Could Sunak face a challenge before the election? – politicalbetting.com

First? Good grief....

If Johnson comes back, the Tories will be lucky to win fifty seats at the next election.

As it is they could easily be down to 150, but they can fight back from that if they stop playing silly buggers. Reappointing the biggest silly bugger of them all won't help.

I suspect Johnson's return would benefit the Tories in the short run - possibly swinging the balance from a Labour maj to a hung parliament with Lab largest party at next election (lots of caveats around that prediction obviously).

But I think it is clear that the Tories need a Labour-like period in opposition to reckon with itself and return to the grown-up world of moderate right-of-centre politics, with a bit less corruption and a bit more integrity.

Despite being firmly on the left I really want a decent opposition to Labour to hold their feet to the fire. Johnson's return would simply delay the point at which the Tories can offer anything of value to this country. It would be self-indulgent in the extreme, just as Corbyn was for Labour.

Now, now @Leon you have been quite beastly to poor @kjh at the end of the last thread. Apologise please.

beinndearg said:

Only one cause more lost than Johnson:

Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.

It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.

The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-allies-in-new-tory-group-plot-to-place-her-dogma-at-partys-heart-x3w8w6hx8?shareToken=145a39652965e1795a7b2d3774f254e0

They *really* didn't think that name through, did they?

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

DerekMcDecadent said:

Now, now @Leon you have been quite beastly to poor @kjh at the end of the last thread. Apologise please.

I know. It’s delicious. Sorry

ydoethur said:

On topic:

Trying to remove Sunak would almost certainly precipitate an election through a party split, particularly if Johnson is re-erected. So it seems unlikely anyone with an atom of sense would do it.

Therefore, with this lot it's a possibility.

However, I don't think it's the likeliest possibility.

ydoethur said:

On topic:

Trying to remove Sunak would almost certainly precipitate an election through a party split, particularly if Johnson is re-erected. So it seems unlikely anyone with an atom of sense would do it.

Therefore, with this lot it's a possibility.

However, I don't think it's the likeliest possibility.

It's a delightful possibility if you want to see the Conservative Party eviscerated, perhaps never to return.

I don't but if it happens I won't weep either.

I am reminded of a former comment of mine:

'When I said I wanted to see 30,000 SeanT identities, I didn't mean all together on one thread.'

I don’t see a challenge getting off the ground until someone can demonstrate a clear benefit in changing leaders.

I lost the link to the last comparative poll I found, but it gave Johnson only a couple of points over Sunak, opposing Starmer. All the other possible leaders did worse.

Sorry folks but I can't let @leon off his last comment from the previous thread.

Leon you even typed what he said. He said 'Even if it's right next to it, it can't see it'. What do you think that means then? Something I have asked umpteen times but you never address. Trump thinks/thought stealth technology made the plane invisible to the human eye. He thinks this because he is a complete idiot. Because you are a Trump lover you simply can't accept that so throw insults at people who call you out for trying to defend the indefensible.

Who knows what political implications would be. But in passing its gender reforms the Scottish parliament exceeded its competence because they will impact on the rights of Scottish women and girls as laid out by Equality Act, a UK matter.

https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1614168319824642048

kjh said:

Sorry folks but I can't let @leon off his last comment from the previous thread.

Leon you even typed what he said. He said 'Even if it's right next to it, it can't see it'. What do you think that means then? Something I have asked umpteen times but you never address. Trump thinks/thought stealth technology made the plane invisible to the human eye. He thinks this because he is a complete idiot. Because you are a Trump lover you simply can't accept that so throw insults at people who call you out for trying to defend the indefensible.

Mate, I feel like the German soldiers at Thiepval who grew sick of mowing down the Tommies. Stop

kyf_100 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Name a winner. Hint: Johnson ain't it.

"Stand up if you hate Boris." That's your red wall crumbling, right there. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/boris-johnson-darts-chant-covid-25751623

Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.

Finding one in the current lot is probably beyond me! I thought Sunak would do a fair bit better than he has done but didnt have much hope with Truss and knew Boris would end badly. Similarly with Labour was hard to have much optimism from Brown or Miliband and Corbyn was not just going to end badly but be bad throughout.

Blair and Cameron are the only times I've thought great they have elected someone I kind of like. Generally we pick people I consider losers as our leaders, even if they have not lost yet.

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Name a winner. Hint: Johnson ain't it.

"Stand up if you hate Boris." That's your red wall crumbling, right there. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/boris-johnson-darts-chant-covid-25751623

Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.

The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace.
WWC in the SE, yes.

I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".

Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.

Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.

Peter_the_Punter said:

If Johnson comes back, the Tories will be lucky to win fifty seats at the next election.

As it is they could easily be down to 150, but they can fight back from that if they stop playing silly buggers. Reappointing the biggest silly bugger of them all won't help.

