Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadsom might not ever have a better chance of becoming PM tha
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadsom might not ever have a better chance of becoming PM than the 2016 leadership race that she flunked
It is being reported over that Andrea Leadsom is ready to stand if there is move within the parliamentary party to try to anoint a successor to GE2017 failure, TMay, without the necessity of going through a full fledged leadership contest.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Let's not allow May's uselessness to blind us to the fact of Leadsom's being 100x worse. Though to be fair to Leadsom, she was right (though not less loathsome for it) to focus on May being childless. It was May's uinability to empathise over inheritances and univ fees which cost her majority.
I've just spent two days in the Commons talking to MPs on animal welfare issues, and inevitably the conversation sometimes strayed. The general view seems to be that a Tory leadership challenge is likely in the autumn, with the intention of then soldiering on until Brexit is complete. Treat with caution - a small sample of views, and not evident that they would necessarily know - but may be a straw in the wind.
Indeed.
Anyway, must be off.
Nailed on for PM then?
Having knocked out her Brexit rivals she could then double cross them and pack the cabinet with Remainers in a deal to sow up the leadership.
(Red Dragon was his plan to land one or more unmanned capsules on Mars in 2020).
I'm ambivalent about today's news despite being born in 1976. I'll still hopefully retire by 60 and draw on my own work pension pots and take the extra state payment as a bonus at 68 or whenever. I do think the Tories have again mismanaged this by allowing the media narrative to be about "work till you're 68" but really that's not what it means to most people - it just means you won't get a state payment until 68.
https://twitter.com/HansNiesund/status/887406732665917441
After the Brexit vote she got a bit carried away. Fair enough. There's no need to stay carried away though - she's clearly far from PM material.
The rearguard action to prevent Corbyn forever extinguishing the flame of national self-respect must not fall in to the trap of delivering a worse outcome.
Jeez, how do you guys sleep at night - when the bogeyman might get you? Do get a grip!
UK life expectancy was 80.4 years in 2010, rose slightly to 81.4 by 2014 before falling back to 81.0 in 2015... hardly consistent with UK austerity causing falling life expectancy.
I rest my case... in the bin
(PS Cameron/Osborne's austerity was still the wrong approach for the country post-2010 though!)
On another note, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU caught faking global temperature data. The oncoming grand solar minimum is being increasingly noticed by many people. Just one of the many cogs in the global crisis in confidence in government worldwide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVLZ2_wxiDI
O
It looks like Richard Caring has bought the infamous Ed Stone. It's currently occupying a prime position in the garden of The Ivy Restaurant's Chelsea spin-off.
I will attempt to post a picture.
I'm not particularly keen on either brand of back to the 1950s, but I know which I dislike more.
Yeah right. Presume he wasn't really wanting to win when he stood for Central Fife and The Wreking then.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/19/hpv-vaccine-anger-decision-not-extend-nhs-scheme-boys-cancer
The next generation of gay/bi/flexible/closeted men deserve protection. This jab will significantly benefit them and has few side effects. If not a universal jab for all boys, at least offer a free opt-in, confidential, go-to-your-gp, option for teenage boys with or without their parents knowledge.
Or even thought that he might run it a bit close on a good night?
The Chelsea Garden Ivy is very handy for the Chelsea Book Fair; but so is Rabbit, down the road. Quite decent choice down that end of the KR nowadays. Not so even 2 years ago...
LibDems 7%
Tories 317 seats
LibDems 12 seats
The world is warming, largely through anthropogenic forcing - that's pretty much a fact now. Moronic flat-earthers like you may not agree but quite frankly who gives a fvck!
Though this year I'm exhibiting at the INK fair at Two Temple Place too - will have to find a decent restaurant that end of town.
It's a school night, remember?
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
So, you either have to say:
1. The earth has not warmed, but the oceans have.
or
2. Two entirely differently collected data sets are both being tampered with.
I find the either of these propositions to be unconvincing. The evidence for rising sea levels (i.e. expansion of water) is extremely strong. The evidence from buoys of water warming is very strong. I also struggle - although I realise there may well be explanations - to think of a situation where the ocean becomes warmer without the world as a whole warming.
You might like to have a look at the article below as well:
https://www.iceagenow.info/bombshell-climate-change-study/
And I think the data from the Vostok glacier demolishes your case as well:
https://www.iceagenow.info/vostok-ice-cores-prove-co2-not-driver/
Secondly, what exactly about the video is a joke? I think the joke is on you. Just in the past few months we've had record coldest July temperature in the northern hemisphere ever recorded in Greenland of -33C. Indeed, we've hardly seen any ice melt there this summer.
It has also snowed in northern Quebec in recent days, as well as Santiago (very unusual as the residents there will tell you) as well as being incredibly cold across Chile and Argentina generally. Southern Australia has set plenty of record cold temperatures this winter, as well as it being the coldest winter in Perth for many years.
