If there was gameplaying in the final two leadership votes we should probably not assume it worked as those playing intended. Maybe a bunch wanted it to be Cleverly and Badenoch but got too clever for their own good.
Twats. Silly little game-playing twats.
Take comfort that the winner will not lead them into the election.
Ha, about as even handed as your takes on American politics recently.
Most of us on here are not the demographic the new Tory leader needs to attract.
Wouldn’t have voted for either of them if I had a vote in this election, and they might yet prevent me voting Tory next time in the GE (jury is out on that for nearly five years) but I also think there is every chance they will get the Tories into the 30s.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Most of us on here are not the demographic the new Tory leader needs to attract.
Wouldn’t have voted for either of them if I had a vote in this election, and they might yet prevent me voting Tory next time in the GE (jury is out on that for nearly five years) but I also think there is every chance they will get the Tories into the 30s.
That might be all they need.
I suspect the Tories will gain from buyers remorse. Now that we can all see what a hopeless bunch The Labour front bench are and since the Tories got such a damned good kicking I suspect pissed off Tories might hold their noses and give them a chance again,
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Most of us on here are not the demographic the new Tory leader needs to attract.
Wouldn’t have voted for either of them if I had a vote in this election, and they might yet prevent me voting Tory next time in the GE (jury is out on that for nearly five years) but I also think there is every chance they will get the Tories into the 30s.
That might be all they need.
I suspect the Tories will gain from buyers remorse. Now that we can all see what a hopeless bunch The Labour front bench are and since the Tories got such a damned good kicking I suspect pissed off Tories might hold their noses and give them a chance again,
Pretty much that on its own gets them level with Labour, given Keir's landslide was on such a flimsy vote share.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
Im for Badenoch as she is black and a woman, This means I can laugh at the racist misogynists led by Starmer
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I don't really think that argument stacks up. There is a distinction between belief and knowledge. You're quite right that it's not terribly rational to say I "know" God exists or not - we all must accept the limitations of science at this time and the reality that something could happen to change our view.
But it does appear to me to be possible not to have a belief about something. "Belief" implies a level of confidence or trust that something is likely to be true, and a level of consistency over time.
I accept the strict linguistic point about "atheism" in the sense that the word technically encompasses everything that isn't theism. But it seems to me there is a difference between someone who believes there is no God and someone who doesn't have any (or has no consistent) view on the matter.
You may think there is a difference but both are atheists.
Which is the point, atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the absence of one. It covers the set of people of everyone who is not a theist, without any regimented beliefs or orthodoxies.
Closed minded ignorant theists trying to pigeonhole atheism into something they dislike which it's not is just them showing their ignorance.
I think a big, potential difference between agnostics and atheists is the level of credence they'd probably give to God existing. I'd consider myself an agnostic for instance because I'm pretty on the fence whether there is a 'creator being' of some kind or not. With Dawkins, by comparison, his level of credence would be near 0. Of course, you might get an agnostic who thinks the probability of there being God is only around 10% or so and just has a preference for the term of agnostic rather than atheist. But I think the point is that there probably a good chunk of agnostics (like myself) who'd be uncomfortable being referred to as atheists.
One less-uninteresting thing about Dawkins is that he varies categories within "atheist" - he has long called himself a "protestant atheist". I'm not clear precisely what he means as he tends to word-salad a bit, but that's his chosen label.
There has long been an atheist movement within Christianity. In the Church of England this has been embodied in the Sea of Faith network.
Writers associated are people like Don Cupitt, John Hick and Maurice Wiles.
Perhaps in recent memory most prominent in the book The Myth of God Incarnate, which is a lovely punny title containing at least 3 different simultaneous meanings.
All an indication that it is nothing like as simplistic as some would pretend.
Dawkins is right to draw attention to the multi faceted nature of religion. Religion engages with 'world views' - metaphysics and beliefs, it is also culture in its aspects of society formation, devotion, values, historical narrative, identity, and also the setter through history of developing collective moral frameworks. In this regard its existence is inescapable - as the popular recent literature of books like Tom Holland's 'Dominion' indicate.
Where Dawkins is sub-optimal is believing that he is good at arguing philosophically and theologically. It's toe curling.
I tend to think that Dawkins' core skills are causing a kerfuffle and gazing lovingly in the mirror. He wasn't even a particularly good scientist, if you read his record.
That may perhaps be slightly harsh .
I'm always amused that he seemed to make more money from property he inherited, than from everything else.
Better writer than scientist?
Had one idea, which wasn't entirely new, and managed to write several books about it.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
Im for Badenoch as she is black and a woman, This means I can laugh at the racist misogynists led by Starmer
Not only that but (speaking as someone who's married to one) black woman conservatives do not take *any* shit. A lot of criticism of Kemi so far seems to me to be to be - unintentionally - semi-cultural in that that's the way they behave. She's too gracious to bring this up but maybe some useful idiots in the Labour party who recognise it will. And yes then we can laugh.
Some more of the abruptness is that compsci/engineering background and being from that background myself (along with various other posters here methinks) I'm very interested in what an *actual* technocrat can do in power.
Those are the positive reasons to go Kemi. But they're still not quite as important as the negative reasons to vote against Jenrick, and preferably have him sent to Chad, bankrupt.
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I don't really think that argument stacks up. There is a distinction between belief and knowledge. You're quite right that it's not terribly rational to say I "know" God exists or not - we all must accept the limitations of science at this time and the reality that something could happen to change our view.
But it does appear to me to be possible not to have a belief about something. "Belief" implies a level of confidence or trust that something is likely to be true, and a level of consistency over time.
