I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Pleased to hear that CR. Surprised you took so long!
She's impressive. Rather that being taken in by the deliberate misrepresentations of her, listen to her first hand - a few interviews are available on podcasts, and that excellent commons speech versus Rayner. Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous - just what the party needs to tackle that twat Starmer.
Usually a LD voter, I'd very possibly vote Conservative with Badenoch as leader, but would never do so if under Jenrick.
I saw her speak in person at a diplomatic event while trade secretary and she came across as childish and unserious.
I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Pleased to hear that CR. Surprised you took so long!
She's impressive. Rather that being taken in by the deliberate misrepresentations of her, listen to her first hand - a few interviews are available on podcasts, and that excellent commons speech versus Rayner. Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous - just what the party needs to tackle that twat Starmer.
Usually a LD voter, I'd very possibly vote Conservative with Badenoch as leader, but would never do so if under Jenrick.
Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous aren't the adjectives I would use for Kemi Badenoch. I guess people observe different things.
Badenoch: "If we need to leave the ECHR to control immigration then we should leave it but it's not a silver bullet and it's not even the most radical thing we could do."
She's taking Jenrick and his ideas completely apart.
Listening to Jenrick, he really gave the same answer to every question in the period I heard, and he took each and went back to saying the same thing.
I'm sticking with "Generic Bob", but maybe "Boilerplate Bob" is another option.
On prisons, Keni sounds confused. "Prison works", but then she says that the problem is 10% of criminals, and if *they* are in prison, we can deal with the rest.
That doesn't quite sound like "prison works".
It is as if Kemi has a set of core beliefs which up till recently have not been subject to careful analysis, and now she is qualifying them; whereas Jenrick does not seem to believe in anything at all.
This is not necessarily to Kemi's advantage; George Osborne suggested that because Jenrick is both flexible and willing to adopt any position to win, he might be the more likely to return the party to power.
However much certain PBers hate Kemi and Bob, surely even the loser would be a better choice than Rebecca Long-Bailey?
That sounds a bit random but since you mention it, what Kemi and RLB have in common is the expectation that they might be about to say something interesting rather than woodenly repeat the party line which has been focus grouped to death.
I’m surprised they haven’t done one with scenes of the mob attacking on Jan 6th interspersed with Trump saying it was a “ day of love “ and “ nothing wrong happened “ .
I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Pleased to hear that CR. Surprised you took so long!
She's impressive. Rather that being taken in by the deliberate misrepresentations of her, listen to her first hand - a few interviews are available on podcasts, and that excellent commons speech versus Rayner. Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous - just what the party needs to tackle that twat Starmer.
Usually a LD voter, I'd very possibly vote Conservative with Badenoch as leader, but would never do so if under Jenrick.
Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous aren't the adjectives I would use for Kemi Badenoch. I guess people observe different things.
She is interesting however.
She is certainly not courageous - indeed she is cowardly, hiding from the media and from trouble when a minister.
Badenoch: "If we need to leave the ECHR to control immigration then we should leave it but it's not a silver bullet and it's not even the most radical thing we could do."
She's taking Jenrick and his ideas completely apart.
Listening to Jenrick, he really gave the same answer to every question in the period I heard, and he took each and went back to saying the same thing.
I'm sticking with "Generic Bob", but maybe "Boilerplate Bob" is another option.
On prisons, Keni sounds confused. "Prison works", but then she says that the problem is 10% of criminals, and if *they* are in prison, we can deal with the rest.
That doesn't quite sound like "prison works".
It is as if Kemi has a set of core beliefs which up till recently have not been subject to careful analysis, and now she is qualifying them; whereas Jenrick does not seem to believe in anything at all.
This is not necessarily to Kemi's advantage; George Osborne suggested that because Jenrick is both flexible and willing to adopt any position to win, he might be the more likely to return the party to power.
For someone who has a reputation for straight talking I'm not convinced Badenoch entirely believes what she speaks.
The other point, of course, is that a decade and a half of Tory government crushed infrastructure investment while world interest rates were historically low.
Making up for that now is a significantly harder task.
I don't understand why this doesn't get hung around the Tories' necks far more than it does. If investment is the answer, which it seems everyone agrees with, then austerity was criminally poor economic policy in 2010-2020.
Think it was a good policy in 2010, but a bad one by 2014, exact turning point up for debate.
I’m surprised they haven’t done one with scenes of the mob attacking on Jan 6th interspersed with Trump saying it was a “ day of love “ and “ nothing wrong happened “ .
Following on Marist yesterday we have two more nat pollsters with good track records showing Harris lead out to 4%. One of them - TIPP - are Rep-aligned but serious pollsters. By contrast Fox News - who are not Rep voodoo but rather a tandem of Rep/Dem pollsters - put Trump ahead by 2%. Good news for Trump - except they also put him 6% down in the battleground states. So that's a reverse of 2016 - winning the popular vote by 2% but getting thumped in the electoral college. I wouldn't hold you breath on that happening.
Mitchell who are serious pollsters in Michigan have that state still tied and unchanged in the last two weeks. GOTV then becomes all important. Meanwhile, Mr Trump has cancelled his third major interview in the course of a week. Some people might think his team are trying to hide him. But courage my friends for JD Vance stands ready to take over once the election is done
The main reason I think Harris will win comfortably is I think pollsters have been underestimating turnout. Early indications are that it's going to be high, perhaps even a record - and I don't think it's enthusiasm for the Donald that's driving it.
Following on Marist yesterday we have two more nat pollsters with good track records showing Harris lead out to 4%. One of them - TIPP - are Rep-aligned but serious pollsters. By contrast Fox News - who are not Rep voodoo but rather a tandem of Rep/Dem pollsters - put Trump ahead by 2%. Good news for Trump - except they also put him 6% down in the battleground states. So that's a reverse of 2016 - winning the popular vote by 2% but getting thumped in the electoral college. I wouldn't hold you breath on that happening.
Mitchell who are serious pollsters in Michigan have that state still tied and unchanged in the last two weeks. GOTV then becomes all important. Meanwhile, Mr Trump has cancelled his third major interview in the course of a week. Some people might think his team are trying to hide him. But courage my friends for JD Vance stands ready to take over once the election is done
The main reason I think Harris will win comfortably is I think pollsters have been underestimating turnout. Early indications are that it's going to be high, perhaps even a record - and I don't think it's enthusiasm for the Donald that's driving it.
However much certain PBers hate Kemi and Bob, surely even the loser would be a better choice than Rebecca Long-Bailey?
That sounds a bit random but since you mention it, what Kemi and RLB have in common is the expectation that they might be about to say something interesting rather than woodenly repeat the party line which has been focus grouped to death.
Certainly random, but a reminder of who S'Keir beat to win the leadership
Following on Marist yesterday we have two more nat pollsters with good track records showing Harris lead out to 4%. One of them - TIPP - are Rep-aligned but serious pollsters. By contrast Fox News - who are not Rep voodoo but rather a tandem of Rep/Dem pollsters - put Trump ahead by 2%. Good news for Trump - except they also put him 6% down in the battleground states. So that's a reverse of 2016 - winning the popular vote by 2% but getting thumped in the electoral college. I wouldn't hold you breath on that happening.
Mitchell who are serious pollsters in Michigan have that state still tied and unchanged in the last two weeks. GOTV then becomes all important. Meanwhile, Mr Trump has cancelled his third major interview in the course of a week. Some people might think his team are trying to hide him. But courage my friends for JD Vance stands ready to take over once the election is done
The main reason I think Harris will win comfortably is I think pollsters have been underestimating turnout. Early indications are that it's going to be high, perhaps even a record - and I don't think it's enthusiasm for the Donald that's driving it.
you infer it is enthusiasm for Kamala (?)
No, largely fear of Trump. Women wanting to keep the right to choose etc.
