Sunak edging closer in the CON leader betting – politicalbetting.com

Eabhal said:

williamglenn said:

ECB raises interest rates by 0.5%

By 0.5 percentage points

I think that was more than generally expected?

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

RobD said:

Eabhal said:

williamglenn said:

ECB raises interest rates by 0.5%

By 0.5 percentage points

I think that was more than generally expected?

Now ECB interest rates are at a whopping 0%, while inflation continues raging.

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

Liz Truss says she was wrong to back Remain

Vote for me, I was wrong on what you consider to be our defining political issue.

Well, it's brave. And it's actually probably the most helpful thing she could say, as trying to hedge won't help her.

But she does not want this to become a referendum on Euroscepticism.

Wait till she finds out she was a Minister and MP for 12 years of a government with the wrong economic policies.

Was she?

That. Is. A. Disgrace.

On the topic of her cheese speech - or the Jarlsberg Address as it should be called - I think too many people focus on the terrible delivery and too few on its terrible content. Truss's basic argument is that the UK exports - great! And the UK imports - a disgrace! Thus completely misunderstanding the whole concept of international trade.

"In December I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets"

https://twitter.com/i/status/1549779249644683264

It's kind of in the so bad it's good category. This is the one slight risk for 'us' with Truss. She could develop a bit of 'quirky national treasure' appeal to the unwary.

kamski said:

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

This is strongly influencing me. Sunak's defence and foreign policy is appalling and hopelessly naïve:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/either-liz-truss-or-rishi-sunak-will-be-britains-next-prime-minister-truss-would-be-a-better-us-ally

Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.

Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?

Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.

I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.

China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.

As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.

A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.

The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.

The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.

To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?

The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.

But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.

You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.

You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep.
Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.

If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.

Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.

Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee.
You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.

Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.

The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.

Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.

Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎

Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:

I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?

I know which one I'd identify more with.

Thornberry.

Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"

Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"

Not remotely the same at all.

The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.

White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.

Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.

What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.

Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.

I believe the stats are 52:48 in favour of White

It's probably rather more than that.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/simple-rule-change-could-mean-check-mate-for-unfair-advantage-in-chess
...According to the researchers, in matches that have a winner at the elite level of human play, white has a winning percentage of 64 per cent – equating to an average advantage of almost 2:1 over black.

And, in a series of matches, research has shown that the person who plays white first carries an advantage into subsequent matches, with a 62 per cent winning advantage at the elite level. This is despite players playing an equal number of games as white and black.

The advantage enjoyed by white is amplified further in the world of computer chess. In 2020, AlphaZero, said to be the world’s most powerful chess engine, played against itself in 10,000 games, taking a minute per move. White won in 86 per cent of the decisive games, giving it about a 6:1 advantage, though these games constituted only two per cent of the total— 98 per cent were draws...

Trouble us thats tinkering to sort out the very highest levels.
The masters database on Lichess covering titled pkayers games gives 33/43/24 white/draw/black so a moderate advantage but the all games database of iver 500 million games which includes all levels from novice to master is 49/4/46. The advantage increases the more 'computer accurate' you get. For 99% of players its minimal.
They could look at increasing 'positive' results by changes like returning to stalemate being a win or the armageddon rules where black has less time but gets the win with a drawn game.

I'm a bit surprised at the 49/4/46 stat. But a couple of points:

-Without checking (do you have a link?) this looks like something that must include blitz/bullet games, do you have stats which only includes longer time limits? Bullet games will definitely even up the stats as inaccuracies by the players will quickly overwhelm the small advantage white has.

-At higher levels, players are more likely to be playing players at a similar level - if you are playing someone much better or much worse than you, that will be more important than who has white.

-I'm not sure including novice games is really fair - again mistakes made would quickly be much more important than who went first.

You have to be able to play a little to make use of white's advantage, and you have to be playing against someone at not too dissimilar level for it to count for anything, and you have to have a time limit where inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders aren't usually going to be worth much more than going first.