I accept the strict linguistic point about "atheism" in the sense that the word technically encompasses everything that isn't theism. But it seems to me there is a difference between someone who believes there is no God and someone who doesn't have any (or has no consistent) view on the matter.
You may think there is a difference but both are atheists.
Which is the point, atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the absence of one. It covers the set of people of everyone who is not a theist, without any regimented beliefs or orthodoxies.
Closed minded ignorant theists trying to pigeonhole atheism into something they dislike which it's not is just them showing their ignorance.
I think a big, potential difference between agnostics and atheists is the level of credence they'd probably give to God existing. I'd consider myself an agnostic for instance because I'm pretty on the fence whether there is a 'creator being' of some kind or not. With Dawkins, by comparison, his level of credence would be near 0. Of course, you might get an agnostic who thinks the probability of there being God is only around 10% or so and just has a preference for the term of agnostic rather than atheist. But I think the point is that there probably a good chunk of agnostics (like myself) who'd be uncomfortable being referred to as atheists.
One less-uninteresting thing about Dawkins is that he varies categories within "atheist" - he has long called himself a "protestant atheist". I'm not clear precisely what he means as he tends to word-salad a bit, but that's his chosen label.
There has long been an atheist movement within Christianity. In the Church of England this has been embodied in the Sea of Faith network.
Writers associated are people like Don Cupitt, John Hick and Maurice Wiles.
Perhaps in recent memory most prominent in the book The Myth of God Incarnate, which is a lovely punny title containing at least 3 different simultaneous meanings.
All an indication that it is nothing like as simplistic as some would pretend.
I'm a Protestant atheist of the more umcompromising sort. Catholicism and Orthodoxy leave me cold. If my religious loins could be stirred, they would be stirred by the austere whitewashed chapels of the far North West of Scotland, or perhaps of the cinematic churches of the deep south. The only religious song which has ever inspired me is Johmny Cash's "When the man comes around".
Ha! I'll join you in that. I'm a solid Wee Free atheist.
No fripperies, and only a long walk to and from Kirk on a Sunday.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Actually it will get boring very quickly.
How could anything get more boring than Starmer ?
As you have referenced Starmer hundreds of times since the election, essentially a repetition of the same comment every time, I would assume he holds an enormous fascination for you?
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
My thinking is based on the feeling that buttering people up works, even if the buttering up is trivial in the grander scheme of things. It shouldn't influence someone so rich, but I'd bet it does.
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
Which is just claiming that agnosticism is a meaningless concept.
Kind of, yes. Because it's obvious that we cannot know. We can only believe (despite no evidence) or not believe (because of no evidence). But neither believers nor non believers can know. Thus we are all agnostics in addition to being believers or non believers. Agnosticism is not some additional third way between the two.
Except that agnosticism and atheism are not equal. Atheism is the disavowal of possibility without evidence. Atheism is therefore fundamentally irrational. Agnosticism allows an open mind rather than a closed one.
No, atheism is just a lack of belief in god. The "but one can't know" goes without saying.
Nope, atheism is the belief in a lack of gods. Not the same thing at all.
God or gods. Whatever.
God is a subset of gods (which is itself a subset of higher power).
"William Burroughs - Consider the Impasse of a One God Universe"
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Actually it will get boring very quickly.
How could anything get more boring than Starmer ?
As you have referenced Starmer hundreds of times since the election, essentially a repetition of the same comment every time, I would assume he holds an enormous fascination for you?
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Actually it will get boring very quickly.
How could anything get more boring than Starmer ?
As you have referenced Starmer hundreds of times since the election, essentially a repetition of the same comment every time, I would assume he holds an enormous fascination for you?
I simply force you to defend the indefensible.
I have at least four more years enjoyment as you rush to defend the pillock and I havent even had time to follow up on Chagos yet
Suspect the key thing is that they haven't decided anything, really. None of the candidates have fully convinced.
Share of MPs backing each leader in final round of Con leadership contests: Sunak (2022): 38% Truss (2022): 32% Johnson (2019): 51% May (2016): 61% Cameron (2005): 46% IDS (2001): 33%
So much for my "two lane, neither the centre-right or the right have enough votes to completely exclude the other from the final round" theory.
So I guess the question is why? Is it that the Parliamentary Conservative Party is a lot more right-wing than expected? Closer to 80:40 than 60:60? For example, did the mild manner, glasses and foreign-sounding name make us misplace Tugendhat as much more centrist than he was? Or has someone been messing with our minds all along? Or did Team Cleverly do something really stupid in today's round?
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Actually it will get boring very quickly.
How could anything get more boring than Starmer ?
As you have referenced Starmer hundreds of times since the election, essentially a repetition of the same comment every time, I would assume he holds an enormous fascination for you?
Alanbrooke is the answer to his own question
Well done Scott, you thought that one for yourself
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
You might be influenced if you expected a biscuit and didn't get one.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
My thinking is based on the feeling that buttering people up works, even if the buttering up is trivial in the grander scheme of things. It shouldn't influence someone so rich, but I'd bet it does.
I just bought another €2 beer in this bar because the owner bought me some peanuts and I felt sad about his empty bar. Apparently there was a murder here in 1978 and it's not been popular since.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
LOL, the drone factory where they added the bombs to the drones, and is more than 1,000 miles from Ukraine.
The Russians will be hoping that’s an infiltration or special forces operation, because they really don’t want to know that the Ukranians can have targets this far away.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Actually it will get boring very quickly.
How could anything get more boring than Starmer ?
As you have referenced Starmer hundreds of times since the election, essentially a repetition of the same comment every time, I would assume he holds an enormous fascination for you?
I simply force you to defend the indefensible.