Naturally, lots of comment/query re: strong potential for very close 2024 POTUS result(s), note two previous examples - which do NOT include 1960, 2000 or 2020:
> 1884 = Democrat Grover Cleveland won by margin of +37 electoral votes nationwide over Republican James G. Blaine; in popular vote, Cleveland received just over 4.9m (48.8%) versus Blaine with just under 4.9m (48.3%) with remainder split between Prohibition and Greenback party candidates,
New York State, with 36 EVs and which had voted Republican in 1880, proved the key to the election. Cleveland was helped by fact that he was serving as NY Governor, but as an upstate, anti-Tammany Democrat, he was NOT Mr. Popularity in much of New York City, especially with denizens of the Hall. AND upstate was overwhelmingly Republican.
THEN on the eve of the election, Blaine the Republican nominee, attended a campaign rally in Manhattan. One of the politicos and other worthies on the platform was a Protestant minister, who urged victory for the GOP because the Democats were the party of "rum, Romanism and rebellion".
The first criticism was almost a given, while the last was unlikely to alienate many north of Mason-Dixon Line. BUT the middle gibe was a different kettle of fish, in particular for Irish American voters who had hitherto been well-disposed to Blaine due to his support for Irish nationalism which dovetailed with most Americans low/mid-level Anglophobia following the Civil War.
Unfortunately for Blaine, though he was on the same (literal) platform, he did NOT demur at that time, from this overt slap at the Roman Catholic Church. The Reverend's memorable alliteration was reported that evening, and impact in NYC was immediate. Beyond the effect on newpaper readers and via word of mouth, it provoked an attitude adjustment among many Tammany leaders and workers toward the top of the Democratic ticket . . . from sitting on their hands to working to win votes for Cleveland.
Result in New York State: Grover Cleveland won by margin of +1,149 (+0.1%) over James J. Blaine.
IF that margin had been reversed, then Blaine would have won the Electoral College by +35.
I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Pleased to hear that CR. Surprised you took so long!
She's impressive. Rather that being taken in by the deliberate misrepresentations of her, listen to her first hand - a few interviews are available on podcasts, and that excellent commons speech versus Rayner. Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous - just what the party needs to tackle that twat Starmer.
Usually a LD voter, I'd very possibly vote Conservative with Badenoch as leader, but would never do so if under Jenrick.
Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous aren't the adjectives I would use for Kemi Badenoch. I guess people observe different things.
She is interesting however.
She is certainly not courageous - indeed she is cowardly, hiding from the media and from trouble when a minister.
She is however more interesting than Jenga.
Or resolute. I think she's too lazy to be resolute.
Badenoch: "If we need to leave the ECHR to control immigration then we should leave it but it's not a silver bullet and it's not even the most radical thing we could do."
She's taking Jenrick and his ideas completely apart.
Listening to Jenrick, he really gave the same answer to every question in the period I heard, and he took each and went back to saying the same thing.
I'm sticking with "Generic Bob", but maybe "Boilerplate Bob" is another option.
On prisons, Keni sounds confused. "Prison works", but then she says that the problem is 10% of criminals, and if *they* are in prison, we can deal with the rest.
That doesn't quite sound like "prison works".
It is as if Kemi has a set of core beliefs which up till recently have not been subject to careful analysis, and now she is qualifying them; whereas Jenrick does not seem to believe in anything at all.
This is not necessarily to Kemi's advantage; George Osborne suggested that because Jenrick is both flexible and willing to adopt any position to win, he might be the more likely to return the party to power.
For someone who has a reputation for straight talking I'm not convinced Badenoch entirely believes what she speaks.
She is a good debater. Actually, her style is that of an accomplished poster on an online forum. I could imagine her posting here and taking no shit. Still not convinced that translates as prime ministerial but she has 4 years to hone it.
The other point, of course, is that a decade and a half of Tory government crushed infrastructure investment while world interest rates were historically low.
Making up for that now is a significantly harder task.
I don't understand why this doesn't get hung around the Tories' necks far more than it does. If investment is the answer, which it seems everyone agrees with, then austerity was criminally poor economic policy in 2010-2020.
Think it was a good policy in 2010, but a bad one by 2014, exact turning point up for debate.
Interesting, why was it a good policy in 2010?
Restore market confidence after GFC and to cut the deficit. It was introduced as a temporary shock, and changed in 2013 to a near permanent aspiration of Cameron-Osborne and subsequent Tory orthodoxy.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg all had pretty similar deficit reduction plans going into 2010, it wasn't controversial at the time that we would need to enter austerity and repair public finances.
Badenoch may well be what Steve Richards calls a teacher-leader. Like Blair.
Explaining things to the public, taking them through the logic of the answers to policy problems. Guiding them towards the answers.
I didn't detect that. I had the impression that Kemi would struggle a little to come up with a logical narrative to support her top line answers.
To me there were a lot of slogans, most obviously the 'accusing us of culture war is the culture war' line.
And I think she was too flip about 'reparations'. There's a need to recognise the history, and then develop that into a line about support for economic and societal development for a long period of time - and incorporated into the ODA programme. I think there are a couple of suitable models around.
The line she used was I thought aimed at crowd-pleasing over reality / practicality, and could have been more rooted.
I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Pleased to hear that CR. Surprised you took so long!
She's impressive. Rather that being taken in by the deliberate misrepresentations of her, listen to her first hand - a few interviews are available on podcasts, and that excellent commons speech versus Rayner. Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous - just what the party needs to tackle that twat Starmer.
Usually a LD voter, I'd very possibly vote Conservative with Badenoch as leader, but would never do so if under Jenrick.
Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous aren't the adjectives I would use for Kemi Badenoch. I guess people observe different things.
She is interesting however.
She is certainly not courageous - indeed she is cowardly, hiding from the media and from trouble when a minister.
She is however more interesting than Jenga.
Or resolute. I think she's too lazy to be resolute.
Yes, her record as Biz Sec didn’t suggest much industriousness.
I don't know if this has anything to do with Anajob's laziness accusation, but AIUI since the start of the Post Office / Horizon legal enquiry, current Business Ministers (or any other ministers) weren't allowed to comment on proceedings
Badenoch: "If we need to leave the ECHR to control immigration then we should leave it but it's not a silver bullet and it's not even the most radical thing we could do."
She's taking Jenrick and his ideas completely apart.
Listening to Jenrick, he really gave the same answer to every question in the period I heard, and he took each and went back to saying the same thing.
I'm sticking with "Generic Bob", but maybe "Boilerplate Bob" is another option.
On prisons, Keni sounds confused. "Prison works", but then she says that the problem is 10% of criminals, and if *they* are in prison, we can deal with the rest.
That doesn't quite sound like "prison works".
It is as if Kemi has a set of core beliefs which up till recently have not been subject to careful analysis, and now she is qualifying them; whereas Jenrick does not seem to believe in anything at all.
This is not necessarily to Kemi's advantage; George Osborne suggested that because Jenrick is both flexible and willing to adopt any position to win, he might be the more likely to return the party to power.
For someone who has a reputation for straight talking I'm not convinced Badenoch entirely believes what she speaks.
She is a good debater. Actually, her style is that of an accomplished poster on an online forum. I could imagine her posting here and taking no shit. Still not convinced that translates as prime ministerial but she has 4 years to hone it.
Oh I agree. If the the job of Leader of the Opposition is to oppose, Badenoch will be good at that. Also she is as far as I can say streets ahead of Jenrick. I wouldn't criticise anyone for choosing her rather than him. If I were one of the vanishingly few sensible Conservative Party members I wouldn't be enthused by the choice however. There were at least two better candidates amongst the four that got rejected.
I have been in London for 48 hours working with a group of disabled people on a theatre trip.
So far, I’ve had to physically block six cyclists who ran a red light and then tried to cut straight across the front of a wheelchair user which would have caused a crash.
WTF London cyclists? Do you have to be utter Tristram Hunts?
Lycra warriors are Stewards of the Bar throughout the UK.
My wife has just exchanged her stunning silver with a red soft top Mercedes cabriolet with a private plate that spells her name in full, for something very much more demure and less offensive to cyclists after she was threatened with f-bombs, c- bombs and a 28" Campagnolo front wheel thrust into her face through the open window of her car for having the temerity to warn them of her presence as they rode two abreast on a moderately narrow road.
