I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Where's your god now?
I saw the chair of John Calvin in Geneva cathedral. It was a tiny hit of Noom
So my most recent encounter with God was in Geneva Cathedral, at the back, near the shop, if you hurry He might still be there
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
That's a Trumpist Evangelical's definition of atheism .
Would Donald Trump - or any PBers - favor OR oppose the following proposd amendment to the US Constitution:
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Seems like a logical extension of SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade?
I presume that question is based on the hypothesis that 1865 didn't happen?
I don't think it is a logical extension though. But either way, and on whatever issue, hard-coding any rights to that extent into any constitution is foolish. Ultimately, rights rest on popular acceptance and perceived legitimacy. If a right becomes expected but impossible to achieve politically - or popularly unacceptable but impossible to remove - then violence will tend to result.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Where's your god now?
I saw the chair of John Calvin in Geneva cathedral. It was a tiny hit of Noom
So my most recent encounter with God was in Geneva Cathedral, at the back, near the shop, if you hurry He might still be there
I visited Geneva 10 years ago. Also took in Lausanne, and Montreux, sitting next to Freddie Mercury's statue looking out over the Lake.
The only sensible thing now to secure a swift Tory return to power is for a bidding war to commence between the two candidates. Offering sensible policies for a sensible Britain.
Badenoch opened the bidding at 50,000 civil servants in jail. How many would Jenrick jail? Jenrick opened the bidding at £12k in a brown envelope and a tin of grey paint. How many children would Badenoch make cry?
Come on Tories, now is your moment. The crazier and more corrupt to get these two to be, the more certain you can be of returning to power very soon.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
The assumption that Badenoch is a gift to Labour seems very presumptuous. The sight of the centre-left calling her a far-right extremist will look weird to normal people.
An inverse Diane Abbot, if you will, who said that anyone saying she had mad policies was just obviously racist and sexist.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
You've never been to Middlesbrough, then...
Useful staging post for doing the Whitby train line
I'm very impressed that the Conservatives have managed to lose an election which only had Conservatives running in it.
All these tedious, "scathing", repasted remarks from people who aren't Tories or are the reason the Tories fucked up so mightily in GE2024
Cleverly was a centrist Dad Cameroon with no energy or ideas and would have led the Tories nowhere, AGAIN
Jenrick is dislikeable, Badenoch is insane, but... the Tories had to roll the dice. They have correctly done so
Yeah Cleverly was the most likeable of the three imo but he was Foreign and Home under Truss and Sunak neither of whom won a GE. I think the Lib Dems will probably be happiest tbh here.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.
"Looks like Kemi played a blinder. Was likely her team lending votes out to Cleverly to fool Jenrick, so they didn’t gang up on her and knock her out. She slightly overdid the numbers yesterday but played her hand today and comes in as the MPs’ choice and the membership’s. That will make her very strong within the party."
I would just like to refer to @HYUFD comments that Starmer and Davey will be pleased but Farage not so
He has it right on this, and it is simply impossible to come to a definitive conclusion as to how this plays out, not least because Reform are the threat at present
I wanted Cleverly but then I am a one nation conservative but I can understand the largely English based conservative mps coming to the conclusion they want a leader from the right
Curious question. Why do people think Badenoch is mad? Feisty I'll give you. I see three main issues for her at the moment:
1) She's very popular with Tory grassroots. Fairly or otherwise this automatically makes the rest of the country suspicious.
2) She speaks frankly and doesn't consider how her words can be twisted.
3) She's actually very anti populist. Good luck getting the British people to accept an end to cakeism.
I think she doesn't realise that other people aren't going to automatically agree with her, even if she thinks she has a great idea, and so she doesn't realise that she needs to be persuasive. All her opinions are "obvious" to her and she acts as though they should be obvious to everyone else.
I think that if she was convinced this was necessary, and put a bit of work in, she might end up being a very significant politician. A bit of mad can go a long way, if properly directed.
You can judge how successful a move this is likely to be for the Tories from the fact that it's delighted both Luckyguy and Leon.
Er, it really hasn't "delighted" me, at all
I believe this is a sub-standard selection of leaders. Because it is. None of them leaps out (from all six starters) not one of them is without grave flaws
It is a pity Mordaunt lost her seat, if she could have reined in the Wokeness she would have been a stronger contender than all of them
More thoughts:
I personally rather like Patel, but I accept everyone else doesn't. Stride lol. Tugendhat is simply too wet
That leaves the three today. I can see the affable appeal of managerial Cleverly, but I agree with @HYUFD's diagnosis, the Tories need a big new break, and someone energetic and intelligent with a more Reform-friendly outlook, because that is where the immediate danger to the Tories lies
So I am, I suppose, satisfied that Cleverly has gone - but delighted, no
Of the last two I dunno. Jenrick is quite unlikeable, but maybe has a ruthless streak. Badenoch could be a "black Truss", or she could surprise on the upside
Probably I'd go for Badenoch then be ready to dump her in two years if she is indeed insane
Curious question. Why do people think Badenoch is mad? Feisty I'll give you. I see three main issues for her at the moment:
1) She's very popular with Tory grassroots. Fairly or otherwise this automatically makes the rest of the country suspicious.