I have at least four more years enjoyment as you rush to defend the pillock and I havent even had time to follow up on Chagos yet
Pace yourself, I feel you may be absolutely spent by budget week.
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
My thinking is based on the feeling that buttering people up works, even if the buttering up is trivial in the grander scheme of things. It shouldn't influence someone so rich, but I'd bet it does.
I just bought another €2 beer in this bar because the owner bought me some peanuts and I felt sad about his empty bar. Apparently there was a murder here in 1978 and it's not been popular since.
So I'm easily manipulated by, literally, peanuts.
"Polly, who was present at the scene of the murder, still remembers what happened in graphic detail. She recounts how a sailor from Honduras called Jorge Adalberto Prince intervened in a fight between an Algerian and a Maltese to calm them off. The end result was unexpected. As Prince and the Algerian wore an identical suit, bought from the same shop downtown, in the confusion the Maltese mistook Prince for the Algerian and Prince suffered a deadly blow. The 18-year old sailor was killed by mistake."
AP (via Seattle Times) - Oklahoma amends request for Bibles that appeared to match Trump-backed version
OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma has amended its request for 55,000 Bibles to be placed in public schools that initially matched a version of the holy book endorsed by former President Donald Trump.
The request was amended Monday and no longer requires the Bibles to include U.S. historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — requirements that match the “God Bless the USA Bible” that Trump endorsed this year and that are several times more expensive than similar Bibles that don’t include the U.S. documents.
The new request says the historical documents may be included together or separately and extends the deadline for offers to supply the items by one week, from Oct. 14 to Oct. 21.
The request is part of State Superintendent Ryan Walters’ efforts to require Bibles in public school classrooms, which has been met with resistance by some of Oklahoma’s largest school districts.
Walters, in a Monday video on X, said the Bible will be used “because of its historical significance throughout this nation’s history,” blaming what he called the “fake news media” for lies about the program.
“The left-wing media hates Donald Trump so much, and they hate the Bible so much, they will lie and go to any means necessary to stop this initiative from happening,” Walters said.
Walters’ spokesperson, Dan Issett, said in a statement that the changes to the “request for proposal,” or RFP, were suggested by the Office of Management and Enterprise Services, which issues the requests and were agreed to by Walters.
“Unfortunately, there have been false reports that have been repeated by numerous, supposedly credible, news organizations that the state’s RFP was catered to one specific organization,” Issett said, noting that tailoring the request so that only one manufacturer’s Bible would qualify would be illegal.
Christa Helfrey, a spokesperson for OMES, said the changes were made to the request to try to save taxpayer money.
The initial request included requirements that are not commonly found in Bibles but are included in the “God Bless the USA Bible,” which Trump urged his supporters to begin buying earlier this year at a website that sells the book for $59.99.
The Bibles must be bound in “leather or leather-like material for durability,” according to the initial request.
Similar Bibles that don’t include the Declaration of Independence or Constitution are available online for less than $20.
SSI - Question: BUT in those cheap Bibles, are the Words of Trump printed in red?
There's only 121 Tory MPs left, but the amount of infighting and backstabbing that appears to have gone in during this leadership contest looks incredible. They're all going to end up hating each other. It's amazing. They're making Trotskyists look united and emollient.
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
If that is the case it is really just a mistake on detail for an event he would have been told about as a child forty years ago (yes, it was that long ago).
There's only 121 Tory MPs left, but the amount of infighting and backstabbing that appears to have gone in during this leadership contest looks incredible. They're all going to end up hating each other. It's amazing. They're making Trotskyists look united and emollient.
They already hate each other
EDIT: Whoever wins, at least 2/3 of Tory MPs didn't want them to
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
Actually it will get boring very quickly.
How could anything get more boring than Starmer ?
As you have referenced Starmer hundreds of times since the election, essentially a repetition of the same comment every time, I would assume he holds an enormous fascination for you?
I simply force you to defend the indefensible.
I have at least four more years enjoyment as you rush to defend the pillock and I havent even had time to follow up on Chagos yet
Pace yourself, I feel you may be absolutely spent by budget week.
There's only 121 Tory MPs left, but the amount of infighting and backstabbing that appears to have gone in during this leadership contest looks incredible. They're all going to end up hating each other. It's amazing. They're making Trotskyists look united and emollient.
When I listened to the results of the first round of voting and they announced the number of people who'd voted I honestly thought "Jeez - are most of their MPs not interested?". Then remembered that a turnout of ~120 was the entire parliamentary group.
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
You might be influenced if you expected a biscuit and didn't get one.
Did you say peerage, when you meant to say biscuit?
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
If that is the case it is really just a mistake on detail for an event he would have been told about as a child forty years ago (yes, it was that long ago).
It was and it is soon corrected
Though he would have been 20 at the time and no doubt very aware of the campaign
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
If that is the case it is really just a mistake on detail for an event he would have been told about as a child forty years ago (yes, it was that long ago).
It was and it is soon corrected
Though he would have been 20 at the time and no doubt very aware of the campaign
But probably also with other things to think about.
But the main thing is simple; correct the record quickly, no harm done.
If someone else had been capable of that, he might still be PM today.
There's only 121 Tory MPs left, but the amount of infighting and backstabbing that appears to have gone in during this leadership contest looks incredible. They're all going to end up hating each other. It's amazing. They're making Trotskyists look united and emollient.
They already hate each other
EDIT: Whoever wins, at least 2/3 of Tory MPs didn't want them to
And the secret will be in whether they can unite behind the new leader and also just how that leader performs v labour
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
HMS Antelope did more than sink. It exploded in a fireball. Not something his uncle might forget one would have thought. I wonder if maybe some exaggeration might be going on with Sir Keir's recollection of his uncle?. Surely not!