The angry one was clearly not a Conservative voter!
Is "had the temerity to warn them of her presence as they rode two abreast" a euphemism for "hooted at them to stop their completley legal cycling because she wasn't prepared to wait for a safe place to overtake"?
If you're overtaking legally and safely it is, of course, better for the motorist if the cyclists are two abreast than if they aren't, for reasons which become clear once you stop and think.
I did explain the road was too narrow to overtake when cyclists were two abreast.
The police took the issue extremely seriously. Having followed and unable to pass for half a mile and assuming they were unaware of her presence she made them aware with a single blast on the horn. The one rider was fine but the older guy reeled around and stopped the car. His response was to call my wife a "f****** c***" and thrust his front wheel through the open window into her face, the top was down "I've got this on camera you f****** c***". The c*** did indeed f*** off when she said "so have I". If you consider that to be a suitable response to a lone woman making two cyclists aware of the presence of a motor vehicle you need to revisit the Highway Code and several other codes.
I f***** despise Lycra cyclists.
Their manners are worse than White Van Man.
I should note that while crossing a road, in traffic, a white van man stopped and waved us across.
The taxi driver behind hooted at him.
White man van got out and gave the taxi driver what for.
This did reveal he was on his phone at the time...
He was just setting you for an easy kill. Extra points if you can do that, particularly as you don't get many nuns pushing prams over zebra crossings these days for the top bonus points.
Particulary not now the catholic child trafficking rings have been closed down ...
I have been in London for 48 hours working with a group of disabled people on a theatre trip.
So far, I’ve had to physically block six cyclists who ran a red light and then tried to cut straight across the front of a wheelchair user which would have caused a crash.
WTF London cyclists? Do you have to be utter Tristram Hunts?
Lycra warriors are Stewards of the Bar throughout the UK.
My wife has just exchanged her stunning silver with a red soft top Mercedes cabriolet with a private plate that spells her name in full, for something very much more demure and less offensive to cyclists after she was threatened with f-bombs, c- bombs and a 28" Campagnolo front wheel thrust into her face through the open window of her car for having the temerity to warn them of her presence as they rode two abreast on a moderately narrow road.
The angry one was clearly not a Conservative voter!
Is "had the temerity to warn them of her presence as they rode two abreast" a euphemism for "hooted at them to stop their completley legal cycling because she wasn't prepared to wait for a safe place to overtake"?
If you're overtaking legally and safely it is, of course, better for the motorist if the cyclists are two abreast than if they aren't, for reasons which become clear once you stop and think.
I did explain the road was too narrow to overtake when cyclists were two abreast.
The police took the issue extremely seriously. Having followed and unable to pass for half a mile and assuming they were unaware of her presence she made them aware with a single blast on the horn. The one rider was fine but the older guy reeled around and stopped the car. His response was to call my wife a "f****** c***" and thrust his front wheel through the open window into her face, the top was down "I've got this on camera you f****** c***". The c*** did indeed f*** off when she said "so have I". If you consider that to be a suitable response to a lone woman making two cyclists aware of the presence of a motor vehicle you need to revisit the Highway Code and several other codes.
I f***** despise Lycra cyclists.
Not wanting to make any excuses for the appalling behaviour of the cyclists which was indeed appalling and I assume very scary, but if it was a narrow road then the cyclists were behaving according to the highway code and in the advised manner for safety. In fact if it had been a single cyclist the code advising them to take up the whole lane:
Rule 213: On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen. Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 1.0m from parked cars for their own safety.
Only in the case of a wider roads are they advised to move from 2 abreast to single file:
Rule 66: Be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you, and allow them to overtake (e.g. by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.
If you cycle and you are on a road where a car can physically overtake a single cyclist but not a pair of cyclists then really it is still too narrow to overtake a single cyclist also. You will be too close for safety. Hence the advice now for cyclists in these situations to fill the road if by themselves or cycle two abreast if in pairs.
if the road is wider then cyclists can cycle in pairs, but if a car comes up behind and it is safe to overtake the cyclists should revert to single file.
Yes the minimum overtaking width is six feet, as I understand it. Effectively the width of a whole car. I.e. if they isn’t room to overtake a car there isn’t room to overtake a bike. That’s the way I drive and always think of it anyway.
I think the issue there on a narrowish country road would be the need for the people riding the cycles to control the behaviour of a driver, and not leave any chance that the driver would try and squeeze through dangerously.
A lot of drivers do not know how to judge appropriate overtaking spaces, or are willing to risk others' safety in order to "get in front NOW".
From the outside there is no way of knowing whether a particular driver is careful and considerate, or not.
And we are advised to cycle or drive defensively. So we do.
That doesn't justify the reaction of course, which is absolutely not acceptable and suitable for a police report. I feel that they would be well aware of her presence (I would be), and hooting (depending how far behind he vehicle was) may or may not have been appropriate - I can't judge from the account. These are very similar considerations to a cyclist approaching behind pedestrians on a shared path.
Personally I don't think that following for half a mile is very much; it's only 80 or 90s at road cyclist training speed, and the delay would be perhaps 30-45s over the speed the car would otherwise be making.
Having checked the "jubilant.varieties.node" location quoted, I'd say it's a widish country road, not narrowish - ~6.5m carriageway width.
Therefore whilst it would be recommended to prevent overtakes on corners etc (maybe even by staying in a strong side by side primary until shortly before turning in to the corner) it is imo important to go single file approx 1.5m from the LHS to allow the pass as soon as visibility etc lines are clear, and still leave space to jink left if the driver tries to make it too close a pass.
@darrengrimes_ Robert Jenrick says his values have never changed.
He was a key liberal Cameron acolyte. He campaigned to Remain chained to Brussels. For Theresa May. For each iteration of Mrs May’s ‘deal’. For a party moving to the centre. I think it’s fair enough to say his views have changed! #GBNews
I love how the PB Tories fall into line behind the least offensive option as each of the skittles fall.
Kemi is indeed head and shoulders better than Honest Bob. Likewise Cleverly was to either of them.
I'm not sure I agree with that last bit. Don't mistake dullness for competence.
On his track record Cleverly was a competent minister unlike Badenoch or Jenrick. That's not a left/right assessment.
By the way Patel was the other more competent candidate who was rejected. If you want a serious Conservative Party tacking right she would be the one to go for.
Badenoch may well be what Steve Richards calls a teacher-leader. Like Blair.
Explaining things to the public, taking them through the logic of the answers to policy problems. Guiding them towards the answers.
The way she's approaching the ECHR question is very much like that.
I remember her explaining about the litter boxes in schools. Apparently - like Truss - she is incredibly clever and even better at hiding the fact from the public
I don’t recall her explaining much about the Post Office when she was minister. Not that any of her predecessors did, either.
@darrengrimes_ Robert Jenrick says his values have never changed.
He was a key liberal Cameron acolyte. He campaigned to Remain chained to Brussels. For Theresa May. For each iteration of Mrs May’s ‘deal’. For a party moving to the centre. I think it’s fair enough to say his views have changed! #GBNews
The other point, of course, is that a decade and a half of Tory government crushed infrastructure investment while world interest rates were historically low.
Making up for that now is a significantly harder task.
I don't understand why this doesn't get hung around the Tories' necks far more than it does. If investment is the answer, which it seems everyone agrees with, then austerity was criminally poor economic policy in 2010-2020.
Think it was a good policy in 2010, but a bad one by 2014, exact turning point up for debate.
Interesting, why was it a good policy in 2010?
Restore market confidence after GFC and to cut the deficit. It was introduced as a temporary shock, and changed in 2013 to a near permanent aspiration of Cameron-Osborne and subsequent Tory orthodoxy.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg all had pretty similar deficit reduction plans going into 2010, it wasn't controversial at the time that we would need to enter austerity and repair public finances.
I can see the market confidence point, and don't recall the specifics enough to know whether what I'm about to suggest would have restored confidence but I'll suggest it anyway!
I would have thought, once interest rates dropped, a competent government could have set out an investment strategy that gave an anticipated ROI of, say 5% growth within specific significant sectors using money borrowed at significantly lower rates than that. And I would have thought that a credible plan like that would not have spooked markets.
