Craig Guildford to be allowed to retire early on full pension.
There needs to be a way of clawing back these crazy public-sector pensions from those who resign or are fired in disgrace.
Are private sector pensions clawed back from those fired in disgrace?
Yes, remuneration policies across the private sector include pension contribution and bonus clawbacks for gross misconduct. It wasn't very common but after the 2008 crash and subsequent bailouts they've become pretty standard for senior roles. My contract includes a pretty big percentage clawback clause in the event of gross misconduct.
The bar for 'gross misconduct' is very high: I doubt an employment tribunal would regard Guilford's stupidity as clearing it.
Which is indeed a huge part of the problem.
Anyone with two eyes can see that he made up evidence and lied about it, including to Parliament.
Public trust in “the system” quickly evaporates when there isn’t serious punishment for obvious malfeasance in public office.
I agree.
And, of course, the same standards should apply to politicians who lie.
Seriously, you only want politicians to tell the truth all the time just like Jim Carrey in "Liar, Liar"?
It's a thought...
Demonstrably lying to Parliament, if you're a public servant, should be career ending.
And even if you're a politician, and do expected to be less than 100% honest, as Boris demonstrated it can still lead to your political demise.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
...As for technology, there have been already been fan-made content of eg Dr Who in what look suspiciously like 5-second bursts which is the free-tier limit on one or other of the AI machines...
There is quite a bit of AI Doctor Who videos on YouTube
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly It’s easy to watch the news and feel overwhelmed or even helpless at everything going on. I need you to fight that feeling.
I’m an optimist. You have to be when you strap yourself to a rocket for a living. But there’s real reason to be hopeful this year and l’ll tell you why.
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly President Trump is scared. He’s scared because he knows, just like all of us do, that his free rein to do whatever he wants could end this year.
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly · Jan 15 Congress is supposed to hold the executive in check, but Trump acts like a wanna-be authoritarian and gets away with it because Washington Republicans chose to roll over to protect their jobs. It’s time to put them out of a job, and that’s what 2026 is all about.
Obviously Naval Aviators should be nowhere near the reigns of power, but is a this a 2028 POTUS run brewing? He is the anti-Trump in every single possible way.
Plus, his CV is so exciting that he can now be really boring. Indeed, astronauts are selcted for boringness. And he's never had the sort of executive authority that means he has done anything to annoy the voters.
The Dems could well stuff it up, but he would be a very sensible pick.
(I stick to my theory that either any Dem will win, no matter how badly they perform, or no Dem will win, no matter how brilliant they are. I just don't know which door America will go through.)
Newport Folk Festival, 1965. After one of the most controversial sets in folk history, Bob Dylan sets down his electric guitar — and silence fills the air. In the stillness, legends gather: Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Johnny Cash, Bob Weir, Allen Ginsberg, Mike Bloomfield, Albert Grossman, Joni Mitchell. A generation divided, yet united in a single room. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/af1tyn2gPR8
Would you have noticed something wrong, other than they look too similar, despite the channel having AI in its name?
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly It’s easy to watch the news and feel overwhelmed or even helpless at everything going on. I need you to fight that feeling.
I’m an optimist. You have to be when you strap yourself to a rocket for a living. But there’s real reason to be hopeful this year and l’ll tell you why.
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly President Trump is scared. He’s scared because he knows, just like all of us do, that his free rein to do whatever he wants could end this year.
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly · Jan 15 Congress is supposed to hold the executive in check, but Trump acts like a wanna-be authoritarian and gets away with it because Washington Republicans chose to roll over to protect their jobs. It’s time to put them out of a job, and that’s what 2026 is all about.
Obviously Naval Aviators should be nowhere near the reigns of power, but is a this a 2028 POTUS run brewing? He is the anti-Trump in every single possible way.
Plus, his CV is so exciting that he can now be really boring. Indeed, astronauts are selcted for boringness. And he's never had the sort of executive authority that means he has done anything to annoy the voters.
The Dems could well stuff it up, but he would be a very sensible pick.
(I stick to my theory that either any Dem will win, no matter how badly they perform, or no Dem will win, no matter how brilliant they are. I just don't know which door America will go through.)
Kelly is seriously dull. He could probably get elected on the general, but I slightly doubt he'll make it through the primary.
I think the odds of a Labour victory in 2029 have to have increased as of this week.
Yes, we’ve all suddenly seen the awesomeness of Sir Keir Starmer.
"the odds of a Labour victory in 2029 have to have increased" means the person writing it believes there is less chance of Labour winning in 2029 than there was last week. As it is Horse Battery, I assume he is saying what he would like to happen is more likely to, but that would mean the chances of a Labour victory have increased.
When the odds increase, the chance decreases and vice versa
...As for technology, there have been already been fan-made content of eg Dr Who in what look suspiciously like 5-second bursts which is the free-tier limit on one or other of the AI machines...
There is quite a bit of AI Doctor Who videos on YouTube
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly It’s easy to watch the news and feel overwhelmed or even helpless at everything going on. I need you to fight that feeling.
I’m an optimist. You have to be when you strap yourself to a rocket for a living. But there’s real reason to be hopeful this year and l’ll tell you why.
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly President Trump is scared. He’s scared because he knows, just like all of us do, that his free rein to do whatever he wants could end this year.
Captain Mark Kelly @CaptMarkKelly · Jan 15 Congress is supposed to hold the executive in check, but Trump acts like a wanna-be authoritarian and gets away with it because Washington Republicans chose to roll over to protect their jobs. It’s time to put them out of a job, and that’s what 2026 is all about.
Obviously Naval Aviators should be nowhere near the reigns of power, but is a this a 2028 POTUS run brewing? He is the anti-Trump in every single possible way.
Plus, his CV is so exciting that he can now be really boring. Indeed, astronauts are selcted for boringness. And he's never had the sort of executive authority that means he has done anything to annoy the voters.
The Dems could well stuff it up, but he would be a very sensible pick.
(I stick to my theory that either any Dem will win, no matter how badly they perform, or no Dem will win, no matter how brilliant they are. I just don't know which door America will go through.)