There's only 121 Tory MPs left, but the amount of infighting and backstabbing that appears to have gone in during this leadership contest looks incredible. They're all going to end up hating each other. It's amazing. They're making Trotskyists look united and emollient.
When I spoke to TT he insisted all the candidates were friends, go to each other's houses for dinner, are god parents of children etc,
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
Im for Badenoch as she is black and a woman, This means I can laugh at the racist misogynists led by Starmer
Not only that but (speaking as someone who's married to one) black woman conservatives do not take *any* shit. A lot of criticism of Kemi so far seems to me to be to be - unintentionally - semi-cultural in that that's the way they behave. She's too gracious to bring this up but maybe some useful idiots in the Labour party who recognise it will. And yes then we can laugh.
Some more of the abruptness is that compsci/engineering background and being from that background myself (along with various other posters here methinks) I'm very interested in what an *actual* technocrat can do in power.
Those are the positive reasons to go Kemi. But they're still not quite as important as the negative reasons to vote against Jenrick, and preferably have him sent to Chad, bankrupt.
To be fair, there is certainly a case for Kemi.
She cuts through and is authentic. A rather splendid contrast with dull old condescending Sir Keir who had better take especial care or the "has a problem with women" charge could stick. May, just possibly, get the time of day from younger voters esp women. Could puncture Reform and deny Farage oxygen of publicity.
OTOH she may just blow up. So she needs an experienced team around her.
But there is a case. Which is more than can be said for Mr Jenrick.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
It also ignores character. A person driven enough to work in high finance may be more swayed by bribes than those who simply value money less and chose to follow alternative careers.
See Trump, clearly holds vast wealth and yet eminently corruptible.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
There is, for most of us, a difference between our personal lives and a situation where we are representing an institution. Even if you have the authority to decide something, there is usually a process and peers to see what you are doing. I think those sorts of studies rarely make that distinction.
I might be well disposed to you because of the biscuit, but not so well disposed that I will risk even 1% of my reputation in my place of work. Offer me hospitality at Lords and it’s a different moral choice, even if only subconsciously. Hence the design of the bribery act etc.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
It could be worse, it could be the US, where the processed food and pharmaceutical companies have now totally taken over their own regulatory bodies, medicine, academia, media, and politcs.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
It’s mostly not political, but the guests are behind the RFK Jr plan on making America healthy again. They’re also clear that most of their agenda has bipartisan support.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
Im for Badenoch as she is black and a woman, This means I can laugh at the racist misogynists led by Starmer
Not only that but (speaking as someone who's married to one) black woman conservatives do not take *any* shit. A lot of criticism of Kemi so far seems to me to be to be - unintentionally - semi-cultural in that that's the way they behave. She's too gracious to bring this up but maybe some useful idiots in the Labour party who recognise it will. And yes then we can laugh.
Some more of the abruptness is that compsci/engineering background and being from that background myself (along with various other posters here methinks) I'm very interested in what an *actual* technocrat can do in power.
Those are the positive reasons to go Kemi. But they're still not quite as important as the negative reasons to vote against Jenrick, and preferably have him sent to Chad, bankrupt.
To be fair, there is certainly a case for Kemi.
She cuts through and is authentic. A rather splendid contrast with dull old condescending Sir Keir who had better take especial care or the "has a problem with women" charge could stick. May, just possibly, get the time of day from younger voters esp women. Could puncture Reform and deny Farage oxygen of publicity.
OTOH she may just blow up. So she needs an experienced team around her.
But there is a case. Which is more than can be said for Mr Jenrick.
Shame sbout Cleverly though.
What I don't understand is how she got herself in such a mess at conference. When she was getting questioned at a sub committee on a topic in which the questioner was trying to catch her out, instead of just firing off an answer, she paused, thought about the answer and then gave a clear and articulate answer.
She shouldn't be afraid to do this more. It doesn't show weakness.
There's only 121 Tory MPs left, but the amount of infighting and backstabbing that appears to have gone in during this leadership contest looks incredible. They're all going to end up hating each other. It's amazing. They're making Trotskyists look united and emollient.
When I spoke to TT he insisted all the candidates were friends, go to each other's houses for dinner, are god parents of children etc,
So, you are saying the Conservative Parliamentary is a whole bunch of Godfathers...?
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
Im for Badenoch as she is black and a woman, This means I can laugh at the racist misogynists led by Starmer
Not only that but (speaking as someone who's married to one) black woman conservatives do not take *any* shit. A lot of criticism of Kemi so far seems to me to be to be - unintentionally - semi-cultural in that that's the way they behave. She's too gracious to bring this up but maybe some useful idiots in the Labour party who recognise it will. And yes then we can laugh.
Some more of the abruptness is that compsci/engineering background and being from that background myself (along with various other posters here methinks) I'm very interested in what an *actual* technocrat can do in power.
Those are the positive reasons to go Kemi. But they're still not quite as important as the negative reasons to vote against Jenrick, and preferably have him sent to Chad, bankrupt.
To be fair, there is certainly a case for Kemi.
She cuts through and is authentic. A rather splendid contrast with dull old condescending Sir Keir who had better take especial care or the "has a problem with women" charge could stick. May, just possibly, get the time of day from younger voters esp women. Could puncture Reform and deny Farage oxygen of publicity.
OTOH she may just blow up. So she needs an experienced team around her.
But there is a case. Which is more than can be said for Mr Jenrick.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
You know this is a betting site, right?
Please don't give the politicians any ideas about regulating and ruining our hobby. Because they will given half a chance.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Oklahoma amends request for Bibles that appeared to match Trump-backed version
OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma has amended its request for 55,000 Bibles to be placed in public schools that initially matched a version of the holy book endorsed by former President Donald Trump.