Agreed on cutting the deficit, with the caveat of the above. Brown bears significant responsibility for running a deficit pre GFC as many others have said. Nevertheless, in a choice between deficit spending and running down our public services through austerity, I think we would be in a less worse position now if we had higher debt but had experienced more growth and investment in the 2010s (obviously no-one could anticipate COVID and what that would do to debt.
I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Yes. That's absolutely what we need when the country is circling the plughole and facing ruin - a politician who will at last have the gumption to start 'a beef' on X with Youtube Music over their Black History Month coverage. We're saved!
The other point, of course, is that a decade and a half of Tory government crushed infrastructure investment while world interest rates were historically low.
Making up for that now is a significantly harder task.
I don't understand why this doesn't get hung around the Tories' necks far more than it does. If investment is the answer, which it seems everyone agrees with, then austerity was criminally poor economic policy in 2010-2020.
Think it was a good policy in 2010, but a bad one by 2014, exact turning point up for debate.
Interesting, why was it a good policy in 2010?
Restore market confidence after GFC and to cut the deficit. It was introduced as a temporary shock, and changed in 2013 to a near permanent aspiration of Cameron-Osborne and subsequent Tory orthodoxy.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg all had pretty similar deficit reduction plans going into 2010, it wasn't controversial at the time that we would need to enter austerity and repair public finances.
I can see the market confidence point, and don't recall the specifics enough to know whether what I'm about to suggest would have restored confidence but I'll suggest it anyway!
I would have thought, once interest rates dropped, a competent government could have set out an investment strategy that gave an anticipated ROI of, say 5% growth within specific significant sectors using money borrowed at significantly lower rates than that. And I would have thought that a credible plan like that would not have spooked markets.
Agreed on cutting the deficit, with the caveat of the above. Brown bears significant responsibility for running a deficit pre GFC as many others have said. Nevertheless, in a choice between deficit spending and running down our public services through austerity, I think we would be in a less worse position now if we had higher debt but had experienced more growth and investment in the 2010s (obviously no-one could anticipate COVID and what that would do to debt.
Also, the difference between Brown running a deficit pre financial crisis and not would have ended up being a rounding error post crisis, because the fiscal losses in 2008 and the following couple of years put everything before in the shade. As, just over a decade later, did the costs of Covid.
Running a smaller deficit in 2005-8 would have meant almost identical public debt now but even worse public infrastructure.
I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Pleased to hear that CR. Surprised you took so long!
She's impressive. Rather that being taken in by the deliberate misrepresentations of her, listen to her first hand - a few interviews are available on podcasts, and that excellent commons speech versus Rayner. Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous - just what the party needs to tackle that twat Starmer.
Usually a LD voter, I'd very possibly vote Conservative with Badenoch as leader, but would never do so if under Jenrick.
Resolute, principled, unwavering, courageous aren't the adjectives I would use for Kemi Badenoch. I guess people observe different things.
She is interesting however.
She is certainly not courageous - indeed she is cowardly, hiding from the media and from trouble when a minister.
She is however more interesting than Jenga.
Or resolute. I think she's too lazy to be resolute.
Yes, her record as Biz Sec didn’t suggest much industriousness.
I think she's an empty vessel. And I badly want her to be good. Even now, she could flick a switch and actually come up with a policy idea or two, but she isn't. It's all 'Vote for me because I'm me'. That's not good enough - her record is nowhere near strong enough to support that.
She'll need to be given a big Shadow Cabinet position by Jenrick but in all honesty I'm not sure which one I'd trust her with. Treasury would not be good. Perhaps Foreign Sec.
The other point, of course, is that a decade and a half of Tory government crushed infrastructure investment while world interest rates were historically low.
Making up for that now is a significantly harder task.
I don't understand why this doesn't get hung around the Tories' necks far more than it does. If investment is the answer, which it seems everyone agrees with, then austerity was criminally poor economic policy in 2010-2020.
Think it was a good policy in 2010, but a bad one by 2014, exact turning point up for debate.
Interesting, why was it a good policy in 2010?
Restore market confidence after GFC and to cut the deficit. It was introduced as a temporary shock, and changed in 2013 to a near permanent aspiration of Cameron-Osborne and subsequent Tory orthodoxy.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg all had pretty similar deficit reduction plans going into 2010, it wasn't controversial at the time that we would need to enter austerity and repair public finances.
I can see the market confidence point, and don't recall the specifics enough to know whether what I'm about to suggest would have restored confidence but I'll suggest it anyway!
I would have thought, once interest rates dropped, a competent government could have set out an investment strategy that gave an anticipated ROI of, say 5% growth within specific significant sectors using money borrowed at significantly lower rates than that. And I would have thought that a credible plan like that would not have spooked markets.
Agreed on cutting the deficit, with the caveat of the above. Brown bears significant responsibility for running a deficit pre GFC as many others have said. Nevertheless, in a choice between deficit spending and running down our public services through austerity, I think we would be in a less worse position now if we had higher debt but had experienced more growth and investment in the 2010s (obviously no-one could anticipate COVID and what that would do to debt.
Also, the difference between Brown running a deficit pre financial crisis and not would have ended up being a rounding error post crisis, because the fiscal losses in 2008 and the following couple of years put everything before in the shade. As, just over a decade later, did the costs of Covid.
Running a smaller deficit in 2005-8 would have meant almost identical public debt now but even worse public infrastructure.
Deficit in 2008/9 was about double average per annum 2005-8; 2009/10 was about treble.
If Brown had run a surplus from 2005-8 we could have absorbed the GFC shock with little increase in debt between 2005 and 2010, leaving ourselves in a better position for countercyclical investment post GFC.
At least I think so ... It's late and I'm tired, might be making a logical error somewhere.
Badenoch: "If we need to leave the ECHR to control immigration then we should leave it but it's not a silver bullet and it's not even the most radical thing we could do."
She's taking Jenrick and his ideas completely apart.
Listening to Jenrick, he really gave the same answer to every question in the period I heard, and he took each and went back to saying the same thing.
I'm sticking with "Generic Bob", but maybe "Boilerplate Bob" is another option.
On prisons, Keni sounds confused. "Prison works", but then she says that the problem is 10% of criminals, and if *they* are in prison, we can deal with the rest.
That doesn't quite sound like "prison works".
It’s actually true that a large proportion of crime (especially at the lower end - bike.theft etc) is committed by a small sub-section of criminals. So if you warehouse them, perceived crime goes down a lot.
I love how the PB Tories fall into line behind the least offensive option as each of the skittles fall.
Kemi is indeed head and shoulders better than Honest Bob. Likewise Cleverly was to either of them.
Cleverly being the preference of leftish types is no endorsement for rightish types
But perhaps Cleverly being the preference of centrist types should have been.
Centrist types are not necessarily as numerous as they think they are, nor might they have been pleased with Cleverly if they had gotten him.
I don't think it actually matters what someone is perceived at at the start, once they become leader things can change pretty quickly as a lot more people suddenly notice them, and if you can come across as likeable (or not objectionable at least), the public will excuse a lot of extreme left, right, or centrism, and even act like it is something else.
That sounds like it would be a lot of work. Well, work, anyway. Much easier to apologise for things afterwards, and who minds about reputation?
Given they repeated the story about the death of the guy with learning difficulties, despite its pointed out that it was dodgy as hell, the brother being a terrorist, the family being terrorist sympathisers and evidence they abused the guy...suggests that perhaps the BBC don't actually care too much about accuracy or reputation. They certainly giving off that impression.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
National Gallery bans liquid after artwork damaged
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
What I like, and what I presume floating voters like, about Badenoch, is that she’s a conviction politician. She’s a moralist, and I don’t believe we’ve really had one of those with the courage to be outspoken about it since Thatcher.
However, remain convinced that gaffes and or laziness will do for her. I also seriously doubt she has any real understanding of public policy or economics. (The latter is not necessarily fatal, look at Starmer.)