Kelly is seriously dull. He could probably get elected on the general, but I slightly doubt he'll make it through the primary.
His military career path of single tour on Intruder and then straight to Pax River suggests a) highly intelligent b) good systems guy c) first rate stick-and-rudder pilot and d) not considered a leader by the USN. Having said that the USN (and Royal Navy) trains you to lead in a very specific and detailed way. If that isn't your natural style and you don't adapt you can forget about getting your flag.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Felt sick reading this. The idea that Jenrick might actually matter is nauseating frankly.
Jenrick does not simply believe immigration was too high, but that the “Boriswave” of new arrivals into the country since 2019 amounts to a national scandal, which has become an emergency. He does not believe the “wave” should be stopped – he believes it must be reversed or the country will not recover. He also believes the small boats issue will only be tackled by force. According to those close to Jenrick, he fears the real test for the next government could come in tragedy, should a woman or child die at sea after being turned back trying to reach Britain, sparking outrage at home and abroad. This, he believes, will be the government’s “Thatcher moment” when only the assertion of government authority will suffice, much as – in his view – the Tory heroine saw off the hunger strikers, miners and Argentines.
Yet, doomed or not, Nigel Farage has found an ideological foil — one who, like JD Vance, has his eye on something more than mere instinctive populism.
It seems to me there are about three positions being discussed here. The first is that while boats should be stopped, compassion will and should get in the way of it and we should play nicely. The second is that boats should be stopped and sometimes that will require tough treatment in which tragedies will happen that play out in the media and the government should tough it out. The third is that the 'Boriswave' should not be stopped but reversed. Most of the Boriswave has no relation to boats of course. 'Reversed' means sending home people lawfully here.
The first two positions are arguable and a matter for good management. The third is completely unacceptable, and it is obvious that Reform have been playing with the third option. That way fascism and massive civil disorder lies.
It is here that the Tories need to draw a clear line away from Reform. If you are here lawfully then it is the UKs job to honour the commitments previous governments made.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
I’ve just checked *google* for the best movies of 2024-25. Jesus it’s dire. Mediocre movies are praised because there’s nothing else
What’s the opposite of a Golden Age? We’re in it
Could just be we're all getting older, but it didn't feel like a strong period.
Nah, I’m an enthusiast by nature. There’s just nothing to get enthusiastic about. Right now
This will change soon as technology transforms movie and TV making, meaning every kid in a shed can bring their ideas to screen
Bit shit for Hollywood, could be great for punters
If I recall TRiE correctly, there are two or three problems for Hollywood films. Content-hungry streamers tempted away a lot of talent or even bought whole studios. Domination of IP-based sci-fi film series means there's not a lot left for the rest of us. And Hollywood is an expensive place to make films.
As for technology, there have been already been fan-made content of eg Dr Who in what look suspiciously like 5-second bursts which is the free-tier limit on one or other of the AI machines.
The other thing is - if making films is expensive you stick to what you know works.
Which is why you end up with sequels and Sci-Fi movies, as they've worked in the past so are safe bets.
Craig Guildford to be allowed to retire early on full pension.
There needs to be a way of clawing back these crazy public-sector pensions from those who resign or are fired in disgrace.
Are private sector pensions clawed back from those fired in disgrace?
Yes, remuneration policies across the private sector include pension contribution and bonus clawbacks for gross misconduct. It wasn't very common but after the 2008 crash and subsequent bailouts they've become pretty standard for senior roles. My contract includes a pretty big percentage clawback clause in the event of gross misconduct.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
You'd be surprised how much I agree with you there. As I've said downthread, I don't think pre-op trans women should as a rule be using shared female changing spaces. Having said that, I don't think *anyone* should really be forced to undress in front of anyone else, it's a privacy issue as much as it is a 'trans' one. I would be deeply uncomfortable if we worked together and I was forced to undress in front of you! Single occupancy lockable cubicles are the obvious answer. This solves the loo problem, too. I also agree with you that because of the differences in size, bone structure etc, trans women shouldn't be in competitive women's sports. Parkruns and dance classes at their local gym that are women only though - what's the problem?
The problem the SC ruling as the gender critical movement wants to interpret it goes much, much further than this. For example, forcing the women's institute to ban trans members. Who is being harmed here, exactly, by elderly trans women being part of arts and crafts circles in an organisation that wishes to welcome them?
I also think it's really important to distinguish between gender identity ('I believe I am a woman') and gender reassignment ('I am taking cross sex hormones that cause my genitalia to atrophy and I am on the waiting list for surgery that will cut my penis off / have had my penis turned into a vagina through surgery'. As I say, the "Widdecombe view" is one that once someone has had 'the op' they should be for all purposes treated as their adopted sex. This is sensible to me - the gender critical view that one remains 'a man' no matter what steps are taken and can thus be excluded from all women's spaces, from the loo to the women's institute knitting circle - does not.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
It's not obvious to me that they will unite (I wouldn't say reunite, because much of Ref was never Tory). Mergers of parties don't seem common. They might, but there is no inevitability about it, and the differences - both political and personality - seem significant obstacles.
Bobajob's new slogan is "Unite the Right", if I have it correctly.
I think the full slogan is "Unite the Right we're otherwise Shite", is it not.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
Trouble is, Kemi didn't get rid of Bobby J for being toxic; if she wanted to do that, he would have been out ages ago. What she couldn't stand was treachery towards her.
And whilst getting rid of Jenrick reduces the toxin concentration in the Parliamentary Conservative Party, it's still pretty high.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
Streeting has no other party to go to though, the LDs aren't going to help him achieve his ambition of becoming PM. So while Jenrick could go to Reform rather than challenge Kemi via a VONC, if Starmer sacked Streeting then Streeting would launch a leadership challenge
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
I do not see any conservative led party cooperating with Starmer in any circumstances
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
Trouble is, Kemi didn't get rid of Bobby J for being toxic; if she wanted to do that, he would have been out ages ago. What she couldn't stand was treachery towards her.
And whilst getting rid of Jenrick reduces the toxin concentration in the Parliamentary Conservative Party, it's still pretty high.