The request was amended Monday and no longer requires the Bibles to include U.S. historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — requirements that match the “God Bless the USA Bible” that Trump endorsed this year and that are several times more expensive than similar Bibles that don’t include the U.S. documents.
The new request says the historical documents may be included together or separately and extends the deadline for offers to supply the items by one week, from Oct. 14 to Oct. 21.
The request is part of State Superintendent Ryan Walters’ efforts to require Bibles in public school classrooms, which has been met with resistance by some of Oklahoma’s largest school districts.
Walters, in a Monday video on X, said the Bible will be used “because of its historical significance throughout this nation’s history,” blaming what he called the “fake news media” for lies about the program.
“The left-wing media hates Donald Trump so much, and they hate the Bible so much, they will lie and go to any means necessary to stop this initiative from happening,” Walters said.
Walters’ spokesperson, Dan Issett, said in a statement that the changes to the “request for proposal,” or RFP, were suggested by the Office of Management and Enterprise Services, which issues the requests and were agreed to by Walters.
“Unfortunately, there have been false reports that have been repeated by numerous, supposedly credible, news organizations that the state’s RFP was catered to one specific organization,” Issett said, noting that tailoring the request so that only one manufacturer’s Bible would qualify would be illegal.
Christa Helfrey, a spokesperson for OMES, said the changes were made to the request to try to save taxpayer money.
The initial request included requirements that are not commonly found in Bibles but are included in the “God Bless the USA Bible,” which Trump urged his supporters to begin buying earlier this year at a website that sells the book for $59.99.
The Bibles must be bound in “leather or leather-like material for durability,” according to the initial request.
Similar Bibles that don’t include the Declaration of Independence or Constitution are available online for less than $20.
SSI - Question: BUT in those cheap Bibles, are the Words of Trump printed in red?
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
My thinking is based on the feeling that buttering people up works, even if the buttering up is trivial in the grander scheme of things. It shouldn't influence someone so rich, but I'd bet it does.
In my experience no one likes a freebie more than rich people.
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
The initial damage to the Antelope was not severe.
The long drawn out attempts defuse the unexploded bombs involved magnificent examples of the cold blooded courage, over extended periods of time, among the bomb disposal men. The kind of courage that King George recognised with the creation of his cross during the Blitz.
My favourite summation of this is - sometimes entitled “The Long Walk” -
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
My thinking is based on the feeling that buttering people up works, even if the buttering up is trivial in the grander scheme of things. It shouldn't influence someone so rich, but I'd bet it does.
In my experience no one likes a freebie more than rich people.
If someone's giving you something for free, you must be someone, right? And rich people love to feel important.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
Im for Badenoch as she is black and a woman, This means I can laugh at the racist misogynists led by Starmer
Increasingly successful strategy for rightwing Republicans across America from sea-to-shining sea.
Personally had a bit-part (as an extra extra) in 1994, when one of the first of the breed, US Rep. JC Watts (R-Oklahoma), then-pro football player & former star at U of OK (thus a household word statewide) was elected as 1st-ever Black congressman from the Sooner State (My role was as minor consultant for Dem candidate who lost in primary.)
Subsequent examples include Nikki Haley (Indo American) and Tim Scott (African American) in South Carolina, the former Cradle of the Confederacy.
Also Jaime Herrer Beutler of Washington State, a Latina and former congresswoman, who was defeated in 2022 primary due to MAGA backlash against her vote to impeach Donald Trump, but who(m) today is the GOP's best bet to recapture a statewide office, as candidate for state commissioner of public lands.
AND note that in every instance cited, what Alanbrooke just said, was often said by conservative Republicans & fellow travellers, including some overt and covert racists.
All demonstrating, and NOT just to themselves, that they do NOT care about their candidate's race, ethnicity, etc., etc., or are certainly willing to overlook it.
Which as a pointy-headed Woke-job from way back, let me observe that I personally find this to be a positive development, even though it is too-often biting me in the butt electorally-speaking.
ADDENDUM - to (perhaps) clarify, what rightwing GOPers are saying (I paraphrase) is -
> Don't call ME a racist - I'm voting for the Black guy!
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
Attempting to buy politicians is stupid - it only works on stupid politicians.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
It could be worse, it could be the US, where the processed food and pharmaceutical companies have now totally taken over their own regulatory bodies, medicine, academia, media, and politcs.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
I am afraid I don't buy the idea/myth that big pharma is bad. There have been huge advances in medicine made by the profit motive of pharma companies and the regulatory framework under the FDA and UK MHRA is rigorous. There are some of the dodgy generic pharma companies that have encouraged addiction, but this should not sully an otherwise morally sound industry. It is an interesting and little known fact that pharma companies and medical device companies had to bring in their own industry agreed codes to prevent medical professionals from insisting on large scale freebies when purchasing products.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
The initial damage to the Antelope was not severe.
The long drawn out attempts defuse the unexploded bombs involved magnificent examples of the cold blooded courage over extended periods of time among the bomb disposal men. The kind of courage that King George recognised with the creation of his cross during the Blitz.
My favourite summation of this is - sometimes entitled “The Long Walk” -
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
Im for Badenoch as she is black and a woman, This means I can laugh at the racist misogynists led by Starmer
Increasingly successful strategy for rightwing Republicans across America from sea-to-shining sea.
Personally had a bit-part (as an extra extra) in 1994, when one of the first of the breed, US Rep. JC Watts (R-Oklahoma), then-pro football player & former star at U of OK (thus a household word statewide) was elected as 1st-ever Black congressman from the Sooner State (My role was as minor consultant for Dem candidate who lost in primary.)