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
One positive thing about Sunak, literally absolutely nobody cared he was a non-white bloke. The reason the Tories got blasted wasn't a racist electorate, it was because he was rubbish at the job and his party were even worse.
I am not sure he lost the Tory party election again because he was an Asian chap, it was because the party member really did want what Truss was selling, where as Sunak pitch was pick me for boring do nothing approach because Truss approach won't work (which I think motivated even more members to vote Truss).
I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch wins for the same reason, her pitch is what the membership want to hear, its a bit irrelevant that she is a woman and black, she is preaching to the bash the wokies, back to basics, etc stuff that the membership love.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
One positive thing about Sunak, literally absolutely nobody cared he was a non-white bloke. The reason the Tories got blasted wasn't a racist electorate, it was because he was rubbish at the job and his party were even worse.
I am not sure he lost the Tory party election again because he was an Asian chap, it was because the party member really did want what Truss was selling, where as Sunak pitch was pick me for boring do nothing approach because Truss approach won't work (which I think motivated even more members to vote Truss).
He was also just the weaker candidate. It's been said hundreds of times that he gave the same shit stump speech whatever event he was at. Truss, when she went to Newent, spoke about Newent stuff, when she went to an event for women in politics, spoke about getting women into politics. Whether Sunak was too lazy or not intelligent enough to do the same, we don't know.
“Austerity” was the right policy in 2010 and had cross-party consensus behind. All the great and good were behind it.
The issue was the salami slicing. Protecting the NHS meant employing more people rather than investing in infrastructure.
Cameron/Osborn didn’t invent the UK’s aversion to capital infrastructure, but they made it even worse, and consciously or not many of their efforts transferred wealth from the income-producing part of the economy to the non-productive elderly client vote.
There was some suggestion of course correction - Osborn’s “Great Northern” policy, and an attempted “pivot to China”, but Brexit and Xi destroyed all that.
What I like, and what I presume floating voters like, about Badenoch, is that she’s a conviction politician. She’s a moralist, and I don’t believe we’ve really had one of those with the courage to be outspoken about it since Thatcher.
However, remain convinced that gaffes and or laziness will do for her. I also seriously doubt she has any real understanding of public policy or economics. (The latter is not necessarily fatal, look at Starmer.)
What will make or break her might not be any of that but rather whether she can inspire enough loyalty to prevent the party descending into infighting and I think she might. It will certainly be very difficult for the self-professed sensible centrists to portray her leadership as a sign that the party is too in hock to reactionary backwoodsmen.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
One positive thing about Sunak, literally absolutely nobody cared he was a non-white bloke. The reason the Tories got blasted wasn't a racist electorate, it was because he was rubbish at the job and his party were even worse.
There was Trevor Noah in the US who did a whole piece about how there was a racist reaction about Sunak becoming PM, based on very little indeed, and then tried to weasel out of it by claiming he'd never said it was a big reaction, even though the clear implication of his bit was that there had been, otherwise there'd be nothing to poke fun at.
National Gallery bans liquid after artwork damaged
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
All because of a handful of absolute dickheads and they will still smuggle it in if they want.
Would not be easier to just ban anyone called Tarquin, Summer or Willow who haven't worked since doing art history at uni five years ago thanks to them being on a mission of self discovery and having a bit of a trust fund?
I also think it’s quite exciting that Badenoch actually grew up in Nigeria.
I don’t really doubt her patriotism, and her commitment to this country, even as she is on record in her younger days as presenting as a Nigerian or as an African.
My own view of Britishness is that it can and should be a global concept (similar perhaps to Frenchness or American-ness).
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
One positive thing about Sunak, literally absolutely nobody cared he was a non-white bloke. The reason the Tories got blasted wasn't a racist electorate, it was because he was rubbish at the job and his party were even worse.
There was Trevor Noah in the US who did a whole piece about how there was a racist reaction about Sunak becoming PM, based on very little indeed, and then tried to weasel out of it by claiming he'd never said it was a big reaction, even though the clear implication of his bit was that there had been, otherwise there'd be nothing to poke fun at.
What I like, and what I presume floating voters like, about Badenoch, is that she’s a conviction politician. She’s a moralist, and I don’t believe we’ve really had one of those with the courage to be outspoken about it since Thatcher.
However, remain convinced that gaffes and or laziness will do for her. I also seriously doubt she has any real understanding of public policy or economics. (The latter is not necessarily fatal, look at Starmer.)
I agree.
I won't vote for her because our politics don't overlap. But it's good to have politicians from time to time who have convictions that they try to convince the public of, rather than starting from where we are and inching one way or another.
And her convictions don't seem to be of the 'bankrupt the country quickly' variety that Truss favoured, so that's a bonus.
I wish the Lib Dems were willing to be bolder. In a different direction to Badenoch, of course.
National Gallery bans liquid after artwork damaged
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
All because of a handful of absolute dickheads and they will still smuggle it in if they want.
Would not be easier to just ban anyone called Tarquin, Summer or Willow who haven't worked since doing art history at uni five years ago thanks to them being on a mission of self discovery and having a bit of a trust fund?
All of those doing this have already been arrested multiple times.
“Austerity” was the right policy in 2010 and had cross-party consensus behind. All the great and good were behind it.
The issue was the salami slicing. Protecting the NHS meant employing more people rather than investing in infrastructure.
Cameron/Osborn didn’t invent the UK’s aversion to capital infrastructure, but they made it even worse, and consciously or not many of their efforts transferred wealth from the income-producing part of the economy to the non-productive elderly client vote.
There was some suggestion of course correction - Osborn’s “Great Northern” policy, and an attempted “pivot to China”, but Brexit and Xi destroyed all that.
I largely agree, but would caveat All the great and good were behind it. with The vast majority of the great and the good don't understand macroeconomics so make crap decisions.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
It would be a strange situation where Tory MPs in the all too frequent recent leadership contests have repeatedly nominated multiple non-white candidates with significant support, yet the Members just wouldn't bear such a candidate for the reason their racial characteristics. MPs are little different than the average Member after all.
“Austerity” was the right policy in 2010 and had cross-party consensus behind. All the great and good were behind it.
The issue was the salami slicing. Protecting the NHS meant employing more people rather than investing in infrastructure.
Cameron/Osborn didn’t invent the UK’s aversion to capital infrastructure, but they made it even worse, and consciously or not many of their efforts transferred wealth from the income-producing part of the economy to the non-productive elderly client vote.
There was some suggestion of course correction - Osborn’s “Great Northern” policy, and an attempted “pivot to China”, but Brexit and Xi destroyed all that.
I largely agree, but would caveat All the great and good were behind it. with The vast majority of the great and the good don't understand macroeconomics so make crap decisions.
I'm pleasantly surprised you think any of them understand it.
I sure don't, but I'd like to believe some of the great and good do at least.
The other point, of course, is that a decade and a half of Tory government crushed infrastructure investment while world interest rates were historically low.
Making up for that now is a significantly harder task.
I don't understand why this doesn't get hung around the Tories' necks far more than it does. If investment is the answer, which it seems everyone agrees with, then austerity was criminally poor economic policy in 2010-2020.
Think it was a good policy in 2010, but a bad one by 2014, exact turning point up for debate.
Interesting, why was it a good policy in 2010?
Restore market confidence after GFC and to cut the deficit. It was introduced as a temporary shock, and changed in 2013 to a near permanent aspiration of Cameron-Osborne and subsequent Tory orthodoxy.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg all had pretty similar deficit reduction plans going into 2010, it wasn't controversial at the time that we would need to enter austerity and repair public finances.
I can see the market confidence point, and don't recall the specifics enough to know whether what I'm about to suggest would have restored confidence but I'll suggest it anyway!
I would have thought, once interest rates dropped, a competent government could have set out an investment strategy that gave an anticipated ROI of, say 5% growth within specific significant sectors using money borrowed at significantly lower rates than that. And I would have thought that a credible plan like that would not have spooked markets.