So it depends how you look at it, but as someone who used to play chess quite seriously, I would say you definitely do not have to be anywhere near the "very highest levels" for white to have a clear advantage, especially at longer time limits.

kle4 said:

Got a say I think Luz is smart to go after the economics even of the period she has been in government. People dont mind a u-turner if they agree with the u-turn, and it probably fits with what people think. It also means Sunak will be the 'everything's alright' candidate which even Tories probably dont think.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationships, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationships, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

What consenting adults get up to is between them. What we have seen too often in Westminster circles is that "consenting" gets lost.

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

I didn't mention marriage at all. Not at all. Or whether people were in a prior marriage or not. For instance, the problem with the revelation of an affair may be that A gave B a grant or a job before it was publicly known.

And people are not entitled to a private life when it gets in the way of the job.

Are you seriously arguing that corruption and sex harassment are the price worth paying for the purity of your libertarian peinciples?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

I didn't mention marriage at all. Not at all. Or whether people were in a prior marriage or not. For instance, the problem with the revelation of an affair may be that A gave B a grant or a job before it was publicly known.

And people are not entitled to a private life when it gets in the way of the job.

Are you seriously arguing that corruption and sex harassment are the price worth paying for the purity of your libertarian peinciples?

Every time you mention "affairs" you are mentioning marriage. If people are hooking up with people they are not married to then that "affair" can exist whether they're married to someone else or not.

Corruption is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex. Monogamous married people can be corrupt.

Sexual harassment is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex either.

If someone engages in corruption or harassment that should be dealt with on a case by case basis whether they are married, single, adulterers, monogamous, open, straight, bi, trans, gay, or anything else. Their sexuality isn't the issue, their corruption or harassment is.

Nigelb said:

EPG said:

The Truss discussion reminds me of the March 2022 Putin discussion. The good people were desperately seeking a reason to believe that he would die and that would end the invasion. Similarly, the good people know Sunak is a bit rubbish, a lucky billionaire who got into position by kowtowing to Dom and spending tens of billions from the magic money tree. So they are desperately seeking the saucy or edgy scandal to end Truss. Tiny bits of information are turned into threads that must be pulled, and get distorted out of proportion to the likely impact on the world.

That may well be the case.
I've no idea what this Truss 'scandal' is supposed to be, but the argument opponents should be making is that (irrespective of whatever it might be) she is unfit for the post of PM.

Keystone said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

Actually - a lot of companies have rules that prevent affairs, precisely to avoid issues around power disparities.

No doubt you think it's a scandal university professors cannot regularly dip into their stash of grad students every year any more

Pulpstar said:

Focussing on the candidates private lives to try and tilt the field in favour of Sunak will only prove to be quasi effective I think.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationships, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

What consenting adults get up to is between them. What we have seen too often in Westminster circles is that "consenting" gets lost.

Are you suggesting that Truss was the victim of a non-consensual relationship?

Or the perpetrator or one?

Or is that topic utterly irrelevant to Truss and what she may or may not have gotten up to in the bedroom?

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationships, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

What consenting adults get up to is between them. What we have seen too often in Westminster circles is that "consenting" gets lost.

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

I didn't mention marriage at all. Not at all. Or whether people were in a prior marriage or not. For instance, the problem with the revelation of an affair may be that A gave B a grant or a job before it was publicly known.

And people are not entitled to a private life when it gets in the way of the job.

Are you seriously arguing that corruption and sex harassment are the price worth paying for the purity of your libertarian peinciples?

Every time you mention "affairs" you are mentioning marriage. If people are hooking up with people they are not married to then that "affair" can exist whether they're married to someone else or not.

Corruption is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex. Monogamous married people can be corrupt.

Sexual harassment is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex either.

If someone engages in corruption or harassment that should be dealt with on a case by case basis whether they are married, single, adulterers, monogamous, open, straight, bi, trans, gay, or anything else. Their sexuality isn't the issue, their corruption or harassment is.