2) She speaks frankly and doesn't consider how her words can be twisted.
3) She's actually very anti populist. Good luck getting the British people to accept an end to cakeism.
I think she doesn't realise that other people aren't going to automatically agree with her, even if she thinks she has a great idea, and so she doesn't realise that she needs to be persuasive. All her opinions are "obvious" to her and she acts as though they should be obvious to everyone else.
I think that if she was convinced this was necessary, and put a bit of work in, she might end up being a very significant politician. A bit of mad can go a long way, if properly directed.
If she wins, she has four years as LotO to refine herself.
Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?
It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.
Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.
*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.
And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.
Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.
I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.
When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.
Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?
It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.
Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.
*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.
And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.
Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.
I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.
When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.
The problem is with seeing corruption whenever a Conservative breathes, yet you seem to ignore everything by everyone else. As you show in your very post with your look-Tories! paragraph.
When it's a Tory, you see wrong-doing everywhere. Yet you excuse Labour. You don't defend 'non-Conservative corruption' because you don't see it; whilst every Tory is corrupt.
If these claims were being made about a Tory, you would be all over them.
Did you read my post?
RichardDesmondgate is not comparable to Aliigate. Wallpapergate is comparable to Aliigate and I don't care about either.
Of course I read your post.
The problem is in your 'not comparable'; which is where, I fear, you are going wrong.
Do you genuinely believe that Alli's bankrolling of Starmer is equitable to Johnson visiting Lebedev's villa or Ministers's relatives making pots of money on dodgy PPE or Jenrick accepting a (pathetic) £10,000 donation to the Conservative Party for interfering with planning decisions?
And that's your problem.
Let's assume Allie is not an angel, as you assume, but an evil actor. Then *think* about if he was a Tory, and had got his sticky fingers into candidate selection and having a No. 10 pass - as well as all the other access he'd have got. You would be *furious*.
Allie probably is not an evil actor. But if he was one, the influence he has bought is significant.
Then compare that to the stuff you mention.
You assume that because he is Labour, intentions are bad. In the cases above, you assume that as they are Tories, their intentions are evil. This is particularly ridiculous in Johnson's case given his longstanding pro-Ukraine stance.
A Foreign Secretary throws off his minders after a meeting to discuss the Salisbury poisonings by Russia a few days earlier, to attend a party hosted by a one of Putin's circle. He makes the son of Putin's friend ( a KGB Officer) a member of the House of Lords. This is years before Ukraine. For those of us with Johnson derangement syndrome we might suggest that Johnson's enthusiasm for Ukraine was the last throw of the dice for his troubled and dying premiership.
Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?
It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.
Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.
*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.
And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.
Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.
I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.
When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.
Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?
It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.
Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.
*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.
And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.
Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.
I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.
When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.
The problem is with seeing corruption whenever a Conservative breathes, yet you seem to ignore everything by everyone else. As you show in your very post with your look-Tories! paragraph.
When it's a Tory, you see wrong-doing everywhere. Yet you excuse Labour. You don't defend 'non-Conservative corruption' because you don't see it; whilst every Tory is corrupt.
If these claims were being made about a Tory, you would be all over them.
Did you read my post?
RichardDesmondgate is not comparable to Aliigate. Wallpapergate is comparable to Aliigate and I don't care about either.
Of course I read your post.
The problem is in your 'not comparable'; which is where, I fear, you are going wrong.
Do you genuinely believe that Alli's bankrolling of Starmer is equitable to Johnson visiting Lebedev's villa or Ministers's relatives making pots of money on dodgy PPE or Jenrick accepting a (pathetic) £10,000 donation to the Conservative Party for interfering with planning decisions?
And that's your problem.
Let's assume Allie is not an angel, as you assume, but an evil actor. Then *think* about if he was a Tory, and had got his sticky fingers into candidate selection and having a No. 10 pass - as well as all the other access he'd have got. You would be *furious*.
Allie probably is not an evil actor. But if he was one, the influence he has bought is significant.
Then compare that to the stuff you mention.
You assume that because he is Labour, intentions are bad. In the cases above, you assume that as they are Tories, their intentions are evil. This is particularly ridiculous in Johnson's case given his longstanding pro-Ukraine stance.
A Foreign Secretary throws off his minders after a meeting to discuss the Salisbury poisonings by Russia a few days earlier, to attend a party hosted by a one of Putin's circle. He makes the son of Putin's friend ( a KGB Officer) a member of the House of Lords. This is years before Ukraine. For those of us with Johnson derangement syndrome we might suggest that Johnson's enthusiasm for Ukraine was the last throw of the dice for his troubled and dying premiership.