Legacy of Boris Johnson, I think. Will be a while before all that washes through.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
Not Foxy, but probably supposedly more win-backable;
The question is what happens if the next Parliament is hung. If the default setting is that the Conservatives deal with Reform, and I really don't want Reform, what's the point in voting Conservative?
For me, Ashdown-style equidistance is probably the minimum I can tolerate. And I recognise that's more than any realistic Conservative party can offer right now.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
The only sensible move in such an outcome would be some sort of caretaker govement and a fresh election 6 months later. It is better to plan for this than to allow an uncontrolled collapse.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
Thank you for the kind word and please be assured the interest and respect is mutual.
I have no idea what kind of Conservative Party will be presented to the electorate in 2029 and I suspect even Kemi Badenoch only has the outlines. There is a clear niche for the Party to fill on the economy but that's fraught with problems - advocating a "sound" economic policy is all very well but what does that mean in terms of taxation and spending?
We can probably agree the borrowing train needs to be halted but the debt interest payments will be with us for the foreseeable future and with the likelihood of more money being required for defence, law & order and for welfare (meaning pensions and adult social care), I simply don't see how some of the more outlandish claims for spending reductions can be achieved - Conservatives believe in sound money but also in local communities and closing libraries, youth centres and other local amenities sits badly with me and I suspect with most sensible conservatives as well.
We have the problem of our health service which is barely able to cope with demands and often operates out of buildings which are no longer fit for purpose and what about the unsung heroes and heroines who are carers?
If the scope for spending reduction is limited, then what of tax rises to reduce borrowing?
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
Not Foxy, but probably supposedly more win-backable;
The question is what happens if the next Parliament is hung. If the default setting is that the Conservatives deal with Reform, and I really don't want Reform, what's the point in voting Conservative?
For me, Ashdown-style equidistance is probably the minimum I can tolerate. And I recognise that's more than any realistic Conservative party can offer right now.
Cleverly could shift the dial though, I could see him rejecting outright any deal with Farage even in a hung parliament post election
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
I was in the hot-desking hub earlier this week and someone was talking to ChatGPT at lunch.
Human: "How many t's in ballet?" ChatGPT: "There are no t's in ballet." Human: "Are you certain?" ChatGPT: Yes mate. Absolutely certain. No t's in ballet." Human: "Can you spell ballet?" ChatGPT: "Sure thing. B-A-L-L-E-T, there are no t's in ballet." Onlookers:
I think the reputation of "AI" is being trashed, because people have claimed that it is doing things it isn't doing and are trying to get it to do things out isn't capable of doing. The damage to its reputation might become so severe that it acts as a block for AI being used for things where it would help.
Over promise and under deliver is a story we've seen so many times before.
I was in the hot-desking hub earlier this week and someone was talking to ChatGPT at lunch.
Human: "How many t's in ballet?" ChatGPT: "There are no t's in ballet." Human: "Are you certain?" ChatGPT: Yes mate. Absolutely certain. No t's in ballet." Human: "Can you spell ballet?" ChatGPT: "Sure thing. B-A-L-L-E-T, there are no t's in ballet." Onlookers:
I think the reputation of "AI" is being trashed, because people have claimed that it is doing things it isn't doing and are trying to get it to do things out isn't capable of doing. The damage to its reputation might become so severe that it acts as a block for AI being used for things where it would help.
Over promise and under deliver is a story we've seen so many times before.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
I do not see any conservative led party cooperating with Starmer in any circumstances
A Streeting led Labour though, not impossible he could deal with Cleverly. See also the deal Les Republicains have done with Macron's party to keep out Le Pen and RN in France or in Germany the deal Merz and the CDU has done with the SPD to keep out the AfD
Why Scottish X accounts vanished after Iran’s internet shutdown
The sudden halt to criticism of the King, calls of ‘death to the Union’ and attacks on Westminster MPs may be the result of pro-independence bots going dark
On January 7, Jennifer Harris, a Scottish nationalist and regular poster on X, stopped tweeting. Two days later, Sophie, a “Scottish lass with a passion for travel” who “proudly” supports independence, also went offline, despite previously posting daily.
Why the sudden halt to their criticism of the King, calls of “death to the Union” and attacks on Westminster MPs? Because Iran cut itself off from the internet, sending Jennifer, Sophie and dozens of other Iranian bots dark.
This was the third time in eight months that Tehran’s apparent attempts to undermine British democracy with bots on X had been exposed.
After the Israeli bombing of Iran in June 2025, there was a 16-day silence from a network of 1,332 fake profiles linked to Iran, according to the Israeli cybersecurity company Cyabra. The bots had amassed an estimated 224 million views for posts promoting independence, “Brexit betrayal” and alleged bias by the BBC against Scotland.
In November, a new tool on X revealed the location of accounts, exposing Iranian links for many “Scottish nationalists” on the platform.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
This discussion seems to ignore that a new trans person is more likely to be a transman than a transwoman.
Newport Folk Festival, 1965. After one of the most controversial sets in folk history, Bob Dylan sets down his electric guitar — and silence fills the air. In the stillness, legends gather: Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Johnny Cash, Bob Weir, Allen Ginsberg, Mike Bloomfield, Albert Grossman, Joni Mitchell. A generation divided, yet united in a single room. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/af1tyn2gPR8
Would you have noticed something wrong, other than they look too similar, despite the channel having AI in its name?
Without looking at the clip I’d say the text is pure AI.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
Thank you for the kind word and please be assured the interest and respect is mutual.
I have no idea what kind of Conservative Party will be presented to the electorate in 2029 and I suspect even Kemi Badenoch only has the outlines. There is a clear niche for the Party to fill on the economy but that's fraught with problems - advocating a "sound" economic policy is all very well but what does that mean in terms of taxation and spending?
We can probably agree the borrowing train needs to be halted but the debt interest payments will be with us for the foreseeable future and with the likelihood of more money being required for defence, law & order and for welfare (meaning pensions and adult social care), I simply don't see how some of the more outlandish claims for spending reductions can be achieved - Conservatives believe in sound money but also in local communities and closing libraries, youth centres and other local amenities sits badly with me and I suspect with most sensible conservatives as well.
