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.
Sobering thought.
Adieu.
xx
At the moment Tory MPs are clearly aiming for a deal with Farage rather than a Tory majority, which only Jenrick or Badenoch could do
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.
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.
Baffling isn’t it. I think option two makes the most logical sense.
I kind of assumed, all things equal, that the’d be a Tory right / left top two. As long as Kemi Badenoch was the favourite of the membership she’d win out in the final two. So the left either had to win big - and dare the membership to vote against the choice of the most “sophisticated electorate” going. Or knock her out and fight Jenrick. If that is what has happened then Cleverly really hasn’t lived up to his name.
I am not a Conservative voter so not really my place to care. But I don’t get the sense that either Jenrick or Badenoch will be great at holding Labour to account. Or even that good at building Conservatives back to a place where it can be a credible alternative government. To be sure they may make some of the old guard feel good. They may even put a dent in reform’s progress (although I am sceptical about that). But I guess opposition parties have to go through these spasms - Milliband and Corbyn were hardly roaring successes.
Like taking a leak in your pants - sure it warms you up for a bit, but in the end you are still sat in pee.
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 was wrong. Very wrong.
I do not understand the logic of the MPs voting.
Bernard Ingram (when he was Tony Benn's press sec, not Maggie's) probably applies.
"Why did the minister say that?"
"There is a reason, but this is completely off the record. The reason is that the minister is stark, staring mad."
I mean- even if you think the Conservatives need to head rightwards, are Tawdry Bob and Krazy Kemi really the best they have?
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.
Whether or not they are actually ideologically-driven, they both clearly feel the need to act as if they are.
I'm fine with a debate on the ECHR but it's a side-show to what should be the main focus of politics, which is getting the country working effectively. It's displacement activity and blame-gaming. FWIW, I think it would be a mistake to leave and it's impact on the UK (never mind its negative impact) is very considerably over-rated.
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).
Most atheists are actually agnostics, imho.
They have absence of belief, rather than belief of absence.
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?
The risk is that aping Farage doesn't destroy him, but makes him more powerful.
After all, it validates his worldview. And why go for the off-brand National Populism, when you can have the real thing?
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.
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?
Can you translate that for me?
Quotation is full text of the "Corwin Amendment" proposed by US Rep. Thomas Corwin (R-Ohio) and referred to states via passage by 2/3 of US House and Senate.
In February 1861, following secession of South Carolina and other Deep South states, as part of effort to arrive at a formula that would both maintain the Union AND prevent Civil War. Note that "all other persons" = slaves.
NOTE absence of time limit for ratification, meaning that the Corwin amendent is still legally alive and pending. However, only 5 states actually ratified it (during the Civil War) though 3 subsequently rescinded ratification
Kentucky April 4, 1861 Ohio May 13, 1861(rescinded March 31, 1864) Rhode Island May 31, 1861 Maryland January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014) Illinois June 2, 1863 (rescinded ratification April 4, 2022)
SSI - Am rather shocked (if NOT appalled) that Donald Trump is not urging states to ratify the Corwin amendment; almost certainly reason being that neither he OR his MAGA-maggot comrades have ever heard of it.
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.
Which is bollocks, even if widely believed mythology by Americans.
The Second Amendment never even served its primary purpose: the militias performed poorly in the wars in which they were tried (200+ years ago). And if you start from the premise that the government is the problem, you will always have a problem.
Kemi B will focus on culture war issues (mostly trans but some others)
Bobby J will focus on culture war issues (mostly immigration but some others)
If the public like that they will vote for the Conservatives. If they don't, they won't.
I assume BJ's job (sorry) has the better chance of appealing to Reform voters, which (see my emails passim) is what Con has to do to survive. But as I've been saying for weeks - you may have noticed - if Kemi gets to the last two, she wins. So, interesting times
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).
They lost on both. They lost swing voters on delivery but a whole lot of centre-right voters didn't vote for them because, taken all in all, the last 14 years were pretty Blairite and if you're going to have that you might as well have the genuine article.
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?
As a boring, charisma-free, grasping little lawyer. Was I wrong?
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.
So you’re saying it’s Badenoch, then ?
What’s undeniable is someone lent Cleverly at least two votes - even if it was only those two MPs who abandoned him in this round who did it off their own bat. It could have been either of the other two camps - and it might also have been more than two lent to him, in order to get him to lend a couple of votes to Jenrick in this round. Otherwise you’re assuming he got no switchers at all from Tommy Tug.
Clearly we don’t know. But the vote was extremely close to a third each, and some shenanigans has gone on, as the wild swings in the betting odds also suggests.
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
Atheism is the superior mindset..🧐it's too hard a mindset for most to accept we're just grains of sand in the desert of humanity..so they fall back on the comfort of possible everlasting life..😏
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.
Whether or not they are actually ideologically-driven, they both clearly feel the need to act as if they are.
I'm fine with a debate on the ECHR but it's a side-show to what should be the main focus of politics, which is getting the country working effectively. It's displacement activity and blame-gaming. FWIW, I think it would be a mistake to leave and it's impact on the UK (never mind its negative impact) is very considerably over-rated.