And they got nothing, which is where your little tinfoil-hat rubbish rather falls down. And Johnson could have done lots before 2022 to hurt Ukraine.
Now apply the scepticism you outline above to the Alli situation, and the way he has bought large parts of the government. Why do you assume he is a saint?
So Cleverly lost two votes from yesterday, despite 20 Tugendhat votes being available for redistribution.
Must mean some of yesterday's were lent from other candidates as no way a chunk of Tugendhat voters did not go Cleverly.
Why? To what end? Who gained out of this?
This may not be the most sophisticated electorate in the world but it is certainly the one with the greatest tendency for playing silly buggers.
If the answer to the above genuinely is 'Jenrick lent some votes to Cleverly yesterday to lull him into a false sense of security", well - that's just mad. “Lulling into a false sense of security” is only, only ever used as a joke – it’s not a genuine tactic in any circumstance. This is mad. The fact that it appeared to work doesn’t make it less mad. How has it worked? What has Cleverly done differently, or what have his voters done differently, as a result? It’s not as if, as a Cleverly supporter, you’d think – well, I want Cleverly to win, but I can now see he’s clearly going to win, so I’m now going to vote for one of the others, for reasons – is it? Or that Cleverly voters only vote for him if he remembers to tell them to, and he didn’t bother because he thought he was through so spent the afternoon scrolling youtube shorts instead – is it?
The way this election has unfolded has been incredible. I have enjoyed it tremendously.
On the Tories, stupid choice, although perhaps a necessary one in the circumstances.
They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).
But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.
That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.
Life has purpose. Death has no purpose, except the relief of pain.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.
Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.
Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.
Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).
I'm very impressed that the Conservatives have managed to lose an election which only had Conservatives running in it.
Hugo Rifkind is the biggest centrist dad in the country.
I'm curious as to why this has become an insult and a constituency to be avoided. Surely if centrist dads do exist then they must make up one of the largest pool of voters in the UK? By definition they are centrist so should be in play for the Tories?
On the Tories, stupid choice, although perhaps a necessary one in the circumstances.
They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).
But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.
That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.
If the choice is between aping Farage or being destroyed by Farage perhaps it makes some sense?
I expected the reaction to the result to be like this on here, but I don’t really feel confident to say it’s a disaster for the Tories.
Cleverly was the one who was most likely to get me to consider voting for the party again. But the other two do offer something different - and could go some way to shoring up the right which is one of the things the party needs to address.
I’m doubtful the party will lose many more votes to the LDs than they’ve lost already.
Basically, I’m not personally convinced by either of the candidates and I think they both have downsides, but rolling the dice on something different is a legitimate avenue for the Tories to go down.
Curious question. Why do people think Badenoch is mad? Feisty I'll give you. I see three main issues for her at the moment:
1) She's very popular with Tory grassroots. Fairly or otherwise this automatically makes the rest of the country suspicious.
2) She speaks frankly and doesn't consider how her words can be twisted.
3) She's actually very anti populist. Good luck getting the British people to accept an end to cakeism.
I think she doesn't realise that other people aren't going to automatically agree with her, even if she thinks she has a great idea, and so she doesn't realise that she needs to be persuasive. All her opinions are "obvious" to her and she acts as though they should be obvious to everyone else.
I think that if she was convinced this was necessary, and put a bit of work in, she might end up being a very significant politician. A bit of mad can go a long way, if properly directed.
If she wins, she has four years as LotO to refine herself.
Where did we all see Sir Keir five years ago?
It's been Jenrick all the time with the 50 or so Tory party members I speak to on a daily or weekly basis. But then Cleverly wasn't very good at an event in Cumbria a few years back which some of us attended. Tugenhart was the flavour of our ex MP but he didn't get much traction with members as far as I can see. Members see the primary need within the party to be to come to some modus vivendi along the right not least to make sure we don't have right on right fights in council elections. Winning isn't everything but it sure beats losing.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.
Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.
Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.
Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).
It really doesn't, it's simply a rejection of the idea that there is a God, a supreme being. It's not a credo, nor a design for life.
I would just like to refer to @HYUFD comments that Starmer and Davey will be pleased but Farage not so
He has it right on this, and it is simply impossible to come to a definitive conclusion as to how this plays out, not least because Reform are the threat at present
I wanted Cleverly but then I am a one nation conservative but I can understand the largely English based conservative mps coming to the conclusion they want a leader from the right
Yes this won't win back many votes lost to Labour and the LDs but Tory MPs have taken a gamble to try and win back voters lost to Reform or get some sort of alliance with Farage
So the tories go down the rabbit hole. Labour 1983 Redux. Brilliant news for Labour. Bad for everyone hoping for proper Opposition and decent discourse as opposed to rabid dogs foaming at the mouth.
Labour landslide next General Election.