We have the problem of our health service which is barely able to cope with demands and often operates out of buildings which are no longer fit for purpose and what about the unsung heroes and heroines who are carers?
If the scope for spending reduction is limited, then what of tax rises to reduce borrowing?
Personally, am happy Jenrick is gone. I'd like to see more acknowledgement of politics as public service rather than ego gratification, settling scores and career advancement which is the Reform schtick. He'll be happier with them, and everyone else will be happier without him.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
It's been knocking around the back of my mind for a few months - the possibility at any rate. It would be portrayed as "the old guard ganging up to keep out the new parties".
It would be analogous to what happened in Denmark where traditional rivals - Venstre and the Social Democrats - joined with the Moderates to form a coalition. Currently, the coalition looks as though it will be hammered in the October election.
The interesting thing is the three parties set to benefit are the Green Left, Liberal Alliance and the Denmark Democrats so it might be the "new" parties will end up having to either work with the old parties or work together.
Interesting that there's a big backlash by Mail readers against Trump over his Greenland comments, even with an absurd puff piece on Trump right above. A surprising amount of upticks even for posts criticising Farage for his links with Trump, too.
I'd like to think even the most America loving 'disruptive' online rightist would at the least hesitate over the Greenland stuff, which has come out of nowhere and is hard to justify when the USA can put as many troops there as it likes, but love of Trump and upsetting the libs seems to eclipse all in the end - the GOP public are skeptical but they'll come around the more Trump persists in it, already I've been seeing more supportive comments on twitter ramping up.
But how can you tell how many of those supporting comments are authentic if they are on Twitter?
One reason I am prepared to spend as much time as I do on here is that I am sure most of the comments are authentic. Those that are not tend to stick out a mile. But Twitter? Who can take any of it as face value?
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
I really can't see the Tories, even without the Jenrick tendency, putting Labour back into number 10. Just not gonna happen. Party would implode.
Streeting is openly ambitious but I'm not sure he has done anything that smacks of disloyalty. He has not attacked government policy or been openly critical of colleagues. He wants Starmer's job but has stayed within the bounds of Cabinet collective responsibility.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
The big winners of any everyone-but-Ref rainbow coalition will be Ref as they will form the only coherent locus of opposition.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
Thank you for the kind word and please be assured the interest and respect is mutual.
I have no idea what kind of Conservative Party will be presented to the electorate in 2029 and I suspect even Kemi Badenoch only has the outlines. There is a clear niche for the Party to fill on the economy but that's fraught with problems - advocating a "sound" economic policy is all very well but what does that mean in terms of taxation and spending?
We can probably agree the borrowing train needs to be halted but the debt interest payments will be with us for the foreseeable future and with the likelihood of more money being required for defence, law & order and for welfare (meaning pensions and adult social care), I simply don't see how some of the more outlandish claims for spending reductions can be achieved - Conservatives believe in sound money but also in local communities and closing libraries, youth centres and other local amenities sits badly with me and I suspect with most sensible conservatives as well.
We have the problem of our health service which is barely able to cope with demands and often operates out of buildings which are no longer fit for purpose and what about the unsung heroes and heroines who are carers?
If the scope for spending reduction is limited, then what of tax rises to reduce borrowing?
Thank you, and you raise some very difficult and salient questions for all parties who are hamstrung by an electorate who simply do not see or understand the complexities of our economy and only want taxes on others
Ultimately the state pension for all and free NHS will need to become largely means tested and certainly no triple lock
Felt sick reading this. The idea that Jenrick might actually matter is nauseating frankly.
Jenrick does not simply believe immigration was too high, but that the “Boriswave” of new arrivals into the country since 2019 amounts to a national scandal, which has become an emergency. He does not believe the “wave” should be stopped – he believes it must be reversed or the country will not recover. He also believes the small boats issue will only be tackled by force. According to those close to Jenrick, he fears the real test for the next government could come in tragedy, should a woman or child die at sea after being turned back trying to reach Britain, sparking outrage at home and abroad. This, he believes, will be the government’s “Thatcher moment” when only the assertion of government authority will suffice, much as – in his view – the Tory heroine saw off the hunger strikers, miners and Argentines.
Yet, doomed or not, Nigel Farage has found an ideological foil — one who, like JD Vance, has his eye on something more than mere instinctive populism.
Streeting is openly ambitious but I'm not sure he has done anything that smacks of disloyalty. He has not attacked government policy or been openly critical of colleagues. He wants Starmer's job but has stayed within the bounds of Cabinet collective responsibility.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
The big winners of any everyone-but-Ref rainbow coalition will be Ref as they will form the only coherent locus of opposition.
Reform and the Greens would be the big winners to oppose the centrist uniparty government from its right and left but they both hate each other too
Tories? Learn to be Tories again and there are votes to win. Nobody wants this culture war bullshit other than Faragists. So bin it off and talk about taxes and the cost of living.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
I do not see any conservative led party cooperating with Starmer in any circumstances
A Streeting led Labour though, not impossible he could deal with Cleverly. See also the deal Les Republicains have done with Macron's party to keep out Le Pen and RN in France or in Germany the deal Merz and the CDU has done with the SPD to keep out the AfD
Having lost Jenrick from your theories you have now jumped onto Cleverly at a time when Badenoch has increased her grip on the party and no matter May's results is there for the long term
I cannot count how many conservatives have said the last thing they need is yet another change of leader so what matters now is Badenoch's views
Newport Folk Festival, 1965. After one of the most controversial sets in folk history, Bob Dylan sets down his electric guitar — and silence fills the air. In the stillness, legends gather: Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Johnny Cash, Bob Weir, Allen Ginsberg, Mike Bloomfield, Albert Grossman, Joni Mitchell. A generation divided, yet united in a single room. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/af1tyn2gPR8
Would you have noticed something wrong, other than they look too similar, despite the channel having AI in its name?