Subsequent examples include Nikki Haley (Indo American) and Tim Scott (African American) in South Carolina, the former Cradle of the Confederacy.
Also Jaime Herrer Beutler of Washington State, a Latina and former congresswoman, who was defeated in 2022 primary due to MAGA backlash against her vote to impeach Donald Trump, but who(m) today is the GOP's best bet to recapture a statewide office, as candidate for state commissioner of public lands.
AND note that in every instance cited, what Alanbrooke just said, was often said by conservative Republicans & fellow travellers, including some overt and covert racists.
All demonstrating, and NOT just to themselves, that they do NOT care about their candidate's race, ethnicity, etc., etc., or are certainly willing to overlook it.
Which as a pointy-headed Woke-job from way back, let me observe that I personally find this to be a positive development, even though it is too-often biting me in the butt electorally-speaking.
ADDENDUM - to (perhaps) clarify, what rightwing GOPers are saying (I paraphrase) is -
> Don't call ME a racist - I'm voting for the Black guy!
Had a bit of a drawback as a strategy in North Carolina this time and Georgia two years ago though.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
There is, for most of us, a difference between our personal lives and a situation where we are representing an institution. Even if you have the authority to decide something, there is usually a process and peers to see what you are doing. I think those sorts of studies rarely make that distinction.
I might be well disposed to you because of the biscuit, but not so well disposed that I will risk even 1% of my reputation in my place of work. Offer me hospitality at Lords and it’s a different moral choice, even if only subconsciously. Hence the design of the bribery act etc.
That's fine as a principle but it's incredibly difficult to divorce yourself as a human being from your personal feelings about someone/an institution when making decisions about them. And the alternative of striving to be 100% objective can be even worse - in best case ending up with ridiculous totally unnecessary 500 page RfPs and in worse case actively working against the best option to try to keep yourself objective when they've just been nice to you (it's my experience good companies usually have nicer people).
Incidentally this is possibly something where AI may soon assist (actually we *already* use generative AI in filling out said ridiculous RfPs, but I'm talking from demand side). But it will be gamified too..
Ed Davey (£584) - LIB DEM Bridget Phillipson (£522) - LAB Catherine McKinnell (£2,000) - LAB Wes Streeting (£1,160) - LAB Keir Starmer (£4,000) - LAB Darren Jones (£3,400) - LAB Dan Carden (£900) - LAB Kim Johnson (£900) - LAB Ian Byrne (£900) - INDEPENDENT Joe Morris (£1,660) - LAB Chris Ward (£1,660) - LAB
You can add Yvette Cooper to that she fessed up tonight
This is the flip side of Rishi being married to a billionaire. Say what you like about him, but we all know a £4000 gift would barely have registered.
You say that, but super rich people still take freebies.
They take many freebies, but they are rarely influenced by them. They often feel entitled, but that’s different.
If they weren't influenced by it they wouldn't take them. They don't need it, but want it, and that's still worth influence to them.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
My thinking is based on the feeling that buttering people up works, even if the buttering up is trivial in the grander scheme of things. It shouldn't influence someone so rich, but I'd bet it does.
In my experience no one likes a freebie more than rich people.
If someone's giving you something for free, you must be someone, right? And rich people love to feel important.
People get super pleased just to have someone pass around glasses of water - we are not hard to please if treated respectfully.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
You know this is a betting site, right?
Please don't give the politicians any ideas about regulating and ruining our hobby. Because they will given half a chance.
Yes I had noticed. I don't have a problem with responsible betting, anymore than I have a problem with alcohol (the latter which I often use irresponsibly). I would, however, like to see the tsunami of betting adverts of TV heavily regulated. Sorry if that is an unpopular opinion.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Why does it have to be so factional/binary?
We are all Conservatives and there will be lots of things we agree on, and others where we perhaps prioritise or place more importance on slightly different things.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
It could be worse, it could be the US, where the processed food and pharmaceutical companies have now totally taken over their own regulatory bodies, medicine, academia, media, and politcs.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
I am afraid I don't buy the idea/myth that big pharma is bad. There have been huge advances in medicine made by the profit motive of pharma companies and the regulatory framework under the FDA and UK MHRA is rigorous. There are some of the dodgy generic pharma companies that have encouraged addiction, but this should not sully an otherwise morally sound industry. It is an interesting and little known fact that pharma companies and medical device companies had to bring in their own industry agreed codes to prevent medical professionals from insisting on large scale freebies when purchasing products.
I think you’re correct with regard to the UK, but the US is a very, very different place from a regulatory point of view when it comes to food standards and the pharma industry, which spends more than a trillion dollars a year on marketing, which is why there’s been a total regulatory capture.
I didn’t know until recently, that the big food companies in the US were bought out by the tobacco companies once there was a push against cigarettes, and the same tobacco marketing people then started on the highly-processed food industry in America.
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
The initial damage to the Antelope was not severe.
The long drawn out attempts defuse the unexploded bombs involved magnificent examples of the cold blooded courage over extended periods of time among the bomb disposal men. The kind of courage that King George recognised with the creation of his cross during the Blitz.
My favourite summation of this is - sometimes entitled “The Long Walk” -
The camera found quite a juxtaposition there
It is worthy of a serious prize.
I have long wondered who took the photo. I believe it was someone in the bomb disposal team who had the job of documenting everything.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
It could be worse, it could be the US, where the processed food and pharmaceutical companies have now totally taken over their own regulatory bodies, medicine, academia, media, and politcs.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
I am afraid I don't buy the idea/myth that big pharma is bad. There have been huge advances in medicine made by the profit motive of pharma companies and the regulatory framework under the FDA and UK MHRA is rigorous. There are some of the dodgy generic pharma companies that have encouraged addiction, but this should not sully an otherwise morally sound industry. It is an interesting and little known fact that pharma companies and medical device companies had to bring in their own industry agreed codes to prevent medical professionals from insisting on large scale freebies when purchasing products.