Isn’t the issue that legal challenges appealing to the ECHR are preventing the immigration system from working effectively? Preventing the deportation of convicted criminals because they are likely to face hardship in their countries of origin (no shit), who then go on to commit crimes, sometimes horiffic ones, in this country and require our overcrowded court system to process them and our overcrowded prison system to put them up is an example of a failure of the system to work effectively.
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
Anyhoo, in a rather sad farewell to the times when right-wing American politics was concerned with creating wealth instead of overthrowing democracy, here is two lectures PJ O'Rourke did in 2007 on his book, a digested version of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. He was a lovely writer but he's not a good extemporaneous speaker, but he's adequate when reading from notes so he just about scrapes thru.
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.
Sobering thought.
Adieu.
xx
At the moment Tory MPs are clearly aiming for a deal with Farage rather than a Tory majority, which only Jenrick or Badenoch could do
Do you really want to see the party of Churchill and McMillan turn fash- right?
By the time these clowns have finished all you will have left is the name.
Colour me sceptical but Badenoch and Farage don't strike me as a match made in heaven.
Comments
Genius...
I kind of assumed, all things equal, that the’d be a Tory right / left top two. As long as Kemi Badenoch was the favourite of the membership she’d win out in the final two. So the left either had to win big - and dare the membership to vote against the choice of the most “sophisticated electorate” going. Or knock her out and fight Jenrick. If that is what has happened then Cleverly really hasn’t lived up to his name.
I am not a Conservative voter so not really my place to care. But I don’t get the sense that either Jenrick or Badenoch will be great at holding Labour to account. Or even that good at building Conservatives back to a place where it can be a credible alternative government. To be sure they may make some of the old guard feel good. They may even put a dent in reform’s progress (although I am sceptical about that). But I guess opposition parties have to go through these spasms - Milliband and Corbyn were hardly roaring successes.
Like taking a leak in your pants - sure it warms you up for a bit, but in the end you are still sat in pee.
NEW THREAD
"Why did the minister say that?"
"There is a reason, but this is completely off the record. The reason is that the minister is stark, staring mad."
I mean- even if you think the Conservatives need to head rightwards, are Tawdry Bob and Krazy Kemi really the best they have?
I'm fine with a debate on the ECHR but it's a side-show to what should be the main focus of politics, which is getting the country working effectively. It's displacement activity and blame-gaming. FWIW, I think it would be a mistake to leave and it's impact on the UK (never mind its negative impact) is very considerably over-rated.
They have absence of belief, rather than belief of absence.
After all, it validates his worldview. And why go for the off-brand National Populism, when you can have the real thing?
That is *not* the same as atheist
In February 1861, following secession of South Carolina and other Deep South states, as part of effort to arrive at a formula that would both maintain the Union AND prevent Civil War. Note that "all other persons" = slaves.
NOTE absence of time limit for ratification, meaning that the Corwin amendent is still legally alive and pending. However, only 5 states actually ratified it (during the Civil War) though 3 subsequently rescinded ratification
Kentucky April 4, 1861
Ohio May 13, 1861(rescinded March 31, 1864)
Rhode Island May 31, 1861
Maryland January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014)
Illinois June 2, 1863 (rescinded ratification April 4, 2022)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
Map of US House rollcall vote on final passage of Corwin amendment
https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0360412
Map of US Senate rollcall vote on final passage
https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0360598
SSI - Am rather shocked (if NOT appalled) that Donald Trump is not urging states to ratify the Corwin amendment; almost certainly reason being that neither he OR his MAGA-maggot comrades have ever heard of it.
The Second Amendment never even served its primary purpose: the militias performed poorly in the wars in which they were tried (200+ years ago). And if you start from the premise that the government is the problem, you will always have a problem.
- Kemi B will focus on culture war issues (mostly trans but some others)
- Bobby J will focus on culture war issues (mostly immigration but some others)
- If the public like that they will vote for the Conservatives. If they don't, they won't.
I assume BJ's job (sorry) has the better chance of appealing to Reform voters, which (see my emails passim) is what Con has to do to survive. But as I've been saying for weeks - you may have noticedGiven the voting system, a close to three way split going to the members makes more sense than a 60/30/10 split in the final round.
What’s undeniable is someone lent Cleverly at least two votes - even if it was only those two MPs who abandoned him in this round who did it off their own bat.
It could have been either of the other two camps - and it might also have been more than two lent to him, in order to get him to lend a couple of votes to Jenrick in this round. Otherwise you’re assuming he got no switchers at all from Tommy Tug.
Clearly we don’t know. But the vote was extremely close to a third each, and some shenanigans has gone on, as the wild swings in the betting odds also suggests.
Go Kemi!
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/religion/article/britain-enters-first-atheist-age-as-number-of-non-believers-surges-z93gttwl7
By the time these clowns have finished all you will have left is the name.
Colour me sceptical but Badenoch and Farage don't strike me as a match made in heaven.