Without looking at the clip I’d say the text is pure AI.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
Reform and Conservative can happily slug it out in any current Conservative seat except for the 20 or so where the LDs are a challenger. Labour isn't going to be taking seats of the Conservatives next time. Just as at the last election Labour and LD might have done, if there had been any Lab-LD marginals other than Sheffield Hallam. (And the LDs also made no effort in Labour constituencies because they targeted the winnable ones ruthlessly and effectively).
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
Streeting is openly ambitious but I'm not sure he has done anything that smacks of disloyalty. He has not attacked government policy or been openly critical of colleagues. He wants Starmer's job but has stayed within the bounds of Cabinet collective responsibility.
He is Labour's Jenrick, but with more cunning.
He put his defection/resignation/leadership challenge speech in a drawer as opposed to leaving it in the printer?
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
The big winners of any everyone-but-Ref rainbow coalition will be Ref as they will form the only coherent locus of opposition.
Reform and the Greens would be the big winners to oppose the centrist uniparty government from its right and left but they both hate each other too
Given they both want to murder their ancestor parties, I’m not sure that would matter.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
Reform and Conservative can happily slug it out in any current Conservative seat except for the 20 or so where the LDs are a challenger. Labour isn't going to be taking seats of the Conservatives next time. Just as at the last election Labour and LD might have done, if there had been any Lab-LD marginals other than Sheffield Hallam. (And the LDs also made no effort in Labour constituencies because they targeted the winnable ones ruthlessly and effectively).
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
Rosindell after Braverman is now seen as the next likeliest to defect to Reform
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
I do not see any conservative led party cooperating with Starmer in any circumstances
A Streeting led Labour though, not impossible he could deal with Cleverly. See also the deal Les Republicains have done with Macron's party to keep out Le Pen and RN in France or in Germany the deal Merz and the CDU has done with the SPD to keep out the AfD
Having lost Jenrick from your theories you have now jumped onto Cleverly at a time when Badenoch has increased her grip on the party and no matter May's results is there for the long term
I cannot count how many conservatives have said the last thing they need is yet another change of leader so what matters now is Badenoch's views
No, I back Kemi too. as long as she beats Labour in the NEV after May's local elections she will be safe even if Reform still top the poll.
If she doesn't though Cleverly will be an alternative option
Newport Folk Festival, 1965. After one of the most controversial sets in folk history, Bob Dylan sets down his electric guitar — and silence fills the air. In the stillness, legends gather: Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Johnny Cash, Bob Weir, Allen Ginsberg, Mike Bloomfield, Albert Grossman, Joni Mitchell. A generation divided, yet united in a single room. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/af1tyn2gPR8
Would you have noticed something wrong, other than they look too similar, despite the channel having AI in its name?
Without looking at the clip I’d say the text is pure AI.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
I'm the same as you. I could vote for a Cameron-style Tory party. Even under current circumstances I could hold my nose and vote Tory against Reform provided they were clearly not going to do a deal with them afterwards, and their platform was sufficiently distanced. I think I would still need a scotch and a lie down after voting!
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
I really can't see the Tories, even without the Jenrick tendency, putting Labour back into number 10. Just not gonna happen. Party would implode.
And that's the Conservatives' strategic problem. If they can't open up at least a bit of ambiguity about whether they will side with Reform against Labour, whether actively or passively, what is their point right now?
Newport Folk Festival, 1965. After one of the most controversial sets in folk history, Bob Dylan sets down his electric guitar — and silence fills the air. In the stillness, legends gather: Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Johnny Cash, Bob Weir, Allen Ginsberg, Mike Bloomfield, Albert Grossman, Joni Mitchell. A generation divided, yet united in a single room. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/af1tyn2gPR8
Would you have noticed something wrong, other than they look too similar, despite the channel having AI in its name?
I've been quite enjoying the work of this AI video artist :
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
I do not see any conservative led party cooperating with Starmer in any circumstances
A Streeting led Labour though, not impossible he could deal with Cleverly. See also the deal Les Republicains have done with Macron's party to keep out Le Pen and RN in France or in Germany the deal Merz and the CDU has done with the SPD to keep out the AfD
Having lost Jenrick from your theories you have now jumped onto Cleverly at a time when Badenoch has increased her grip on the party and no matter May's results is there for the long term
I cannot count how many conservatives have said the last thing they need is yet another change of leader so what matters now is Badenoch's views
No, I back Kemi too. as long as she beats Labour in the NEV after May's local elections she will be safe even if Reform still top the poll.
If she doesn't though Cleverly will be an alternative option
My backing of Kemi is unconditional as she has taken decisive action with real leadership and she has earned the right to lead the party going forward
Additionally Cleverly would not be an improvement and I doubt he would want to destabilise the party further
Streeting is openly ambitious but I'm not sure he has done anything that smacks of disloyalty. He has not attacked government policy or been openly critical of colleagues. He wants Starmer's job but has stayed within the bounds of Cabinet collective responsibility.
He is Labour's Jenrick, but with more cunning.
He put his defection/resignation/leadership challenge speech in a drawer as opposed to leaving it in the printer?
I can't see Kemi Badenoch losing too much sleep over that either.
It’s like the Tories have built a detoxification machine. “The ones you hated? All in Reform now mate. High spenders obsessed with the culture war and Europe. Come to us for moderation, competence, and a strong economy”.
Starmer should try and engineer it for himself via Corbyn’s new mob.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
Reform and Conservative can happily slug it out in any current Conservative seat except for the 20 or so where the LDs are a challenger. Labour isn't going to be taking seats of the Conservatives next time. Just as at the last election Labour and LD might have done, if there had been any Lab-LD marginals other than Sheffield Hallam. (And the LDs also made no effort in Labour constituencies because they targeted the winnable ones ruthlessly and effectively).
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
Rosindell after Braverman is now seen as the next likeliest to defect to Reform
Not so sure. He has a bit of a local difficulty in that most of the local Reform members hate him; many are ex-Tories who have fallen out with him.