Agreed on cutting the deficit, with the caveat of the above. Brown bears significant responsibility for running a deficit pre GFC as many others have said. Nevertheless, in a choice between deficit spending and running down our public services through austerity, I think we would be in a less worse position now if we had higher debt but had experienced more growth and investment in the 2010s (obviously no-one could anticipate COVID and what that would do to debt.
I think austerity was the right policy but the way Osborne went about it was wrong. The things he cut were quite often the politically easiest things and the way he needed to go about it was something like Canada's 1995 budget:
if it was up to me, I would have a pot of money for investment spending that was not controlled by ministers (think the consolidated pension funds) but then i would control day-to-day spending more rigidly (have to run a primary surplus unless the economy is in recession)
What I like, and what I presume floating voters like, about Badenoch, is that she’s a conviction politician. She’s a moralist, and I don’t believe we’ve really had one of those with the courage to be outspoken about it since Thatcher.
However, remain convinced that gaffes and or laziness will do for her. I also seriously doubt she has any real understanding of public policy or economics. (The latter is not necessarily fatal, look at Starmer.)
I agree.
I won't vote for her because our politics don't overlap. But it's good to have politicians from time to time who have convictions that they try to convince the public of, rather than starting from where we are and inching one way or another.
And her convictions don't seem to be of the 'bankrupt the country quickly' variety that Truss favoured, so that's a bonus.
I wish the Lib Dems were willing to be bolder. In a different direction to Badenoch, of course.
I think we agree on a lot. I too wish the Lib Dems would grow a fucking backbone.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
I think you should take that up with your annoying friend, rather than wishing a dud on the country. Though I suppose with Jenrick as the other option, it’s only a minor offence.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
It would be a strange situation where Tory MPs in the all too frequent recent leadership contests have repeatedly nominated multiple non-white candidates with significant support, yet the Members just wouldn't bear such a candidate for the reason their racial characteristics. MPs are little different than the average Member after all.
When? Even in the last contest Badenoch was the members’ preference according to polls.
“Austerity” was the right policy in 2010 and had cross-party consensus behind. All the great and good were behind it.
The issue was the salami slicing. Protecting the NHS meant employing more people rather than investing in infrastructure.
Cameron/Osborn didn’t invent the UK’s aversion to capital infrastructure, but they made it even worse, and consciously or not many of their efforts transferred wealth from the income-producing part of the economy to the non-productive elderly client vote.
There was some suggestion of course correction - Osborn’s “Great Northern” policy, and an attempted “pivot to China”, but Brexit and Xi destroyed all that.
I largely agree, but would caveat All the great and good were behind it. with The vast majority of the great and the good don't understand macroeconomics so make crap decisions.
Oh absolutely. Perhaps I should say it was “right” and enjoyed wide support within a broader neo-liberal paradigm that is quite clearly deficient in the light of 2024.
The absolute state of the US Green party, that they’re actively trying to help get this guy elected.
Q: Given the amount of the mounting evidence of climate change, do you still believe it's a hoax?
Trump: I get awards environmental awards for the way I build it for the water, the way I use the water, the sand, the mixing of the sand and the water, I mean, many different, but I've had many awards over the years for environmental, the way I've built because you know about building, that's what you do. It's very important to me… The real global warming that we have to worry about is nuclear. The water is coming up an eighth of an inch over 300 years, the ocean is gonna rise and, you know, nobody knows if that's true or not, but they're worried about the ocean rising an eighth of an inch or a quarter of an inch in 300 years.. https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1846747316633411673
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
One positive thing about Sunak, literally absolutely nobody cared he was a non-white bloke. The reason the Tories got blasted wasn't a racist electorate, it was because he was rubbish at the job and his party were even worse.
There was Trevor Noah in the US who did a whole piece about how there was a racist reaction about Sunak becoming PM, based on very little indeed, and then tried to weasel out of it by claiming he'd never said it was a big reaction, even though the clear implication of his bit was that there had been, otherwise there'd be nothing to poke fun at.
Trevor Noah is a bellend. He killed that show.
I saw some of the early stuff when he took over the show which suffered from very clearly being written for him without much connection to his own personality (obviously it's all scripted, but the host can stamp their own style on the content, once the writers know what works and what does not), but I recall that incident in particular one because it involved the UK sure, but also because it was a cowardly and unconvincing defence.
The truth was probably he didn't give too much of a shit about the fine details of a gag about reaction to a British politician and the audience wouldn't either, so he went for the easy joke, he could have just said something like that. John Oliver (who I find very funny personally) does the same thing when on UK focused topics, presumably because most of those watching won't care either.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
It would be a strange situation where Tory MPs in the all too frequent recent leadership contests have repeatedly nominated multiple non-white candidates with significant support, yet the Members just wouldn't bear such a candidate for the reason their racial characteristics. MPs are little different than the average Member after all.
When? Even in the last contest Badenoch was the members’ preference according to polls.
When what? I'm saying I don't buy the Members would have a problem with her (or other non-white candidates), no more than the MPs do.
I pay Google £10.99 for Youtube Music. So I can listen to music I like and stream on demand.
On my home feed I now have, above Mixed for You, Forgotten Favourites and Your Music Videos a chunk of "Celebrating Black British Music" which I haven't asked for, is all crap rap and urban music that I have zero interest in and can't get rid of. It's just forced into my feed. I have to scroll past it each and every time to get to what I want. I presume I now have to put up with if for the rest of the month. And I am paying for this service!!
I will vote for Kemi Badenoch. She might not win but she will launch a sustained assault against Wokery that's well overdue, and that's worth voting for.
Yes. That's absolutely what we need when the country is circling the plughole and facing ruin - a politician who will at last have the gumption to start 'a beef' on X with Youtube Music over their Black History Month coverage. We're saved!
Mind, that would irritate me. Prompted by the above, I've just had a scan through my quite large CD collection. There's almost nothing by anyone non-white. I think the trumpeter from the Boo Radleys was black, but aside from that? If I was around in the 60s music by black people would, I'm sure, have been a rather larger chunk of my record collection.
Arse. I went to the cash point to withdraw £100 to bet on Kemi, but Laddies closes at 10pm. Damn. The sword unsheathed must taste blood and I won't be able to get to a bookies until Saturday. It is a bad world. 👿
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
It would be a strange situation where Tory MPs in the all too frequent recent leadership contests have repeatedly nominated multiple non-white candidates with significant support, yet the Members just wouldn't bear such a candidate for the reason their racial characteristics. MPs are little different than the average Member after all.
I can 100% predict that my annoying friend will soon pivot to “The Tories are racist and they voted for Badenoch precisely because she makes them feel they are not racist”.
He has already started tentative suggestions in that direction.
National Gallery bans liquid after artwork damaged
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
It would be a strange situation where Tory MPs in the all too frequent recent leadership contests have repeatedly nominated multiple non-white candidates with significant support, yet the Members just wouldn't bear such a candidate for the reason their racial characteristics. MPs are little different than the average Member after all.
When? Even in the last contest Badenoch was the members’ preference according to polls.
When what? I'm saying I don't buy the Members would have a problem with her (or other non-white candidates), no more than the MPs do.
Sorry I thought you were suggesting that members had rejected non-white candidates in recent contests but I misread your comment
National Gallery bans liquid after artwork damaged
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
The other point, of course, is that a decade and a half of Tory government crushed infrastructure investment while world interest rates were historically low.
Making up for that now is a significantly harder task.
I don't understand why this doesn't get hung around the Tories' necks far more than it does. If investment is the answer, which it seems everyone agrees with, then austerity was criminally poor economic policy in 2010-2020.
Think it was a good policy in 2010, but a bad one by 2014, exact turning point up for debate.
Interesting, why was it a good policy in 2010?
Restore market confidence after GFC and to cut the deficit. It was introduced as a temporary shock, and changed in 2013 to a near permanent aspiration of Cameron-Osborne and subsequent Tory orthodoxy.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg all had pretty similar deficit reduction plans going into 2010, it wasn't controversial at the time that we would need to enter austerity and repair public finances.
I can see the market confidence point, and don't recall the specifics enough to know whether what I'm about to suggest would have restored confidence but I'll suggest it anyway!