A, I see part of where you are coming from - but 'affair' just does not have that restricted meaning. As indeed the common phrase 'an extramarital affair' shows. And my argument remains.

numbertwelve said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

Liz Truss says she was wrong to back Remain

Vote for me, I was wrong on what you consider to be our defining political issue.

Well, it's brave. And it's actually probably the most helpful thing she could say, as trying to hedge won't help her.

But she does not want this to become a referendum on Euroscepticism.

Wait till she finds out she was a Minister and MP for 12 years of a government with the wrong economic policies.

Was she?

That. Is. A. Disgrace.

On the topic of her cheese speech - or the Jarlsberg Address as it should be called - I think too many people focus on the terrible delivery and too few on its terrible content. Truss's basic argument is that the UK exports - great! And the UK imports - a disgrace! Thus completely misunderstanding the whole concept of international trade.

"In December I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets"

https://twitter.com/i/status/1549779249644683264

It's kind of in the so bad it's good category. This is the one slight risk for 'us' with Truss. She could develop a bit of 'quirky national treasure' appeal to the unwary.

Thing is, the pork markets thing was so long ago and she has changed her public speaking approach since then (probably as a result of the criticism she faced), stripping out all quirkiness and instead becoming even more monotone and dry.

So I don’t think you have anything to worry about on that front. She does still have an element of clumsiness (witness getting lost at her own launch event) but it doesn’t come off as particularly endearing.

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

I didn't mention marriage at all. Not at all. Or whether people were in a prior marriage or not. For instance, the problem with the revelation of an affair may be that A gave B a grant or a job before it was publicly known.

And people are not entitled to a private life when it gets in the way of the job.

Are you seriously arguing that corruption and sex harassment are the price worth paying for the purity of your libertarian peinciples?

Every time you mention "affairs" you are mentioning marriage. If people are hooking up with people they are not married to then that "affair" can exist whether they're married to someone else or not.

Corruption is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex. Monogamous married people can be corrupt.

Sexual harassment is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex either.

If someone engages in corruption or harassment that should be dealt with on a case by case basis whether they are married, single, adulterers, monogamous, open, straight, bi, trans, gay, or anything else. Their sexuality isn't the issue, their corruption or harassment is.

A, I see part of where you are coming from - but 'affair' just does not have that restricted meaning. As indeed the common phrase 'an extramarital affair' shows. And my argument remains.

Google suggests "extramarital affair" is a tautology, which is certainly how I would understand it.

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

I didn't mention marriage at all. Not at all. Or whether people were in a prior marriage or not. For instance, the problem with the revelation of an affair may be that A gave B a grant or a job before it was publicly known.

And people are not entitled to a private life when it gets in the way of the job.

Are you seriously arguing that corruption and sex harassment are the price worth paying for the purity of your libertarian peinciples?

Every time you mention "affairs" you are mentioning marriage. If people are hooking up with people they are not married to then that "affair" can exist whether they're married to someone else or not.

Corruption is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex. Monogamous married people can be corrupt.

Sexual harassment is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex either.

If someone engages in corruption or harassment that should be dealt with on a case by case basis whether they are married, single, adulterers, monogamous, open, straight, bi, trans, gay, or anything else. Their sexuality isn't the issue, their corruption or harassment is.

A, I see part of where you are coming from - but 'affair' just does not have that restricted meaning. As indeed the common phrase 'an extramarital affair' shows. And my argument remains.

Google suggests "extramarital affair" is a tautology, which is certainly how I would understand it.

Just checked Chambers and Cambridge. No trace of that.

BartholomewRoberts said:

BlancheLivermore said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationships, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

What consenting adults get up to is between them. What we have seen too often in Westminster circles is that "consenting" gets lost.

Are you suggesting that Truss was the victim of a non-consensual relationship?

Or the perpetrator or one?

Or is that topic utterly irrelevant to Truss and what she may or may not have gotten up to in the bedroom?

Would it matter if PM Truss tried to get a job for her current squeeze (I have no idea if there is one), for which he's utterly unqualified?