Streeting is openly ambitious but I'm not sure he has done anything that smacks of disloyalty. He has not attacked government policy or been openly critical of colleagues. He wants Starmer's job but has stayed within the bounds of Cabinet collective responsibility.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
It would likely be a confidence and supply deal at most, whereas a Labour and LD coalition government after a hung parliament is not now impossible, though again confidence and supply is more likely. The LDs certainly wouldn't touch the Tories again for a generation after Brexit unless it was the only option to keep Reform out and a Tory leader like say Cleverly was amenable to a deal with them and Starmer Labour to keep out Farage and Polanski and the SNP
Just so I'm clear, you could envisage a Cleverly-led Conservative Party co-operating with a post-Starmer Labour Party and a Davey-led Liberal Democrats IF the three parties formed a majority in the next Commons leaving Reform, the Greens and the SNP to inhabit the opposition benches?
Intriguing...
Say the next general election produced a very hung parliament with Reform 250 MPs, Labour 150, a Cleverly led Tories 95 and LDs 85 and SNP 35 and Greens 20, that would not be impossible, no. Maybe even with rotating PMs between Tories, Labour and LD as the Irish have had between FG and FF to keep SF out.
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
The big winners of any everyone-but-Ref rainbow coalition will be Ref as they will form the only coherent locus of opposition.
Reform and the Greens would be the big winners to oppose the centrist uniparty government from its right and left but they both hate each other too
Given they both want to murder their ancestor parties, I’m not sure that would matter.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
Reform and Conservative can happily slug it out in any current Conservative seat except for the 20 or so where the LDs are a challenger. Labour isn't going to be taking seats of the Conservatives next time. Just as at the last election Labour and LD might have done, if there had been any Lab-LD marginals other than Sheffield Hallam. (And the LDs also made no effort in Labour constituencies because they targeted the winnable ones ruthlessly and effectively).
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
Rosindell after Braverman is now seen as the next likeliest to defect to Reform
Not so sure. He has a bit of a local difficulty in that most of the local Reform members hate him; many are ex-Tories who have fallen out with him.
Rosindell has a big personal vote in Romford though, Farage would have him
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
Reform and Conservative can happily slug it out in any current Conservative seat except for the 20 or so where the LDs are a challenger. Labour isn't going to be taking seats of the Conservatives next time. Just as at the last election Labour and LD might have done, if there had been any Lab-LD marginals other than Sheffield Hallam. (And the LDs also made no effort in Labour constituencies because they targeted the winnable ones ruthlessly and effectively).
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
Rosindell after Braverman is now seen as the next likeliest to defect to Reform
Not so sure. He has a bit of a local difficulty in that most of the local Reform members hate him; many are ex-Tories who have fallen out with him.
Besides, whilst the powers that be concluded that there was insufficient evidence to press any charges after his unpleasant experiences, a shiny sixpence says that the Whips have sufficient allegations recorded in their Black Book to keep him on the straight and narrow.
Also, I'm pretty sure that his 'I'm a patriotic Tory and proud of it and I venerate the memory of Maggie' thing is sincere. Whereas the key belief of both BJ and BJ seems to have been the advancement of BJ. The Conservative Party was just a means to an end.
There is a limit to how many defections the Conservatives can handle. The right is splitting into two parts: those who think immigration is the number #1 priority (Reform) and those who think economics is the number #1 priority (Conservative).
This raises the possibility of the right-wing nightmare scenario: 50% of the right-bloc vote going to Reform and 50% of the right-bloc votes going to Conservatives. In this scenario a 50/50 split in the right bloc just results in a lot of second places for Reform & Tories.
Kemi has to be aiming for over 30%. She may do it given the time to 2029. But she's not there yet.
Why Scottish X accounts vanished after Iran’s internet shutdown
The sudden halt to criticism of the King, calls of ‘death to the Union’ and attacks on Westminster MPs may be the result of pro-independence bots going dark
On January 7, Jennifer Harris, a Scottish nationalist and regular poster on X, stopped tweeting. Two days later, Sophie, a “Scottish lass with a passion for travel” who “proudly” supports independence, also went offline, despite previously posting daily.
Why the sudden halt to their criticism of the King, calls of “death to the Union” and attacks on Westminster MPs? Because Iran cut itself off from the internet, sending Jennifer, Sophie and dozens of other Iranian bots dark.
This was the third time in eight months that Tehran’s apparent attempts to undermine British democracy with bots on X had been exposed.
After the Israeli bombing of Iran in June 2025, there was a 16-day silence from a network of 1,332 fake profiles linked to Iran, according to the Israeli cybersecurity company Cyabra. The bots had amassed an estimated 224 million views for posts promoting independence, “Brexit betrayal” and alleged bias by the BBC against Scotland.
In November, a new tool on X revealed the location of accounts, exposing Iranian links for many “Scottish nationalists” on the platform.
The other thought I've had, which is hardly original, is Jenrick has time on his side. He's in his mid-40s and could well be the next leader of Reform after Farage.
A rapprochement between him and a Badenoch-led Conservative Party seems improbable currently and that would seem to rule out any kind of deal after the next election.
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
Reform and Conservative can happily slug it out in any current Conservative seat except for the 20 or so where the LDs are a challenger. Labour isn't going to be taking seats of the Conservatives next time. Just as at the last election Labour and LD might have done, if there had been any Lab-LD marginals other than Sheffield Hallam. (And the LDs also made no effort in Labour constituencies because they targeted the winnable ones ruthlessly and effectively).
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
Rosindell after Braverman is now seen as the next likeliest to defect to Reform
Not so sure. He has a bit of a local difficulty in that most of the local Reform members hate him; many are ex-Tories who have fallen out with him.
Rosindell has a big personal vote in Romford though, Farage would have him
He would, and he would almost certainly win. The handbag throwing in the local party if Farage decided to have him might be a fun spectacle. I don't expect Farage cares, and Rosindell has a thick skin but even so I suspect he would think twice before jumping ship. His local Tories all still seem to be working hard for him, I'm still getting leaflets like clockwork and I wonder if he would have eased off a little if he was planning to defect.
I think it's quite likely he might defect, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
The other thought I've had, which is hardly original, is Jenrick has time on his side. He's in his mid-40s and could well be the next leader of Reform after Farage.