The US Big Pharma have engaged in a range of behaviour from ugly to criminal (see the Sacklers)
A large chunk of their bad behaviour is related to their endeavours to stamp out price completion and achieve massive regulatory capture.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Why does it have to be so factional/binary?
We are all Conservatives and there will be lots of things we agree on, and others where we perhaps prioritise or place more importance on slightly different things.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
It could be worse, it could be the US, where the processed food and pharmaceutical companies have now totally taken over their own regulatory bodies, medicine, academia, media, and politcs.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
I am afraid I don't buy the idea/myth that big pharma is bad. There have been huge advances in medicine made by the profit motive of pharma companies and the regulatory framework under the FDA and UK MHRA is rigorous. There are some of the dodgy generic pharma companies that have encouraged addiction, but this should not sully an otherwise morally sound industry. It is an interesting and little known fact that pharma companies and medical device companies had to bring in their own industry agreed codes to prevent medical professionals from insisting on large scale freebies when purchasing products.
I think you’re correct with regard to the UK, but the US is a very, very different place from a regulatory point of view when it comes to food standards and the pharma industry, which spends more than a trillion dollars a year on marketing.
I didn’t know until recently, that the big food companies in the US were bought out by the tobacco companies once there was a push against cigarettes, and the same tobacco marketing people then started on the highly-processed food industry in America.
I think there needs to be a distinction though, between marketing a product that will almost certainly kill most of its consumers (tobacco) and marketing, say a BigMac which is only lethal in a contributory sense if someone chooses an unhealthy lifestyle. I enjoy the odd BigMac, but because I exercise regularly and am careful about my weight it isnt risking my health by watching a Macdonalds advert.
How on earth did the Tory centre/left go from 54 votes in the first round to just 37 today?
Good question. Early analysis by Tory pundits suggested that the One Nation type Tories and the Right Wing type Tories each had enough clear supporters (over a third) that the final round had to have one of each.
The outcome - SFAICS expected by no-one including all the MPs voting - must have an explanation. These come to mind:
What was the catalyst for these recent polling movements?
Nothing....Potus 2024 is trench partisan warfare... no one is changing their mind, but I feel Trump's macho bullshit motivates males in (just) enough numbers to win the rust belt...which got him 2016....
Comments
Wouldn’t have voted for either of them if I had a vote in this election, and they might yet prevent me voting Tory next time in the GE (jury is out on that for nearly five years) but I also think there is every chance they will get the Tories into the 30s.
That might be all they need.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Had one idea, which wasn't entirely new, and managed to write several books about it.
He definitely had a few groupies though...
Or did they?
She will soon lose her crown as maddest female leader
Has the Daily Star bought a lettuce yet?
Some more of the abruptness is that compsci/engineering background and being from that background myself (along with various other posters here methinks) I'm very interested in what an *actual* technocrat can do in power.
Those are the positive reasons to go Kemi. But they're still not quite as important as the negative reasons to vote against Jenrick, and preferably have him sent to Chad, bankrupt.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1844090412689977509
But obviously the rules have to be the same for everyone - not saying rich folk get a free pass, more saying that it’s more obvious and meaningful when it’s not a billionaire in charge. That’s part of the issue the PM has had.
No fripperies, and only a long walk to and from Kirk on a Sunday.
[Possibly missing the Kirk bit out]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mecq-ZiR_xs
I have at least four more years enjoyment as you rush to defend the pillock and I havent even had time to follow up on Chagos yet
Share of MPs backing each leader in final round of Con leadership contests:
Sunak (2022): 38%
Truss (2022): 32%
Johnson (2019): 51%
May (2016): 61%
Cameron (2005): 46%
IDS (2001): 33%
Badenoch (2024): 35%
Jenrick (2024): 34%
https://bsky.app/profile/robfordmancs.bsky.social/post/3l63w7akz7t2k
So much for my "two lane, neither the centre-right or the right have enough votes to completely exclude the other from the final round" theory.
So I guess the question is why? Is it that the Parliamentary Conservative Party is a lot more right-wing than expected? Closer to 80:40 than 60:60? For example, did the mild manner, glasses and foreign-sounding name make us misplace Tugendhat as much more centrist than he was? Or has someone been messing with our minds all along? Or did Team Cleverly do something really stupid in today's round?
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
So I'm easily manipulated by, literally, peanuts.
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
The Russians will be hoping that’s an infiltration or special forces operation, because they really don’t want to know that the Ukranians can have targets this far away.
Poor bastard.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Oklahoma amends request for Bibles that appeared to match Trump-backed version
OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma has amended its request for 55,000 Bibles to be placed in public schools that initially matched a version of the holy book endorsed by former President Donald Trump.
The request was amended Monday and no longer requires the Bibles to include U.S. historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — requirements that match the “God Bless the USA Bible” that Trump endorsed this year and that are several times more expensive than similar Bibles that don’t include the U.S. documents.
The new request says the historical documents may be included together or separately and extends the deadline for offers to supply the items by one week, from Oct. 14 to Oct. 21.
The request is part of State Superintendent Ryan Walters’ efforts to require Bibles in public school classrooms, which has been met with resistance by some of Oklahoma’s largest school districts.
Walters, in a Monday video on X, said the Bible will be used “because of its historical significance throughout this nation’s history,” blaming what he called the “fake news media” for lies about the program.