The counter argument Bozo supporters will use is that Bozo attracts support no one else can reach.

The problem is that the voters that Bozo will attract are in seats that the Tory party have already lost at the next election - so yep the Tory overall vote will increase but it will at best be reducing Labour victory margins from 10,000 to say 5000 while some safe Tory seats down south are lost to the Lib Dems.

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?

noneoftheabove said:

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?

There are plenty of loons out there who think they would be implanted with microchips if vaccinated. It used to amaze me, but no longer, just how stupid some people are.

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Name a winner. Hint: Johnson ain't it.

"Stand up if you hate Boris." That's your red wall crumbling, right there. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/boris-johnson-darts-chant-covid-25751623

Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.

The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace.
WWC in the SE, yes.

I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".

Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.

Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.

Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way

He will lose badly in 2024

Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness

From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.

But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.

That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.

noneoftheabove said:

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?

That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving

I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more

kamski said:

DJ41 said:

DJ41 said:

Japan: the surge in reported deaths with SARSCoV2 is continuing. More deaths and fewer cases compared with the previous wave (August 2022). Currently not blamed on XBB.1.5 omicron subvariant AFAICT. Higher vaccination rates than Britain, both for ≥1 dose and "full": Japan 83%, 82%; Britain 81%, 76%.

https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/coronavirus/20230112-83423/

"The fatality rate for coronavirus patients greatly decreased after the omicron variant became the dominant strain of COVID-19. When the delta variant was dominant from July to October 2021, the mortality rate for infected people aged 80 and older was 7.92%, but this figure fell to 1.69% from July to August last year, the ministry said.

Other variants — including the omicron BA.5 subvariant, which is thought to be less virulent than other forms of the coronavirus — remain prevalent during the current eighth wave, meaning there should be no major changes in their virulence. Nevertheless, the death toll continues to increase rapidly.

To explain this seeming anomaly, Atsuo Hamada, a specially appointed professor of travel medicine at Tokyo Medical University, pointed to the large number of infected people and the growing number of elderly people who die from chronic illnesses that worsen after becoming infected with the coronavirus."

More cases than reported, he reckons. Must be like dark matter. I wonder at what point if there is an actual increase in virulence it would be recognised, with this kind of logic.

We should be very sceptical of this learned professor's line of thought, because every serious country will have early warning systems all over the place by now.

In the article you link to Hamada offers "Each and every infection case no longer needs to be identified by the government" as a reason for the number of unreported cases being higher this time. But you already knew that, right?

Yes, Mr Sarkypants. Did my point about early warning systems escape you? Think samples and extrapolation.

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?

That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving

I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more

It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.

… and the CDC?

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?

That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving

I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more

It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.

… and the CDC?

Err, of course there are side effects, literally every drug has them. Benefits >>>> Side Effects.

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

Trolls: 1) come up with a less formulaic username, 2) make your first post cheerful and conversational, or at least not antivax straight out the blocks, and 3) don't be citing known generalist idiots from the 90s who everyone had forgotten about as some sort of authority. Good grief. What next - Timmy Mallet's views on Scottish constitutional matters? Noel Edmonds on trans issues?

Sunak’s premiership reminds of Jimmy Carters presidency.

Leon said:

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

Hahahah. Surely a world PB record

Like a footballer whose first touch is a two-footed lunge at an opponent, the red card is inevitable.

ping said:

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

You got banned for that post?

Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing? A dodgy IP address, fake email, or something?

But if it’s just the content of your post that has triggered the mods, well, something ain’t right.

I disagree with the antivax stuff. I’ve just had my booster myself (my mum is on chemo and I don’t want to increase her risk of infection, not really for my own personal benefit), but, surely being antivax shouldn’t be beyond the pale?

Matthew Syed made this point on times radio yesterday - banning bad ideas is a bad idea. Hiding amongst the bad ideas can be inconvenient truths.

Sometimes.

Probably not in this case, but how can we know for sure?

I urge the mods to rethink.

I agree. People should definitely not be banned for simple antivax sentiment. It’s a valid thesis (however unlikely) - and we must be open to all arguments. Remember that lab leak was banned for a year

But the PB mods are usually pretty good at this stuff so I suspect there are other reasons for the instant hammer

Peter10 said:

Yes well im back and furious.
This site is a total joke and echo chamber.
When the vax is questioned on bbc news and in the house of commons you cant just ban people for voicing concerns.
The mod Robert Smithson used to work at Goldman Sachs but despite his extensive education seems incredibly insecure.
The vax is not a religion as this site seems to think. It is there to be questioned .
I suppose this post will get me another ban but who cares...says more about the mods than me.