A rapprochement between him and a Badenoch-led Conservative Party seems improbable currently and that would seem to rule out any kind of deal after the next election.
I thought that yesterday but not sure his colleagues would agree especially Tice
The central question remains whether, in the event of Reform plus the Conservatives (or Conservatives plus Reform) having a majority in the Commons whether any kind of "deal" can or would be done.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
The greater and certainly earlier question is whether there will be a pre-election pact not to try very hard in each other's target constituencies.
Defining those is nowhere near as easy as it was or might be for Labour/LD "targets". As an example, I suspect Labour won;t do very much in Carshalton and the LDs won't do very much in Amber Valley.
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
Reform and Conservative can happily slug it out in any current Conservative seat except for the 20 or so where the LDs are a challenger. Labour isn't going to be taking seats of the Conservatives next time. Just as at the last election Labour and LD might have done, if there had been any Lab-LD marginals other than Sheffield Hallam. (And the LDs also made no effort in Labour constituencies because they targeted the winnable ones ruthlessly and effectively).
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
Rosindell after Braverman is now seen as the next likeliest to defect to Reform
Not so sure. He has a bit of a local difficulty in that most of the local Reform members hate him; many are ex-Tories who have fallen out with him.
Besides, whilst the powers that be concluded that there was insufficient evidence to press any charges after his unpleasant experiences, a shiny sixpence says that the Whips have sufficient allegations recorded in their Black Book to keep him on the straight and narrow.
Also, I'm pretty sure that his 'I'm a patriotic Tory and proud of it and I venerate the memory of Maggie' thing is sincere. Whereas the key belief of both BJ and BJ seems to have been the advancement of BJ. The Conservative Party was just a means to an end.
Good point about the Whips. I hadn't considered that but it's obvious really (I've heard the story, I won't hint at it here but it would be curtains if it came out).
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
Me too. I voted for Sunak but with no enthusiasm whatsoever. Starmer seemed to me to be exactly what he has proven to be, an empty vessel blown by the wind who wouldn't recognise a principle if he fell over it. But the Rwanda nonsense, the ridiculous obsession with removing EU laws without even thinking what was going to replace them, the obsession with ECHR and culture wars all tried my patience to its very limit. I am fairly happy with the current direction of travel but there is a bit to go yet.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
So in cold stark reality that's a no then.
I don't think that the Conservatives have reached that epiphany yet. They are not yet existing in a reality based world.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
You'd be surprised how much I agree with you there. As I've said downthread, I don't think pre-op trans women should as a rule be using shared female changing spaces. Having said that, I don't think *anyone* should really be forced to undress in front of anyone else, it's a privacy issue as much as it is a 'trans' one. I would be deeply uncomfortable if we worked together and I was forced to undress in front of you! Single occupancy lockable cubicles are the obvious answer. This solves the loo problem, too. I also agree with you that because of the differences in size, bone structure etc, trans women shouldn't be in competitive women's sports. Parkruns and dance classes at their local gym that are women only though - what's the problem?
The problem the SC ruling as the gender critical movement wants to interpret it goes much, much further than this. For example, forcing the women's institute to ban trans members. Who is being harmed here, exactly, by elderly trans women being part of arts and crafts circles in an organisation that wishes to welcome them?
I also think it's really important to distinguish between gender identity ('I believe I am a woman') and gender reassignment ('I am taking cross sex hormones that cause my genitalia to atrophy and I am on the waiting list for surgery that will cut my penis off / have had my penis turned into a vagina through surgery'. As I say, the "Widdecombe view" is one that once someone has had 'the op' they should be for all purposes treated as their adopted sex. This is sensible to me - the gender critical view that one remains 'a man' no matter what steps are taken and can thus be excluded from all women's spaces, from the loo to the women's institute knitting circle - does not.
A penis cannot be turned into a vagina through surgery. I will concede that there is merit in your point re those who have had surgery and to be honest it ought to be up to the WI and/or their members who can be in the WI, but that’s not what the issue has been about.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
In a heartbeat. Though fortunately I'm unlikely to be faced with that choice.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
This discussion seems to ignore that a new trans person is more likely to be a transman than a transwoman.
Is that true? Most men are a lot less worried about changing rooms, tbh.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
This discussion seems to ignore that a new trans person is more likely to be a transman than a transwoman.
Is that true? Most men are a lot less worried about changing rooms, tbh.
That may well be so, but it does mean ignoring the law as Transmen should not be there legally.
Comments
And even if you're a politician, and do expected to be less than 100% honest, as Boris demonstrated it can still lead to your political demise.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxDcBAxVjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFWDUE8Yea0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYVtlbpbtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLQMK2ciZ_8
The CGI Dalek dramas can be very good
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8w05iq54fIlW1a9-Zso1u4LqWBM3sB6n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WldDztzDoOs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOSPNpKGs34&list=PLFAkJXpm6BWy_R3C27nh4yw67WwHKh-NE&index=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMmTbKnRxV8
The conventional fan productions are not good, but this is the best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2OMRUXzWcw
...and there's always the Cult of Scratchwood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtr0zyxIEgY&list=PLxgYfktFv1mn0Ymoh345bVCs7QZGRdy6n&index=7
Pause
I am a grown adult. With a mortgage and everything.
The Dems could well stuff it up, but he would be a very sensible pick.
(I stick to my theory that either any Dem will win, no matter how badly they perform, or no Dem will win, no matter how brilliant they are. I just don't know which door America will go through.)
1967 Soho — Post-Gig Jam with Clapton, Beck & Page
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZOtSdaC7aSY
Newport Folk Festival, 1965.
After one of the most controversial sets in folk history, Bob Dylan sets down his electric guitar — and silence fills the air.
In the stillness, legends gather:
Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Johnny Cash, Bob Weir, Allen Ginsberg, Mike Bloomfield, Albert Grossman, Joni Mitchell.
A generation divided, yet united in a single room.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/af1tyn2gPR8
Would you have noticed something wrong, other than they look too similar, despite the channel having AI in its name?
He could probably get elected on the general, but I slightly doubt he'll make it through the primary.