Oh and p.s. Kamala will win the ECV ‘comfortably’ (i.e. not a landslide but comfortably)
@PippaCrerar One Labour MP texts to ask if the Tory leadership result needs to be declared as a gift...
Always good to see some Labour complacency, after first three months of sheer ineptitude and sleaze. Can't wait to see Starmer face Badenoch. Will be interesting and spicy. I don't think he will handle it well.
Fourth female leader of Conservatives and first black leader, if she wins.
I think she doesn't realise that other people aren't going to automatically agree with her, even if she thinks she has a great idea, and so she doesn't realise that she needs to be persuasive. All her opinions are "obvious" to her and she acts as though they should be obvious to everyone else.
Which is a trait typically seen far more commonly on the Left and particularly within the Leftist commentariat (Owen Jones, James O'Brien, Kevin Maguire...)
But is it necessarily a 'bad' thing?
If enough people share the same underlying view then this kind of 'obviously, it stands to reason...' mentality can play well, and she doesn't need to convince anyone else or win any new friends. Those who are 'wrong' can be dismissed without a moments further thought.
Farage also benefits from this playbook. And many people got the impression that Thatcher did too (even though the truth is that she was incredibly considered in her policy-making).
Would Donald Trump - or any PBers - favor OR oppose the following proposd amendment to the US Constitution:
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Seems like a logical extension of SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade?
I presume that question is based on the hypothesis that 1865 didn't happen?
I don't think it is a logical extension though. But either way, and on whatever issue, hard-coding any rights to that extent into any constitution is foolish. Ultimately, rights rest on popular acceptance and perceived legitimacy. If a right becomes expected but impossible to achieve politically - or popularly unacceptable but impossible to remove - then violence will tend to result.
So the Bill of Rights (US Constitution amendments I-X) was a bad idea, even though it was copied (sorta) from UK?
A small but very significant, intervention which will be of very great benefit for many parents who lost a child. I think there will be an impact on long-term mental health for some.
Despite having bo children myself, I have female relations who have had miscarriages. I've seen a little of the need to acknowledge baby loss, as some CofE parishes I have been associated with have been running once-a-year open services for this group of parishioners going back as far the 1980s.
I'm glad that it's "parent" not "mother".
Something that was brought in in Scotland last year; the rest of us are catching up on this one.
Why would Cleverly go down by 2 votes compared to yesterday, other than tactical voting?
Suppose you are a "senior shadow cabinet minister" with a few good MP friends, who's previously been supporting Cleverly. Jenrick approaches you and offers you the post of shadow Chancellor in return for your support, and that of your half dozen mates. You speak to Cleverly about his plans for his shadow cabinet, and he brushes you off. You switch sides
Or maybe it was as simple as Cleverly making a joke about using rohypnol to rape your wife?
BBC News Channel thinks a hurricane in another continent is more important than British politics.
BBC doesn't want to do anything to promote its enemies
Can you tell the difference between the hurricane and the vote result? Scenes of devastation. People who thought they were home and dry swept away in the torrent.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.
Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.
Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.
Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).
It really doesn't, it's simply a rejection of the idea that there is a God, a supreme being. It's not a credo, nor a design for life.
Yes, it really is the very simplest of religions, and the simplest to understand.
Religion is very little discussed in Britain so most of the time we have no way of knowing what people privately believe – but personally I am always surprised when someone turns out not to be an atheist. I accept there is a lot of generalising-from-self going on here!
A former Tory minister tells me: “I don’t know when the death certificate for the Conservative Party will be issued. But it will be a private funeral with no wake afterwards.” More on @BBCNewsnight feed and on BBC Two 10.30pm
Have the Tories learned nothing from the election?
Something, given Cleverly was Rishi 2. However whether going even further right to win over Reform voters is the best way to win the next GE is debateable
On the Tories, stupid choice, although perhaps a necessary one in the circumstances.
They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).
But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.
That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.
If the choice is between aping Farage or being destroyed by Farage perhaps it makes some sense?
That's what they think. They are, however, wrong.
The fundamental purpose of the Tory party is (or always was) to provide reliable government and not get dragged into ideological battles. That's what the public wants, and expects, from them. Same as it expects Labour to prioritise public services, probably at the expense of the economy.
Yes, Thatcher, blah-de-blah. She won (as Heath didn't) because she spent four years explaining why her policies weren't ideological but practically necessary - which the unions helpfully substantiated in 1978-9. When she did go off the ideological deep end with the Poll Tax, she got the boot.
A former Tory minister tells me: “I don’t know when the death certificate for the Conservative Party will be issued. But it will be a private funeral with no wake afterwards.” More on @BBCNewsnight feed and on BBC Two 10.30pm
They will come back (probably) but it’s now going to be a very long time.
They will lose heavily in 2028/9. Probably even more catastrophically than 2024. Only then will they, possibly, begin the fight back.
But most of those voting for the current leader will be long dead by the time the Conservatives come to their senses and become electable again.