I would have thought, once interest rates dropped, a competent government could have set out an investment strategy that gave an anticipated ROI of, say 5% growth within specific significant sectors using money borrowed at significantly lower rates than that. And I would have thought that a credible plan like that would not have spooked markets.
Agreed on cutting the deficit, with the caveat of the above. Brown bears significant responsibility for running a deficit pre GFC as many others have said. Nevertheless, in a choice between deficit spending and running down our public services through austerity, I think we would be in a less worse position now if we had higher debt but had experienced more growth and investment in the 2010s (obviously no-one could anticipate COVID and what that would do to debt.
I think austerity was the right policy but the way Osborne went about it was wrong. The things he cut were quite often the politically easiest things and the way he needed to go about it was something like Canada's 1995 budget:
if it was up to me, I would have a pot of money for investment spending that was not controlled by ministers (think the consolidated pension funds) but then i would control day-to-day spending more rigidly (have to run a primary surplus unless the economy is in recession)
Yes I can see the logic of that, though I'd be wary of moving from democracy to technocracy (who would control the investment spending and who would they be accountable to?)
It's not as if protecting day-to-day NHS spending since 2008 has done much to protect the NHS itself.
Newly unsealed divorce records show Arizona Congressman Ruben Gallego, the Democratic nominee for an open Senate seat, petitioned a court to end his marriage with Kate Gallego, Phoenix’s mayor, just before she gave birth to their son. But it contained none of the potentially damaging details conservatives had hoped to uncover.
Gallego’s opponent, Kari Lake, has long alluded to the filings, making insinuations that their contents would tarnish his public persona. Ahead of the release, one of her advisors sought to distance the campaign from the effort to unseal the documents, an effort brought by the conservative outlet, Washington Free Beacon.
The couple split in 2016 after six years of marriage. The congressman has previously said that his post-traumatic stress disorder from serving in Iraq contributed to the demise of their marriage.
The Gallegos had fought the release, expressing concern that the public disclosure could endanger their son, Michael. The effort to keep the records sealed fanned right-wing speculation about what was in them.
National Gallery bans liquid after artwork damaged
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
What I like, and what I presume floating voters like, about Badenoch, is that she’s a conviction politician. She’s a moralist, and I don’t believe we’ve really had one of those with the courage to be outspoken about it since Thatcher.
However, remain convinced that gaffes and or laziness will do for her. I also seriously doubt she has any real understanding of public policy or economics. (The latter is not necessarily fatal, look at Starmer.)
Or indeed Mrs Thatcher, who relied on Sir Keith Joseph and later Sir Alan Walters.
HS2 will end up being a "different rail line in a very similar place" says @PronouncedAlva who broke the story today of Crewe extension, speaking to Newsnight.
What a f*cking mess this country is.
Just build the bloody thing as agreed by parliament on several occasions.
I’d like Badenoch to win, just because my annoying friend confidently opines that the Tory party are too racist to choose her.
It would be a strange situation where Tory MPs in the all too frequent recent leadership contests have repeatedly nominated multiple non-white candidates with significant support, yet the Members just wouldn't bear such a candidate for the reason their racial characteristics. MPs are little different than the average Member after all.
I can 100% predict that my annoying friend will soon pivot to “The Tories are racist and they voted for Badenoch precisely because she makes them feel they are not racist”.
He has already started tentative suggestions in that direction.
Her leading the Tories is probably significant enough to gain some traction in the US news media so she could have an unusually high profile for a British leader of the opposition.
HS2 will end up being a "different rail line in a very similar place" says @PronouncedAlva who broke the story today of Crewe extension, speaking to Newsnight.
What a f*cking mess this country is.
Just build the bloody thing as agreed by parliament on several occasions.
So I presume we will need a load of consultant work, more planning, etc etc etc before anything gets built.
HS2 will end up being a "different rail line in a very similar place" says @PronouncedAlva who broke the story today of Crewe extension, speaking to Newsnight.
What a f*cking mess this country is.
Just build the bloody thing as agreed by parliament on several occasions.
Not until 5 more consultations, 3 more redesigns, and 6 more legal challenges. And probably a tripling of the forecasted budget, why not?
National Gallery bans liquid after artwork damaged
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
“Austerity” was the right policy in 2010 and had cross-party consensus behind. All the great and good were behind it.
The issue was the salami slicing. Protecting the NHS meant employing more people rather than investing in infrastructure.
Cameron/Osborn didn’t invent the UK’s aversion to capital infrastructure, but they made it even worse, and consciously or not many of their efforts transferred wealth from the income-producing part of the economy to the non-productive elderly client vote.
There was some suggestion of course correction - Osborn’s “Great Northern” policy, and an attempted “pivot to China”, but Brexit and Xi destroyed all that.
I don't blame them too much, not least because I was behind austerity too back in 2010. But as someone who aims to be an evidence led guy, I have to accept the evidence strongly suggests it hasn't worked. Austerity hasn't been notably successful in its primary aim of balancing the books compared with peer nations that didn't follow this approach, and who have managed not to wreck their public estate in the process.
HS2 will end up being a "different rail line in a very similar place" says @PronouncedAlva who broke the story today of Crewe extension, speaking to Newsnight.
What a f*cking mess this country is.
Just build the bloody thing as agreed by parliament on several occasions.
So I presume we will need a load of consultant work, more planning, etc etc etc before anything gets built.
It feels like being a consultant on an endlessly reformulating project could be a very profitable enterprise, but perhaps things never moving forward smoothly becomes wearing even if you are raking in the big bucks.
Like those poor bastards at the BCE who kept doing parliamentary boundary reviews which were then tossed in the rubbish bin. One of Boris's better moves was to legislate to force that damn process to come to an end.
Comments
She is interesting however.
This is not necessarily to Kemi's advantage; George Osborne suggested that because Jenrick is both flexible and willing to adopt any position to win, he might be the more likely to return the party to power.
Bit like Starmer then
She is however more interesting than Jenga.
While he was slaloming left to win Corbynites
> 1884 = Democrat Grover Cleveland won by margin of +37 electoral votes nationwide over Republican James G. Blaine; in popular vote, Cleveland received just over 4.9m (48.8%) versus Blaine with just under 4.9m (48.3%) with remainder split between Prohibition and Greenback party candidates,
New York State, with 36 EVs and which had voted Republican in 1880, proved the key to the election. Cleveland was helped by fact that he was serving as NY Governor, but as an upstate, anti-Tammany Democrat, he was NOT Mr. Popularity in much of New York City, especially with denizens of the Hall.
AND upstate was overwhelmingly Republican.
THEN on the eve of the election, Blaine the Republican nominee, attended a campaign rally in Manhattan. One of the politicos and other worthies on the platform was a Protestant minister, who urged victory for the GOP because the Democats were the party of "rum, Romanism and rebellion".
The first criticism was almost a given, while the last was unlikely to alienate many north of Mason-Dixon Line. BUT the middle gibe was a different kettle of fish, in particular for Irish American voters who had hitherto been well-disposed to Blaine due to his support for Irish nationalism which dovetailed with most Americans low/mid-level Anglophobia following the Civil War.
Unfortunately for Blaine, though he was on the same (literal) platform, he did NOT demur at that time, from this overt slap at the Roman Catholic Church. The Reverend's memorable alliteration was reported that evening, and impact in NYC was immediate. Beyond the effect on newpaper readers and via word of mouth, it provoked an attitude adjustment among many Tammany leaders and workers toward the top of the Democratic ticket . . . from sitting on their hands to working to win votes for Cleveland.
Result in New York State: Grover Cleveland won by margin of +1,149 (+0.1%) over James J. Blaine.
IF that margin had been reversed, then Blaine would have won the Electoral College by +35.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1884_United_States_presidential_election
Brown, Cameron and Clegg all had pretty similar deficit reduction plans going into 2010, it wasn't controversial at the time that we would need to enter austerity and repair public finances.
To me there were a lot of slogans, most obviously the 'accusing us of culture war is the culture war' line.