When the odds increase, the chance decreases and vice versa
Not a friendly power obviously.
There seems plenty of latent hostility between the two parties but is that greater or lesser than the desire to be in Government?
General election 2019: Brexit Party will not stand in Tory seats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50377396
The first two positions are arguable and a matter for good management. The third is completely unacceptable, and it is obvious that Reform have been playing with the third option. That way fascism and massive civil disorder lies.
It is here that the Tories need to draw a clear line away from Reform. If you are here lawfully then it is the UKs job to honour the commitments previous governments made.
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
Reform may or may not leave the former to the Conservatives but will the Conservatives leave the latter for Reform and what about seats such as Hornchurch & Upminster which are Conservative-Reform marginals?
https://boxd.it/9E6AqN
Best film in 2023 was Perfect Days
https://boxd.it/76jTqV
There's some great cinema out there with really thoughtful ideas behind it, but you do need to look for it.
The problem the SC ruling as the gender critical movement wants to interpret it goes much, much further than this. For example, forcing the women's institute to ban trans members. Who is being harmed here, exactly, by elderly trans women being part of arts and crafts circles in an organisation that wishes to welcome them?
I also think it's really important to distinguish between gender identity ('I believe I am a woman') and gender reassignment ('I am taking cross sex hormones that cause my genitalia to atrophy and I am on the waiting list for surgery that will cut my penis off / have had my penis turned into a vagina through surgery'. As I say, the "Widdecombe view" is one that once someone has had 'the op' they should be for all purposes treated as their adopted sex. This is sensible to me - the gender critical view that one remains 'a man' no matter what steps are taken and can thus be excluded from all women's spaces, from the loo to the women's institute knitting circle - does not.
And whilst getting rid of Jenrick reduces the toxin concentration in the Parliamentary Conservative Party, it's still pretty high.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Intriguing...
It would need Cleverly though, Kemi would never do a deal with Labour or the LDs and if she had the balance of power would reluctantly I expect give Farage confidence and supply
https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
The question is what happens if the next Parliament is hung. If the default setting is that the Conservatives deal with Reform, and I really don't want Reform, what's the point in voting Conservative?
For me, Ashdown-style equidistance is probably the minimum I can tolerate. And I recognise that's more than any realistic Conservative party can offer right now.
I have no idea what kind of Conservative Party will be presented to the electorate in 2029 and I suspect even Kemi Badenoch only has the outlines. There is a clear niche for the Party to fill on the economy but that's fraught with problems - advocating a "sound" economic policy is all very well but what does that mean in terms of taxation and spending?
We can probably agree the borrowing train needs to be halted but the debt interest payments will be with us for the foreseeable future and with the likelihood of more money being required for defence, law & order and for welfare (meaning pensions and adult social care), I simply don't see how some of the more outlandish claims for spending reductions can be achieved - Conservatives believe in sound money but also in local communities and closing libraries, youth centres and other local amenities sits badly with me and I suspect with most sensible conservatives as well.
We have the problem of our health service which is barely able to cope with demands and often operates out of buildings which are no longer fit for purpose and what about the unsung heroes and heroines who are carers?
If the scope for spending reduction is limited, then what of tax rises to reduce borrowing?
Personally, am happy Jenrick is gone. I'd like to see more acknowledgement of politics as public service rather than ego gratification, settling scores and career advancement which is the Reform schtick. He'll be happier with them, and everyone else will be happier without him.
It would be analogous to what happened in Denmark where traditional rivals - Venstre and the Social Democrats - joined with the Moderates to form a coalition. Currently, the coalition looks as though it will be hammered in the October election.
The interesting thing is the three parties set to benefit are the Green Left, Liberal Alliance and the Denmark Democrats so it might be the "new" parties will end up having to either work with the old parties or work together.
One reason I am prepared to spend as much time as I do on here is that I am sure most of the comments are authentic. Those that are not tend to stick out a mile. But Twitter? Who can take any of it as face value?
I’m hearing rumblings here on the south coast that this is in pipeline.'
https://x.com/DuncanBarkes/status/2012252732866912429?s=20
Ultimately the state pension for all and free NHS will need to become largely means tested and certainly no triple lock
The trouble is I also think he's an untrustworthy arsehole.
It's the man, not the policy.
I cannot count how many conservatives have said the last thing they need is yet another change of leader so what matters now is Badenoch's views
They probably do need to have an idea which Labour seats to go for respectively which is probably Red Wall=Reform and Shire=Tory.
That would then mean that people who don't want Reform anywhere government in constituencies like Hornchurch & Upminster won't vote tactically because there's nobody to vote for. I will be in that position in Romford anyway if Rosindell stands again as I don't see any difference at all between him and Reform, even if Badenoch (or whoever the leader is then) makes it clear they won't do a deal with Reform.
If she doesn't though Cleverly will be an alternative option
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZuevvk0Yw
Something between 1960s Roger Corman and a "Georgian/Yugoslav Unknown Masterpieces" retrospective from the BFI.
Additionally Cleverly would not be an improvement and I doubt he would want to destabilise the party further
Starmer should try and engineer it for himself via Corbyn’s new mob.
Also, I'm pretty sure that his 'I'm a patriotic Tory and proud of it and I venerate the memory of Maggie' thing is sincere. Whereas the key belief of both BJ and BJ seems to have been the advancement of BJ. The Conservative Party was just a means to an end.
In any event, he'd never out-Jenrick Jenrick.
This raises the possibility of the right-wing nightmare scenario: 50% of the right-bloc vote going to Reform and 50% of the right-bloc votes going to Conservatives. In this scenario a 50/50 split in the right bloc just results in a lot of second places for Reform & Tories.
Kemi has to be aiming for over 30%. She may do it given the time to 2029. But she's not there yet.
https://benansell.substack.com/p/bloc-parties
A rapprochement between him and a Badenoch-led Conservative Party seems improbable currently and that would seem to rule out any kind of deal after the next election.
I think it's quite likely he might defect, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
(In both senses.)
Though fortunately I'm unlikely to be faced with that choice.
Most men are a lot less worried about changing rooms, tbh.