“The left-wing media hates Donald Trump so much, and they hate the Bible so much, they will lie and go to any means necessary to stop this initiative from happening,” Walters said.
Walters’ spokesperson, Dan Issett, said in a statement that the changes to the “request for proposal,” or RFP, were suggested by the Office of Management and Enterprise Services, which issues the requests and were agreed to by Walters.
“Unfortunately, there have been false reports that have been repeated by numerous, supposedly credible, news organizations that the state’s RFP was catered to one specific organization,” Issett said, noting that tailoring the request so that only one manufacturer’s Bible would qualify would be illegal.
Christa Helfrey, a spokesperson for OMES, said the changes were made to the request to try to save taxpayer money.
The initial request included requirements that are not commonly found in Bibles but are included in the “God Bless the USA Bible,” which Trump urged his supporters to begin buying earlier this year at a website that sells the book for $59.99.
The Bibles must be bound in “leather or leather-like material for durability,” according to the initial request.
Similar Bibles that don’t include the Declaration of Independence or Constitution are available online for less than $20.
SSI - Question: BUT in those cheap Bibles, are the Words of Trump printed in red?
EDIT: Whoever wins, at least 2/3 of Tory MPs didn't want them to
https://x.com/gavinantonyrice/status/1843967077352411386
Really brought it home.
Though he would have been 20 at the time and no doubt very aware of the campaign
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
But the main thing is simple; correct the record quickly, no harm done.
If someone else had been capable of that, he might still be PM today.
Too many unknowns at present
She cuts through and is authentic.
A rather splendid contrast with dull old condescending Sir Keir who had better take especial care or the "has a problem with women" charge could stick.
May, just possibly, get the time of day from younger voters esp women.
Could puncture Reform and deny Farage oxygen of publicity.
OTOH she may just blow up. So she needs an experienced team around her.
But there is a case. Which is more than can be said for Mr Jenrick.
Shame sbout Cleverly though.
#New General election poll - Michigan
🔴 Trump 51% (+4)
🔵 Harris 47%
Last poll - 🔵 Harris +5
Quinnipiac #B - LV - 10/7
See Trump, clearly holds vast wealth and yet eminently corruptible.
I might be well disposed to you because of the biscuit, but not so well disposed that I will risk even 1% of my reputation in my place of work. Offer me hospitality at Lords and it’s a different moral choice, even if only subconsciously. Hence the design of the bribery act etc.
That's why it's crucial the new leader focuses on the right issues.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0lTyhvOeJs
It’s mostly not political, but the guests are behind the RFK Jr plan on making America healthy again. They’re also clear that most of their agenda has bipartisan support.
She shouldn't be afraid to do this more. It doesn't show weakness.
Please don't give the politicians any ideas about regulating and ruining our hobby. Because they will given half a chance.
The long drawn out attempts defuse the unexploded bombs involved magnificent examples of the cold blooded courage, over extended periods of time, among the bomb disposal men. The kind of courage that King George recognised with the creation of his cross during the Blitz.
My favourite summation of this is - sometimes entitled “The Long Walk” -
Personally had a bit-part (as an extra extra) in 1994, when one of the first of the breed, US Rep. JC Watts (R-Oklahoma), then-pro football player & former star at U of OK (thus a household word statewide) was elected as 1st-ever Black congressman from the Sooner State (My role was as minor consultant for Dem candidate who lost in primary.)
Subsequent examples include Nikki Haley (Indo American) and Tim Scott (African American) in South Carolina, the former Cradle of the Confederacy.
Also Jaime Herrer Beutler of Washington State, a Latina and former congresswoman, who was defeated in 2022 primary due to MAGA backlash against her vote to impeach Donald Trump, but who(m) today is the GOP's best bet to recapture a statewide office, as candidate for state commissioner of public lands.
AND note that in every instance cited, what Alanbrooke just said, was often said by conservative Republicans & fellow travellers, including some overt and covert racists.
All demonstrating, and NOT just to themselves, that they do NOT care about their candidate's race, ethnicity, etc., etc., or are certainly willing to overlook it.
Which as a pointy-headed Woke-job from way back, let me observe that I personally find this to be a positive development, even though it is too-often biting me in the butt electorally-speaking.
ADDENDUM - to (perhaps) clarify, what rightwing GOPers are saying (I paraphrase) is -
> Don't call ME a racist - I'm voting for the Black guy!
You can rent the somewhat smarter ones…..
Incidentally this is possibly something where AI may soon assist (actually we *already* use generative AI in filling out said ridiculous RfPs, but I'm talking from demand side). But it will be gamified too..
We are all Conservatives and there will be lots of things we agree on, and others where we perhaps prioritise or place more importance on slightly different things.
There are no litmus tests.
When they get reported, she denies it
Simplest answer is that Tom T wasn't a centrist after all.
Archer/Dobbs answer is that the right have been messing with our minds.
Real answer is probably a mixture..
I didn’t know until recently, that the big food companies in the US were bought out by the tobacco companies once there was a push against cigarettes, and the same tobacco marketing people then started on the highly-processed food industry in America.
I have long wondered who took the photo. I believe it was someone in the bomb disposal team who had the job of documenting everything.
A large chunk of their bad behaviour is related to their endeavours to stamp out price completion and achieve massive regulatory capture.
The outcome - SFAICS expected by no-one including all the MPs voting - must have an explanation. These come to mind:
Cockup (see Matt):
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1843693400849076291
The One Nation MPs decided their candidate couldn't win with the members so went for next best
The MPs really are extreme and can't even rally a third of their number for a centrist sensible
Most MPs whatever their personal views believe they can only win from the Right and not the centre.