No more or less than if a married, monogamous PM Blair tried to get a job for a friend, a relative, or a friend of a friend for which they're utterly unqualified.

Nepotism is bad, regardless of what people do or don't do in the bedroom.

kinabalu said:

numbertwelve said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

Liz Truss says she was wrong to back Remain

Vote for me, I was wrong on what you consider to be our defining political issue.

Well, it's brave. And it's actually probably the most helpful thing she could say, as trying to hedge won't help her.

But she does not want this to become a referendum on Euroscepticism.

Wait till she finds out she was a Minister and MP for 12 years of a government with the wrong economic policies.

Was she?

That. Is. A. Disgrace.

On the topic of her cheese speech - or the Jarlsberg Address as it should be called - I think too many people focus on the terrible delivery and too few on its terrible content. Truss's basic argument is that the UK exports - great! And the UK imports - a disgrace! Thus completely misunderstanding the whole concept of international trade.

"In December I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets"

https://twitter.com/i/status/1549779249644683264

It's kind of in the so bad it's good category. This is the one slight risk for 'us' with Truss. She could develop a bit of 'quirky national treasure' appeal to the unwary.

Thing is, the pork markets thing was so long ago and she has changed her public speaking approach since then (probably as a result of the criticism she faced), stripping out all quirkiness and instead becoming even more monotone and dry.

So I don’t think you have anything to worry about on that front. She does still have an element of clumsiness (witness getting lost at her own launch event) but it doesn’t come off as particularly endearing.

You're probably right. Actually I don't mind her awkward comms style. The standard smoothspeak of politicians can hide a lack of substance - look at the dreadful Kwasi Kwarteng. What I don't like about Truss are her politics (at least judged on what I've heard so far). Jingoistic, incoherent and cakeist.

eek said:

Nigelb said:

EPG said:

The Truss discussion reminds me of the March 2022 Putin discussion. The good people were desperately seeking a reason to believe that he would die and that would end the invasion. Similarly, the good people know Sunak is a bit rubbish, a lucky billionaire who got into position by kowtowing to Dom and spending tens of billions from the magic money tree. So they are desperately seeking the saucy or edgy scandal to end Truss. Tiny bits of information are turned into threads that must be pulled, and get distorted out of proportion to the likely impact on the world.

That may well be the case.
I've no idea what this Truss 'scandal' is supposed to be, but the argument opponents should be making is that (irrespective of whatever it might be) she is unfit for the post of PM.

Unless I'm missing something the scandal seems to be that Truss has been involved in a lot of discussions with numerous people regarding Ugandan Affairs - to use an old Private Eye phrase.

BlancheLivermore said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

BlancheLivermore said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationships, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

What consenting adults get up to is between them. What we have seen too often in Westminster circles is that "consenting" gets lost.

Are you suggesting that Truss was the victim of a non-consensual relationship?

Or the perpetrator or one?

Or is that topic utterly irrelevant to Truss and what she may or may not have gotten up to in the bedroom?

Would it matter if PM Truss tried to get a job for her current squeeze (I have no idea if there is one), for which he's utterly unqualified?

No more or less than if a married, monogamous PM Blair tried to get a job for a friend, a relative, or a friend of a friend for which they're utterly unqualified.

Nepotism is bad, regardless of what people do or don't do in the bedroom.

I was just thinking of the criticism Boris got for trying to get Carrie a job when he was secretly getting jobs off her - he was definitely more harshly judged because of the apparent motivation.

DavidL said:

RobD said:

Eabhal said:

williamglenn said:

ECB raises interest rates by 0.5%

By 0.5 percentage points

I think that was more than generally expected?

Now ECB interest rates are at a whopping 0%, while inflation continues raging.

The Germans must be chewing the carpet.

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

I didn't mention marriage at all. Not at all. Or whether people were in a prior marriage or not. For instance, the problem with the revelation of an affair may be that A gave B a grant or a job before it was publicly known.

And people are not entitled to a private life when it gets in the way of the job.