Jason Beer returned today to the Post Office Inquiry. Sad announcement at the start of today's proceedings about the death of a core participant Gillian Blakey.
1) Jenrick supporters voting Cleverly in round 3 in order to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security (I can’t see how this would help Jenrick, unless it resulted in option 2). 2) Cleverly supporters thinking Cleverly was definitely through round 4, and voting for Jenrick because he was seen as a more beatable opponent in round 5 – but too many of them doing so. 3) Badenoch supporters voting for other candidates all through the contest in order that other candidates focus on other opponents, possibly to the extent of options 1 and 2 above happening. 4) All of the above.
Brilliant, Tories. If only you’d put this much strategic thought into running the country these last five years.
I'm very impressed that the Conservatives have managed to lose an election which only had Conservatives running in it.
Hugo Rifkind is the biggest centrist dad in the country.
I'm curious as to why this has become an insult and a constituency to be avoided. Surely if centrist dads do exist then they must make up one of the largest pool of voters in the UK? By definition they are centrist so should be in play for the Tories?
It's unfathomable. The Conservative electoral strategy is apparently to unite pensioners, landlords and the 18 year old male Andrew Tate demographic.
Centrist dads are a bunch of woke lefties who actually work for a living (imagine) and are therefore of no interest to them.
A former Tory minister tells me: “I don’t know when the death certificate for the Conservative Party will be issued. But it will be a private funeral with no wake afterwards.” More on @BBCNewsnight feed and on BBC Two 10.30pm
Probably David Gauke. Sounds like the sort of inane thing he'd say after he has lost again.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
Would Donald Trump - or any PBers - favor OR oppose the following proposd amendment to the US Constitution:
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Seems like a logical extension of SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade?
I presume that question is based on the hypothesis that 1865 didn't happen?
I don't think it is a logical extension though. But either way, and on whatever issue, hard-coding any rights to that extent into any constitution is foolish. Ultimately, rights rest on popular acceptance and perceived legitimacy. If a right becomes expected but impossible to achieve politically - or popularly unacceptable but impossible to remove - then violence will tend to result.
So the Bill of Rights (US Constitution amendments I-X) was a bad idea, even though it was copied (sorta) from UK?
Some were. The 2nd springs obviously to mind. Most, however, are so basic and uncontested as to be sensible to embed at such a high level, and others (eg the 1st) are necessary as to the functioning of the whole thing.
However, those provisions could still (in theory) be repealed by a future amendment, in the same way as they were introduced, and grant all states equal rights in the process. Giving any state a veto over the other 49 would be mad.
On the Tories, stupid choice, although perhaps a necessary one in the circumstances.
They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).
But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.
That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.
If the choice is between aping Farage or being destroyed by Farage perhaps it makes some sense?
I don't think David has thought this out. A lot of people I talk with, like me have thought about this a lot. At the moment Starmer is a sideshow which has to be taken into account but he isn't something we need think about too much at the moment. I assume Jenrick will come to some liaison with Tice and Anderson to maximise the numbers of Right of Centre councillors in the next two years. Probably Starmer will help us. If entreaties to Reform to co-operate are spurned then the spurning will become the issue and the Conservatives will have the answer for 2019 Cons - We tried to work with Farage, but he wouldn't work with us. The choice is then us or Labour. The argument against the Lib Dems is more convoluted but that is more an issue at national level. Ultimately until the Lib Dems touch power at national level they are teflon. As soon as they do as in 2015 they will be near dead, again.
OK I put my hands up, I called this completely wrong.
I thought there was not a snowballs chance in hell of it being Badenoch v Jenrick, as I thought there was no way that Tugendhat/Cleverly (whomever was eliminated) would not transfer to each other by more than they transfer to Badenoch or Jenrick.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.
Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.
Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.
Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).
It really doesn't, it's simply a rejection of the idea that there is a God, a supreme being. It's not a credo, nor a design for life.
I think the problem is that for many people nowadays 'God' has been reduced to various fluffy senses of wonder and mystery. So if you say you're an atheist people like Leon take it to mean you're just a bit hard nosed.
Would Donald Trump - or any PBers - favor OR oppose the following proposd amendment to the US Constitution:
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Seems like a logical extension of SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade?
I presume that question is based on the hypothesis that 1865 didn't happen?
I don't think it is a logical extension though. But either way, and on whatever issue, hard-coding any rights to that extent into any constitution is foolish. Ultimately, rights rest on popular acceptance and perceived legitimacy. If a right becomes expected but impossible to achieve politically - or popularly unacceptable but impossible to remove - then violence will tend to result.
So the Bill of Rights (US Constitution amendments I-X) was a bad idea, even though it was copied (sorta) from UK?
Some were. The 2nd springs obviously to mind. Most, however, are so basic and uncontested as to be sensible to embed at such a high level, and others (eg the 1st) are necessary as to the functioning of the whole thing.