The evidence is all around you wherever you look of the oncoming Grand Solar Minimum. And people like you will be expecting the government to support you with cold winter fuel payments etc with the oncoming cold weather. I can't help that you like in denial of the obvious, but that's your problem and not mine.
Discovered this nice Italian place near Euston station this evening.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186338-d1043936-Reviews-Brizzi_s-London_England.html
Please feel free to embarrass yourself further by saying something about 97% of scientists, to confirm that you do not understand that the appeal to authority is a fallacy. And you can call me a moron if you want to, but not on the grounds that I dispute the existence of AGW, because I don't. I just don't like self-righteous stupidity.
' The head of the French armed forces has resigned amid a bitter public row with the president, Emmanuel Macron – an unprecedented dispute that has highlighted the strain on the French military, deployed in numerous operations abroad and at home.
The military chief, Gen Pierre de Villiers, said in a resignation statement on Wednesday that he no longer felt able to command the sort of armed forces “that I think is necessary to guarantee the protection of France and the French people”.
The row began last week when a government minister revealed in a newspaper interview that – despite assurances that the French military budget would rise – there would be a surprise €850m cut to military finances as Macron seeks to slash public spending. '
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/19/head-of-french-military-quits-after-row-with-emmanuel-macron
And does anyone still believe that Macron is opposed to austerity ?
It's complicated and, to be honest, I don't know.
Given the large numbers of humanity living in coastal regions for example, any increase in sea levels and storminess is going to cause problems irrespective of the cause.
Our numbers and the structure of our civilisation create a hyper-sensitivity to weather and climate changes that didn't exist thousands of years ago.
How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
"Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences."
And I can recommend:
http://www.poundbakery.co.uk/store-search/
Two Cornish Pasties for a quid, right tasty they are as well.
In fact, we could afford to *increase* pensions and *lower* the pension age from the revenue raised via a LVT.
All we need is a strong and stable labour government to fix the tory pensions crisis and put provision on a sure footing for the coming generations.
Of course the better idea would have been to increase the pension age and to get rid of the triple lock.
Anyway that's certainly not going to happen.
Of course, it's a complete coincidence that the favoured sector predominately votes Conservative whilst the other predominantly votes Labour...
Remind me when was the last time the pension age was lowered ?
The whole point of the current government is to protect the interests, assets and pensions of the tory client vote - older property owners. Under 40's are irrelevant. Even under 50's don't really matter.
The tories don't give a damn that the system isn't sustainable, long term.
They listen and nod when David Willetts is in the room, then go back to scraping the barrel for more pork to give to their client vote.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/what-the-world-would-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted-a7847386.html
Note to self: to be on the safe side always live above 100 meters...
Many others vehemently disagreed, praising Theresa's qualities, but all they were really interested in was a Brexit stitch up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVGV2UqSCbU
Here is a question. There is only one correct answer to it. Consider the nature of the evidence for the claim that smoking causes cancer. In your opinion is the evidence for AGW as strong as that evidence, or stronger, or weaker? And by how much?
And here is another: consider the circumstances in which professor Holick lost his job for questioning the unanimous scientific view that exposure of the skin to sunlight has only harmful consequences. That unanimity has now been utterly reversed. What makes the AGW consensus any stronger than the sunlight consensus?
The point is not whether AGW is right or not, it's whether you are equipped to have a useful opinion on the subject. You aren't.
Some things cannot be quantified. You can't quantify "by how much" the evidence that smoking causes cancer is stronger or weaker than the evidence for AGW.
In this case, there are good grounds to assume that the members of the Royal Society are likely to be a good source of information with regard to climate change, since they include experts in the field who have the knowledge and ability to understand the problem.
See section 5 for the projections:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2015-10-29#changing-age-structure
Most people who try to argue against AGW do so because they have significant financial and/or political gains to make from promoting the belief that there is a "debate" in the scientific community.
They're using the state to milk not-tories so they can hand cash to their client vote.
Austerity for you, prosperity for us.
How certain should you be to take action to avoid catastrophe? 95% or just 50%? perhaps just 10% when we consider the apocalyptic possibilities?
The real question is what is the best action? sea defences or reduced CO2?
Some things cannot be quantified, and attempts to do so only mislead.
In the case of AGW, it is better to explain the physical reasoning why we expect such a causal connection, and to stop there.
There is a lot we still don't know about the science. We can debate policy. There is plenty to be sceptical about. I just don't think it's useful to challenge the basic fact of human generated climate change and to dismiss it all as a big plot.
1. Global warming is real and much of it is anthropogenic.
2 Nothing serious will be done about it.
3 It may be good for humanity by lengthening growing seasons; it may be bad for humanity if weather patterns, rainfall, sea-levels change for the worse. We don't know.
4. Man conquered the globe because he adapted, in prehistoric times, to climates from the Arctic to the Sahara.
5. We will adapt to a warmer Earth.
http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/EuropePopulationPyramids.jpg