Are you seriously arguing that corruption and sex harassment are the price worth paying for the purity of your libertarian peinciples?

Every time you mention "affairs" you are mentioning marriage. If people are hooking up with people they are not married to then that "affair" can exist whether they're married to someone else or not.

Corruption is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex. Monogamous married people can be corrupt.

Sexual harassment is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex either.

If someone engages in corruption or harassment that should be dealt with on a case by case basis whether they are married, single, adulterers, monogamous, open, straight, bi, trans, gay, or anything else. Their sexuality isn't the issue, their corruption or harassment is.

A, I see part of where you are coming from - but 'affair' just does not have that restricted meaning. As indeed the common phrase 'an extramarital affair' shows. And my argument remains.

Google suggests "extramarital affair" is a tautology, which is certainly how I would understand it.

Gardenwalker said:

I like the fact that Truss is now saying the last 20 years have been an economic failure.

I wouldn’t quite go that far, but I like the fact she’s willing to consider a radical reassessment of policy.

But Im terrified of the fact she is a full-blown acolyte of Patrick Minford and her polices are a recipe for galloping inflation and a full-on war against the Bank of England.

Sunak is cringeingly smarmy and disingenuous, but at least he won’t actively crash the economy.

williamglenn said:

Interesting focus group of members in Bury. They’re backing Truss.

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/1550027959716782080

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationship, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL GENDERS AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS OF AFFAIRS AT WORK. THAT SOME AFFAIRS DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT MANY DON'T.

So does that mean that unmarried people of both genders shouldn't be allowed out?

Only married men and women who are strictly monogamous in the work place. Anyone unmarried or willing to engage in affairs is a problem so they should be purged from society?

What consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is between them. If people hooking up at work or elsewhere causes "problems", then tough fucking shit, people are entitled to a private life.

I didn't mention marriage at all. Not at all. Or whether people were in a prior marriage or not. For instance, the problem with the revelation of an affair may be that A gave B a grant or a job before it was publicly known.

And people are not entitled to a private life when it gets in the way of the job.

Are you seriously arguing that corruption and sex harassment are the price worth paying for the purity of your libertarian peinciples?

Every time you mention "affairs" you are mentioning marriage. If people are hooking up with people they are not married to then that "affair" can exist whether they're married to someone else or not.

Corruption is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex. Monogamous married people can be corrupt.

Sexual harassment is an issue, but that has absolutely bugger all to do with consensual sex either.

If someone engages in corruption or harassment that should be dealt with on a case by case basis whether they are married, single, adulterers, monogamous, open, straight, bi, trans, gay, or anything else. Their sexuality isn't the issue, their corruption or harassment is.

A, I see part of where you are coming from - but 'affair' just does not have that restricted meaning. As indeed the common phrase 'an extramarital affair' shows.

Extramarital affair is again about the state of someone's marriage though. Not about work.

Two single, unmarried people at a work place can have an affair at work and that could potentially lead to 'corruption' or 'harassment'. Two married people at work can have an affair at work and it has the same work. The marital status of the people engaging in the affair doesn't change it.

So either say monogamous, married people only in the workplace - or keep work out of people's bedrooms. Prying into or engaging in puritanical, salacious tabloid gossip about what people may or may not have gotten upto is beyond pathetic.

I was talking about all people, married, steady or otherwise.

You're the one trying to claim I am restricting the discussion to married people. You're the one who insists on 'affair' having a specific and restricted meaning to involving married people, not me. You are using it in the same sense as 'adulterous'. You're the one trying to restrict it to married people. Not me.

Actually quite the opposite, I'm saying that if you are saying that married people being willing to have an affair is a problem or makes them unfit, then does that mean in your eyes that unmarried people who are willing to have a relationship even with someone else that is unmarried are equally objectionable?

You are using the same logic as those who say unmarried women must be locked away, because they could be a "distraction". Unless you're saying only married ones may be.

What people get up to is between them and their partners and only them, whether they're married or not.

Can you not get it into your head that it doesn't matter whether the people are married or steady or not, except insofar as this relationship might add to the problem?