However, those provisions could still (in theory) be repealed by a future amendment, in the same way as they were introduced, and grant all states equal rights in the process. Giving any state a veto over the other 49 would be mad.
To paraphrase, the second amendment is the mechanism by which we hold the government to the first amendment - Dave Chappelle.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
On the Tories, stupid choice, although perhaps a necessary one in the circumstances.
They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).
But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.
That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.
If the choice is between aping Farage or being destroyed by Farage perhaps it makes some sense?
That's what they think. They are, however, wrong.
The fundamental purpose of the Tory party is (or always was) to provide reliable government and not get dragged into ideological battles. That's what the public wants, and expects, from them. Same as it expects Labour to prioritise public services, probably at the expense of the economy.
Yes, Thatcher, blah-de-blah. She won (as Heath didn't) because she spent four years explaining why her policies weren't ideological but practically necessary - which the unions helpfully substantiated in 1978-9. When she did go off the ideological deep end with the Poll Tax, she got the boot.
I'm not sure I've seen much from Badenoch or Jenrick to say they are very ideological. They are both Thatcher admirers which won't go down well with some but what are they proposing that is so un Tory? Leaving the ECHR? The main criticism of doing that is that we'll somehow stand out from the rest of Europe but given it's growing relevance as a living document a debate on it is well overdue.
You just made a cogent argument against protected rights yourself.
OK I put my hands up, I called this completely wrong.
I thought there was not a snowballs chance in hell of it being Badenoch v Jenrick, as I thought there was no way that Tugendhat/Cleverly (whomever was eliminated) would not transfer to each other by more than they transfer to Badenoch or Jenrick.
The biggest problem with this result for the Tories I think is that, rather like Ed Miliband beating David in a weird way, whoever wins will be the one who won after the Tory MPs managed to cock things up and exclude the one candidate who'd genuinely impressed in the campaign, who represented the moderate wing, and was apparently a shoo-in before game playing.
It's a problem for whoever wins in a way it wouldn't be if they'd say beaten Cleverly having had this last bit of a campaign to argue why their more right-wing approach had more merit.
Unless the winner performs miracles they'll always be a case of "ah, but they only picked them after that huge cock up".
OK I put my hands up, I called this completely wrong.
I thought there was not a snowballs chance in hell of it being Badenoch v Jenrick, as I thought there was no way that Tugendhat/Cleverly (whomever was eliminated) would not transfer to each other by more than they transfer to Badenoch or Jenrick.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up
Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.
Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.
Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.
Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).
It really doesn't, it's simply a rejection of the idea that there is a God, a supreme being. It's not a credo, nor a design for life.
I think the problem is that for many people nowadays 'God' has been reduced to various fluffy senses of wonder and mystery. So if you say you're an atheist people like Leon take it to mean you're just a bit hard nosed.
Atheist is nothing more and nothing less than not theist, not religious.
It's not a positive belief in anything, it's not a creed, it's the absence of a religious creed but leaves space for any other one instead.
I'm very impressed that the Conservatives have managed to lose an election which only had Conservatives running in it.
Hugo Rifkind is the biggest centrist dad in the country.
I'm curious as to why this has become an insult and a constituency to be avoided. Surely if centrist dads do exist then they must make up one of the largest pool of voters in the UK? By definition they are centrist so should be in play for the Tories?
The biggest problem with this result for the Tories I think is that, rather like Ed Miliband beating David in a weird way, whoever wins will be the one who won after the Tory MPs managed to cock things up and exclude the one candidate who'd genuinely impressed in the campaign, who represented the moderate wing, and was apparently a shoo-in before game playing.
It's a problem for whoever wins in a way it wouldn't be if they'd say beaten Cleverly having had this last bit of a campaign to argue why their more right-wing approach had more merit.
Unless the winner performs miracles they'll always be a case of "ah, but they only picked them after that huge cock up".
Doesn't really matter though. If the winner isn't performing miracles (or at least appearing somewhat competent) they don't deserve to be PM.
1) Jenrick supporters voting Cleverly in round 3 in order to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security (I can’t see how this would help Jenrick, unless it resulted in option 2). 2) Cleverly supporters thinking Cleverly was definitely through round 4, and voting for Jenrick because he was seen as a more beatable opponent in round 5 – but too many of them doing so. 3) Badenoch supporters voting for other candidates all through the contest in order that other candidates focus on other opponents, possibly to the extent of options 1 and 2 above happening. 4) All of the above.
Brilliant, Tories. If only you’d put this much strategic thought into running the country these last five years.
Perhaps they did. Ending up with the obviously wrong result doesn't seem far off their practice when in government.
I don't think that is necessarily a wrong call, I'm just not sure these are the choices to do it. I think the Tories tacking right have got to do it in terms of - we are going to reclaim our spot as a party of government and administration, we will do policy in detail, work through the wrinkles and pick Reform's ideas to bits systematically.
