and the West Bank and it's no surprise that Hamas fires rockets from Gaza because Israel continues to occupy the West Bank.
You pays your money...
“You would make a good Dalek”
Yes, if the government does badly in the next four years, there's a chance of winning the 2029 GE (see Starmer), but that's very much the cherry on top. Think of a football manager who has the job of avoiding relegation but wouldn't mind a run in the Bristol Street Motors Trophy.
Of course nobody can say that out loud, but it's what all the candidates and voters need to be thinking. Whether or not that matches what they want is another matter. Parties often struggle with this on the first attempt.
175% increase in the number of young black women in 2024 compared to the same period in 2020. 148% increase in the number of registrations of Hispanic women. 7% increase in the number of republicans.
The US system means that new registrations are always likely to peak in Presidential election years but we have never seen anything quite like this. Not even with Obama. It seems likely to me that this huge wave of new registrations are going to make the weighting of the various polling companies somewhat out of touch and they are likely to be underestimating Harris as a result.
Edit. And stop further losses of their own supporters.
Can you now sing that in the club style?
But then again, no October 7th, no such expansion as that tweet describes in the West Bank.
So who's at fault.
NEW THREAD
It's hardly Kontiki.
Good luck to them all. But don't ignore the luck which gives us our system too. When you have a head of state who in descent you really can trace back to about 800 AD (no DNA testing please), we should be slow to mess with it.
(I'm of the view that Sunak would still have lost even if he had been a brilliant PM. The country wanted a change, which is one reason why SKS got such a massive majority on a relatively low percentage.)