QTWAIN.

So you want to object to any unmarried people who start a consensual relationship, that is unacceptable in your eyes?

Either people hooking up is acceptable, or its not. If its not, then do you apply the same rule to two single adults starting a consensual relationship?

Gardenwalker said:

I like the fact that Truss is now saying the last 20 years have been an economic failure.

I wouldn’t quite go that far, but I like the fact she’s willing to consider a radical reassessment of policy.

But Im terrified of the fact she is a full-blown acolyte of Patrick Minford and her polices are a recipe for galloping inflation and a full-on war against the Bank of England.

Sunak is cringeingly smarmy and disingenuous, but at least he won’t actively crash the economy.

BartholomewRoberts said:

BlancheLivermore said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

BlancheLivermore said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

ToryJim said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_xP said:

Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808

The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.

I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.

The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.

A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.

Anyway the gossip relayed to me about Ms Truss is current - not old - and, if true, worrying. It is not the behaviour which any politician should indulge in, let alone a candidate for PM. I refer you to the Dame Laura Cox report from autumn 2018 and this header - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/06/for-those-with-short-memories/.

I hope Truss gets proper scrutiny.

Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.

It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.

(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)

Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.

Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.

If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.

You are.

If you replaced a woman allegedly having an affair with a 'flirty' unmarried woman then you can have exactly the same "concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs relationships, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues".

Your logic is exactly the same as people who want unmarried women locked away at home until they're married and fit to be let out lest they be a "distraction".

What consenting adults get up to is between them and nobody else.

What consenting adults get up to is between them. What we have seen too often in Westminster circles is that "consenting" gets lost.

Are you suggesting that Truss was the victim of a non-consensual relationship?

Or the perpetrator or one?

Or is that topic utterly irrelevant to Truss and what she may or may not have gotten up to in the bedroom?

Would it matter if PM Truss tried to get a job for her current squeeze (I have no idea if there is one), for which he's utterly unqualified?

No more or less than if a married, monogamous PM Blair tried to get a job for a friend, a relative, or a friend of a friend for which they're utterly unqualified.

Nepotism is bad, regardless of what people do or don't do in the bedroom.

I was just thinking of the criticism Boris got for trying to get Carrie a job when he was secretly getting jobs off her - he was definitely more harshly judged because of the apparent motivation.

Indeed, we had a similar discussion regarding Musk the other day too.

What people do in the bedroom is up to them. Nepotism is unacceptable regardless of motivation. I dislike companies that try to regulate what consensual adults get up to.

Gardenwalker said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Cooke, not a fan of 'denier' in a non-Holocaust context. It's a cheap way to try and shut down debate (as it was when Osborne used to call Labour deficit deniers). If an argument is wrong then point out how, just calling someone a 'denier' is dismissing their disagreement without any counter-argument.

It’s better though than flat-earthers.

We are beyond the point where man-made climate change is subject to reasonable debate.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Jesus Christ Patrick Minford is a fruit loop.

It's telling those that thing Truss is wonderful seem to think McDonnell is nuts, despite having essentially the same policies.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Gardenwalker said:

I like the fact that Truss is now saying the last 20 years have been an economic failure.

I wouldn’t quite go that far, but I like the fact she’s willing to consider a radical reassessment of policy.

But Im terrified of the fact she is a full-blown acolyte of Patrick Minford and her polices are a recipe for galloping inflation and a full-on war against the Bank of England.

Sunak is cringeingly smarmy and disingenuous, but at least he won’t actively crash the economy.

What's wrong with being an acolyte of Patrick Minford?

I suppose you are a believer in "364 economists can't be wrong" groupthink? 🤔

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Bury North is not a Red Wall seat, it's a bellwether.

Pulpstar said:

Focussing on the candidates private lives to try and tilt the field in favour of Sunak will only prove to be quasi effective I think.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Jesus Christ Patrick Minford is a fruit loop.

It's telling those that thing Truss is wonderful seem to think McDonnell is nuts, despite having essentially the same policies.