Does anyone on right of the Tory party have the heft to do that? Jenrick stands an outside chance, Badenoch not a cat in hell's chance.
I do see the best Tory shot being to replicate FdI vs Lega during 18-22: we will be the grown ups making tacking back right work, you are a shambolic clown show (and trust that Reform will oblige). Win 3:1 on the right leaning vote and you have a fine chance.
Comments
So my most recent encounter with God was in Geneva Cathedral, at the back, near the shop, if you hurry He might still be there
This may not be the most sophisticated electorate in the world but it is certainly the one with the greatest tendency for playing silly buggers.
I don't think it is a logical extension though. But either way, and on whatever issue, hard-coding any rights to that extent into any constitution is foolish. Ultimately, rights rest on popular acceptance and perceived legitimacy. If a right becomes expected but impossible to achieve politically - or popularly unacceptable but impossible to remove - then violence will tend to result.
I'm sure Jenrick will, if required to do so.
Badenoch opened the bidding at 50,000 civil servants in jail. How many would Jenrick jail?
Jenrick opened the bidding at £12k in a brown envelope and a tin of grey paint. How many children would Badenoch make cry?
Come on Tories, now is your moment. The crazier and more corrupt to get these two to be, the more certain you can be of returning to power very soon.
I think the Lib Dems will probably be happiest tbh here.
"Looks like Kemi played a blinder. Was likely her team lending votes out to Cleverly to fool Jenrick, so they didn’t gang up on her and knock her out. She slightly overdid the numbers yesterday but played her hand today and comes in as the MPs’ choice and the membership’s. That will make her very strong within the party."
https://order-order.com/2024/10/09/cleverly-voted-out-of-leadership-race/#comments
He has it right on this, and it is simply impossible to come to a definitive conclusion as to how this plays out, not least because Reform are the threat at present
I wanted Cleverly but then I am a one nation conservative but I can understand the largely English based conservative mps coming to the conclusion they want a leader from the right
I think that if she was convinced this was necessary, and put a bit of work in, she might end up being a very significant politician. A bit of mad can go a long way, if properly directed.
I believe this is a sub-standard selection of leaders. Because it is. None of them leaps out (from all six starters) not one of them is without grave flaws
It is a pity Mordaunt lost her seat, if she could have reined in the Wokeness she would have been a stronger contender than all of them
More thoughts:
I personally rather like Patel, but I accept everyone else doesn't. Stride lol. Tugendhat is simply too wet
That leaves the three today. I can see the affable appeal of managerial Cleverly, but I agree with @HYUFD's diagnosis, the Tories need a big new break, and someone energetic and intelligent with a more Reform-friendly outlook, because that is where the immediate danger to the Tories lies
So I am, I suppose, satisfied that Cleverly has gone - but delighted, no
Of the last two I dunno. Jenrick is quite unlikeable, but maybe has a ruthless streak. Badenoch could be a "black Truss", or she could surprise on the upside
Probably I'd go for Badenoch then be ready to dump her in two years if she is indeed insane
Where did we all see Sir Keir five years ago?
Now apply the scepticism you outline above to the Alli situation, and the way he has bought large parts of the government. Why do you assume he is a saint?
The way this election has unfolded has been incredible. I have enjoyed it tremendously.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ry1IjOft95c
They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).
But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.
That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.
And the header hasn`t aged well...
Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.
Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).
Cleverly was the one who was most likely to get me to consider voting for the party again. But the other two do offer something different - and could go some way to shoring up the right which is one of the things the party needs to address.
I’m doubtful the party will lose many more votes to the LDs than they’ve lost already.
Basically, I’m not personally convinced by either of the candidates and I think they both have downsides, but rolling the dice on something different is a legitimate avenue for the Tories to go down.
I suspect some Tug MPs were annoyed Cleverly stole their man's thunder at conference and in yesterday's vote
I've spoken to Tory MPs today who were voting for their preferred *second* candidate in final two - all were working on basis Cleverly was safe.
"The most sophisticated electorate in the world" 🤨
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1844024791759749594
So the tories go down the rabbit hole. Labour 1983 Redux. Brilliant news for Labour. Bad for everyone hoping for proper Opposition and decent discourse as opposed to rabid dogs foaming at the mouth.
Labour landslide next General Election.
Oh and p.s. Kamala will win the ECV ‘comfortably’ (i.e. not a landslide but comfortably)
Fourth female leader of Conservatives and first black leader, if she wins.
Which is a trait typically seen far more commonly on the Left and particularly within the Leftist commentariat (Owen Jones, James O'Brien, Kevin Maguire...)
But is it necessarily a 'bad' thing?
If enough people share the same underlying view then this kind of 'obviously, it stands to reason...' mentality can play well, and she doesn't need to convince anyone else or win any new friends. Those who are 'wrong' can be dismissed without a moments further thought.