And I think she was too flip about 'reparations'. There's a need to recognise the history, and then develop that into a line about support for economic and societal development for a long period of time - and incorporated into the ODA programme. I think there are a couple of suitable models around.
The line she used was I thought aimed at crowd-pleasing over reality / practicality, and could have been more rooted.
Guido did a feature on it once.
Kemi is indeed head and shoulders better than Honest Bob. Likewise Cleverly was to either of them.
Therefore whilst it would be recommended to prevent overtakes on corners etc (maybe even by staying in a strong side by side primary until shortly before turning in to the corner) it is imo important to go single file approx 1.5m from the LHS to allow the pass as soon as visibility etc lines are clear, and still leave space to jink left if the driver tries to make it too close a pass.
IE (Boba) James O'Brien?
Darren Grimes
@darrengrimes_
Robert Jenrick says his values have never changed.
He was a key liberal Cameron acolyte.
He campaigned to Remain chained to Brussels.
For Theresa May.
For each iteration of Mrs May’s ‘deal’.
For a party moving to the centre.
I think it’s fair enough to say his views have changed!
#GBNews
https://x.com/darrengrimes_/status/1846978624580473202
By the way Patel was the other more competent candidate who was rejected. If you want a serious Conservative Party tacking right she would be the one to go for.
Not that any of her predecessors did, either.
https://david-collier.com/no-bbc-not-everything-is-equal/
I would have thought, once interest rates dropped, a competent government could have set out an investment strategy that gave an anticipated ROI of, say 5% growth within specific significant sectors using money borrowed at significantly lower rates than that. And I would have thought that a credible plan like that would not have spooked markets.
Agreed on cutting the deficit, with the caveat of the above. Brown bears significant responsibility for running a deficit pre GFC as many others have said. Nevertheless, in a choice between deficit spending and running down our public services through austerity, I think we would be in a less worse position now if we had higher debt but had experienced more growth and investment in the 2010s (obviously no-one could anticipate COVID and what that would do to debt.
Wash and go better.
Herbal essences better.
Better in terms of all hair care products.
Running a smaller deficit in 2005-8 would have meant almost identical public debt now but even worse public infrastructure.
She'll need to be given a big Shadow Cabinet position by Jenrick but in all honesty I'm not sure which one I'd trust her with. Treasury would not be good. Perhaps Foreign Sec.
Deficit in 2008/9 was about double average per annum 2005-8; 2009/10 was about treble.
If Brown had run a surplus from 2005-8 we could have absorbed the GFC shock with little increase in debt between 2005 and 2010, leaving ourselves in a better position for countercyclical investment post GFC.
At least I think so ... It's late and I'm tired, might be making a logical error somewhere.
I don't think it actually matters what someone is perceived at at the start, once they become leader things can change pretty quickly as a lot more people suddenly notice them, and if you can come across as likeable (or not objectionable at least), the public will excuse a lot of extreme left, right, or centrism, and even act like it is something else.
I have less than zero affection for the foaming nutters who make up what’s left of the Conservative Party a large, but I’m just sick to fuck of my friend citing racism as pretty much the answer or explanation for everything.
The National Gallery has banned liquids except baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines after a number of attacks on paintings in its central London building.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89ljnwgpqwo
All because of a handful of absolute dickheads and they will still smuggle it in if they want.
She’s a moralist, and I don’t believe we’ve really had one of those with the courage to be outspoken about it since Thatcher.
However, remain convinced that gaffes and or laziness will do for her. I also seriously doubt she has any real understanding of public policy or economics. (The latter is not necessarily fatal, look at Starmer.)
I am not sure he lost the Tory party election again because he was an Asian chap, it was because the party member really did want what Truss was selling, where as Sunak pitch was pick me for boring do nothing approach because Truss approach won't work (which I think motivated even more members to vote Truss).
I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch wins for the same reason, her pitch is what the membership want to hear, its a bit irrelevant that she is a woman and black, she is preaching to the bash the wokies, back to basics, etc stuff that the membership love.
The issue was the salami slicing. Protecting the NHS meant employing more people rather than investing in infrastructure.
Cameron/Osborn didn’t invent the UK’s aversion to capital infrastructure, but they made it even worse, and consciously or not many of their efforts transferred wealth from the income-producing part of the economy to the non-productive elderly client vote.
There was some suggestion of course correction - Osborn’s “Great Northern” policy, and an attempted “pivot to China”, but Brexit and Xi destroyed all that.
I don’t really doubt her patriotism, and her commitment to this country, even as she is on record in her younger days as presenting as a Nigerian or as an African.
My own view of Britishness is that it can and should be a global concept (similar perhaps to Frenchness or American-ness).
I won't vote for her because our politics don't overlap. But it's good to have politicians from time to time who have convictions that they try to convince the public of, rather than starting from where we are and inching one way or another.
And her convictions don't seem to be of the 'bankrupt the country quickly' variety that Truss favoured, so that's a bonus.
I wish the Lib Dems were willing to be bolder. In a different direction to Badenoch, of course.
I sure don't, but I'd like to believe some of the great and good do at least.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-the-budget-that-changed-canada
if it was up to me, I would have a pot of money for investment spending that was not controlled by ministers (think the consolidated pension funds) but then i would control day-to-day spending more rigidly (have to run a primary surplus unless the economy is in recession)
I too wish the Lib Dems would grow a fucking backbone.
Perhaps I should say it was “right” and enjoyed wide support within a broader neo-liberal paradigm that is quite clearly deficient in the light of 2024.
Q: Given the amount of the mounting evidence of climate change, do you still believe it's a hoax?
Trump: I get awards environmental awards for the way I build it for the water, the way I use the water, the sand, the mixing of the sand and the water, I mean, many different, but I've had many awards over the years for environmental, the way I've built because you know about building, that's what you do. It's very important to me… The real global warming that we have to worry about is nuclear. The water is coming up an eighth of an inch over 300 years, the ocean is gonna rise and, you know, nobody knows if that's true or not, but they're worried about the ocean rising an eighth of an inch or a quarter of an inch in 300 years..
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1846747316633411673
The truth was probably he didn't give too much of a shit about the fine details of a gag about reaction to a British politician and the audience wouldn't either, so he went for the easy joke, he could have just said something like that. John Oliver (who I find very funny personally) does the same thing when on UK focused topics, presumably because most of those watching won't care either.
The Budget is expected to be billed as “Fixing the Foundations to Deliver Change".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8el3z910r9o
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1847027159300202988?t=35LHnmLIlMbqBlUCBcn8Ow&s=19
If I was around in the 60s music by black people would, I'm sure, have been a rather larger chunk of my record collection.
He has already started tentative suggestions in that direction.
In fairness, there was no such thing as environmental awareness until Just Stop Oil began their stunts.
It's not as if protecting day-to-day NHS spending since 2008 has done much to protect the NHS itself.
Newly unsealed divorce records show Arizona Congressman Ruben Gallego, the Democratic nominee for an open Senate seat, petitioned a court to end his marriage with Kate Gallego, Phoenix’s mayor, just before she gave birth to their son. But it contained none of the potentially damaging details conservatives had hoped to uncover.
Gallego’s opponent, Kari Lake, has long alluded to the filings, making insinuations that their contents would tarnish his public persona. Ahead of the release, one of her advisors sought to distance the campaign from the effort to unseal the documents, an effort brought by the conservative outlet, Washington Free Beacon.
The couple split in 2016 after six years of marriage. The congressman has previously said that his post-traumatic stress disorder from serving in Iraq contributed to the demise of their marriage.
The Gallegos had fought the release, expressing concern that the public disclosure could endanger their son, Michael. The effort to keep the records sealed fanned right-wing speculation about what was in them.
Kate Gallego has endorsed her husband’s Senate bid...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/oct/17/donald-trump-january-6-riot-kamala-harris-us-election-politics-news#top-of-blog
What a f*cking mess this country is.
Just build the bloody thing as agreed by parliament on several occasions.
Like those poor bastards at the BCE who kept doing parliamentary boundary reviews which were then tossed in the rubbish bin. One of Boris's better moves was to legislate to force that damn process to come to an end.