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Jesus Christ Patrick Minford is a fruit loop.

It's telling those that thing Truss is wonderful seem to think McDonnell is nuts, despite having essentially the same policies.

Today, in very special Blossom we discover that "essentially the same" means entirely different.

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Jesus Christ Patrick Minford is a fruit loop.

It's telling those that thing Truss is wonderful seem to think McDonnell is nuts, despite having essentially the same policies.

Today, in very special Blossom we discover that "essentially the same" means entirely different.

McDonnell wasn't planning to increase taxes he was going to increase spending.

Truss isn't cutting spending but seriously cutting (the wrong) taxes.

Both plans result in borrowing being used to pay for day to day Government spending.

dixiedean said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Bury North is not a Red Wall seat, it's a bellwether.

Indeed. It's been won by the largest Party at every election except 2017.
But I've given up arguing the toss about Red Wall.
It is also reasonably well-to-do.

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Cooke, not a fan of 'denier' in a non-Holocaust context. It's a cheap way to try and shut down debate (as it was when Osborne used to call Labour deficit deniers). If an argument is wrong then point out how, just calling someone a 'denier' is dismissing their disagreement without any counter-argument.

It’s better though than flat-earthers.

We are beyond the point where man-made climate change is subject to reasonable debate.

The fact of it, yes. What best to do about it, no.

The problem is, if you challenge the eco-orthodoxy on the latter you get lumped in with the few who are silly enough to question the former.

Dumbosaurus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Evened up a little bit, still greener on Sunak but I'm going to leave things there.

Regardless of how it goes, many thanks to Mr. Roberts for an excellent tip that opened up a large swathe of trading possibility.

Thanks.

I'm wondering whether I should balance my book either a bit, or entirely? I could lock in now a hefty four-figure sum either way, or should I let it ride? I'm not sure, what would people advise?

I'd stick in some resting orders to lay Rishi at 1.4/1.6/1.8 and wait for market to overreact to Truss doing something stupid, which she will. Then reassesses from there (if only e.g. 1.8s/1.6s traded).

Your only risk here is Rishi doing something awful first...

This is from perspective of someone who plays political markets all the time though, rather than making "one big bet". From the perspective of the latter I think being able to brag about a 250/1 winner for years makes holding it probably a better choice.

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Jesus Christ Patrick Minford is a fruit loop.

It's telling those that thing Truss is wonderful seem to think McDonnell is nuts, despite having essentially the same policies.

Today, in very special Blossom we discover that "essentially the same" means entirely different.

McDonnell wasn't planning to increase taxes he was going to increase spending.

Truss isn't cutting spending but seriously cutting (the wrong) taxes.

Both plans result in borrowing being used to pay for day to day Government spending.

She's planning on cutting the right taxes, or moreover reverse the very flawed tax rises that are throttling the economy but haven't closed the deficit and reverse tax rates back to what they were.

That's completely different to increasing spending.

Cutting tax rates from a record high and leaving them still very high, if it grows the pie, can actually cut the deficit.

Driver said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Driver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Sir Norfolk, some people take Google or Word far too seriously when it comes to 'correct' definitions and grammar.

These are just answers determined by individuals, not a machine god, but I imagine we'll see language somewhat reduced in variation as regional terms and the like get shunned by word processor and online spelling and grammar checkers.

TBF I only cited Google/Oxford Languages because it agreed with what I previously thought

To test this, suppose you read this in an obituary:

"As Chief Executive of GlobalCo, Sally Jones always remained unmarried, and insisted she was too committed to the job to consider settling down. But that does not mean she had no love life, and indeed she was rumoured to have had a string of affairs with handsome young men who had worked for the company over the years."

Would you infer that Sally was targeting married men? I'd certainly not. There's an element of subterfuge implied, particularly given she is CEO and they were staff members. But they might or might not have been married.

That's a fair point - however if it had said "an affair with X" I would have assumed X was married. So "a string of affairs" is not necessarily the plural of "an affair".