Farage also benefits from this playbook. And many people got the impression that Thatcher did too (even though the truth is that she was incredibly considered in her policy-making).
Bereaved parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy in England can now receive a certificate in recognition of their loss.
Ministers say they have listened to bereaved parents who have gone through the painful experience of miscarriage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68353310
A small but very significant, intervention which will be of very great benefit for many parents who lost a child. I think there will be an impact on long-term mental health for some.
Despite having bo children myself, I have female relations who have had miscarriages. I've seen a little of the need to acknowledge baby loss, as some CofE parishes I have been associated with have been running once-a-year open services for this group of parishioners going back as far the 1980s.
I'm glad that it's "parent" not "mother".
Something that was brought in in Scotland last year; the rest of us are catching up on this one.
Kemi Badenoch 4/9
Robert Jenrick 13/8
Okay, children. Who is going to win?
The tories are lunatics.
Or maybe it was as simple as Cleverly making a joke about using rohypnol to rape your wife?
I think Truss had more political savvy than Badenoch.
But I’m splitting hairs. Both appalling and unappealing.
Religion is very little discussed in Britain so most of the time we have no way of knowing what people privately believe – but personally I am always surprised when someone turns out not to be an atheist. I accept there is a lot of generalising-from-self going on here!
A former Tory minister tells me: “I don’t know when the death certificate for the Conservative Party will be issued. But it will be a private funeral with no wake afterwards.” More on @BBCNewsnight feed and on BBC Two 10.30pm
The fundamental purpose of the Tory party is (or always was) to provide reliable government and not get dragged into ideological battles. That's what the public wants, and expects, from them. Same as it expects Labour to prioritise public services, probably at the expense of the economy.
Yes, Thatcher, blah-de-blah. She won (as Heath didn't) because she spent four years explaining why her policies weren't ideological but practically necessary - which the unions helpfully substantiated in 1978-9. When she did go off the ideological deep end with the Poll Tax, she got the boot.
They will lose heavily in 2028/9. Probably even more catastrophically than 2024. Only then will they, possibly, begin the fight back.
But most of those voting for the current leader will be long dead by the time the Conservatives come to their senses and become electable again.
Sobering thought.
Adieu.
xx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbnGva05qN0
1) Jenrick supporters voting Cleverly in round 3 in order to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security (I can’t see how this would help Jenrick, unless it resulted in option 2).
2) Cleverly supporters thinking Cleverly was definitely through round 4, and voting for Jenrick because he was seen as a more beatable opponent in round 5 – but too many of them doing so.
3) Badenoch supporters voting for other candidates all through the contest in order that other candidates focus on other opponents, possibly to the extent of options 1 and 2 above happening.
4) All of the above.
Brilliant, Tories. If only you’d put this much strategic thought into running the country these last five years.
Centrist dads are a bunch of woke lefties who actually work for a living (imagine) and are therefore of no interest to them.
xx
https://x.com/progdirectorate/status/1844037785428377600?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021
However, those provisions could still (in theory) be repealed by a future amendment, in the same way as they were introduced, and grant all states equal rights in the process. Giving any state a veto over the other 49 would be mad.
I thought there was not a snowballs chance in hell of it being Badenoch v Jenrick, as I thought there was no way that Tugendhat/Cleverly (whomever was eliminated) would not transfer to each other by more than they transfer to Badenoch or Jenrick.
I was wrong. Very wrong.
I do not understand the logic of the MPs voting.
You just made a cogent argument against protected rights yourself.
It's a problem for whoever wins in a way it wouldn't be if they'd say beaten Cleverly having had this last bit of a campaign to argue why their more right-wing approach had more merit.
Unless the winner performs miracles they'll always be a case of "ah, but they only picked them after that huge cock up".
It's not a positive belief in anything, it's not a creed, it's the absence of a religious creed but leaves space for any other one instead.
No real clue where price is gonna go in next few days though.
Tory MP Andrew Bowie (backing Badenoch) tells me on @bbc5live
“I can categorically confirm I do not think the candidates are fruit loops.”
"Somebody pushes me, I push back!"
Bhahahahahah
And all you low IQ types dismissed
This was the revenge of Diego Garcia
Got to be Jenrick.
Unless it's Badenoch.
So, they will take on Farage one way or another.
I don't think that is necessarily a wrong call, I'm just not sure these are the choices to do it. I think the Tories tacking right have got to do it in terms of - we are going to reclaim our spot as a party of government and administration, we will do policy in detail, work through the wrinkles and pick Reform's ideas to bits systematically.
Does anyone on right of the Tory party have the heft to do that? Jenrick stands an outside chance, Badenoch not a cat in hell's chance.
I do see the best Tory shot being to replicate FdI vs Lega during 18-22: we will be the grown ups making tacking back right work, you are a shambolic clown show (and trust that Reform will oblige). Win 3:1 on the right leaning vote and you have a fine chance.