If you are being banned JUST for being anti vax that is wrong

Peter10 said:

Yes well im back and furious.
This site is a total joke and echo chamber.
When the vax is questioned on bbc news and in the house of commons you cant just ban people for voicing concerns.
The mod Robert Smithson used to work at Goldman Sachs but despite his extensive education seems incredibly insecure.
The vax is not a religion as this site seems to think. It is there to be questioned .
I suppose this post will get me another ban but who cares...says more about the mods than me.

May I suggest that suggesting @rcs1000 is incredibly insecure hasn't been one of your wisest decisions.

Tory MPs may like Boris' electoral appeal still but they prefer Rishi’s more competent government.

If there is any challenge it is therefore highly unlikely until just before the next general election if Labour is still heading for a clear majority in most polls.

It should also be noted there is a divide on Boris' appeal. While Tory MPs in redwall seats would likely do better under Boris, Tory MPs in London and the South East and Scotland would likely still do better under Sunak

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Name a winner. Hint: Johnson ain't it.

"Stand up if you hate Boris." That's your red wall crumbling, right there. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/boris-johnson-darts-chant-covid-25751623

Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.

The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace.
WWC in the SE, yes.

I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".

Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.

Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.

Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way

He will lose badly in 2024

Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness

From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.

But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.

That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.

And that's fine for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in reasonably good times. It doesn't work anything like as well in bad times, or for being Prime Minister. A chunk of that job is leading us through the jungle, and the public have to have confidence that the top banana knows what they are doing, and that's largely about the vibe.

Blair had it. Cameron had it. Thatcher had it. Major had it, until he didn't.

May and Brown didn't have the vibe, though they tried hard. Maybe that was their problem- they knew the moves, but couldn't do them smoothly. The difference between a successful senior minister and a successful PM.

Johnson was more convincing, but there was a something not quite right, something that once seen couldn't be unseen.

And Sunak? He's the best we have right now, but he's not got "it". And increasingly, we can all see.

Does Starmer have it? He can do gravitas, which is necessary. I'm not sure it's sufficient.

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Name a winner. Hint: Johnson ain't it.

"Stand up if you hate Boris." That's your red wall crumbling, right there. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/boris-johnson-darts-chant-covid-25751623

Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.

The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace.
WWC in the SE, yes.

I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".

Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.

Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.

Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way

He will lose badly in 2024

Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness

He looks and sounds like a spiv that has bathed in snake oil.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Rishi in public reminds me of Ed M

Rishi should refuse to do any more of these stupid photo-ops. Even if they'd gone well, how would they have helped? No-one is going to say to themselves, "Our new Prime Minister knows how to use a contactless card so I'll vote Tory."

ping said:

JPaulson said:

Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating.
The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success.
Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating.
Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax.
If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.

You got banned for that post?

Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing? A dodgy IP address, fake email, or something?

But if it’s just the content of your post that has triggered the mods, well, something ain’t right.

I disagree with the antivax stuff. I’ve just had my booster myself (my mum is on chemo and I don’t want to increase her risk of infection, not really for my own personal benefit), but, surely being antivax shouldn’t be beyond the pale?

Matthew Syed made this point on times radio yesterday - banning bad ideas is a bad idea. Hiding amongst the bad ideas can be inconvenient truths.

Sometimes.

Probably not in this case, but how can we know for sure?

I urge the mods to rethink.

May be coincidence but after my wife got last booster she started getting arterial fibrilation. Seems to be a lot of heart issues with it and when posed to doctors / consultants they don't seem to deny it or say it is no connection rather just gloss over it or say nothing which to me speaks volumes.

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Name a winner. Hint: Johnson ain't it.

"Stand up if you hate Boris." That's your red wall crumbling, right there. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/boris-johnson-darts-chant-covid-25751623

Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.

The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace.
WWC in the SE, yes.

I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".

Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.

Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.

Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way

He will lose badly in 2024

Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness

He looks and sounds like a spiv that has bathed in snake oil.

Granted, the original spiv (ht Tim) is in the Cabinet.

Leon said:

It’s not just Fox News


“U.S. FDA, CDC see early signal of Pfizer bivalent COVID shot's link to stroke reut.rs/3WbVnTI”

https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1614078706170970112?s=46&t=Gy5euEZN4BiaKG6bhNpWCw

It's worth reading beyond the tweet:
The FDA and CDC said that other large studies, the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, other countries' databases and Pfizer-BioNTech's databases had not flagged this safety issue, adding that it requires more investigation.
"Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public," the health authorities said.

Peter10 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:

The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.

This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.

(*) Overvalued

As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways.
Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe

Is "Robbert Kennedy Jr" claiming to be a leading cardiologist now?

It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy

Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard

For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before

CarlottaVance said:

It is telling that the line that pushes Owen Jones to demand women only categories isn’t women in prison or rape crisis centres, but music awards

https://twitter.com/francesweetman/status/1614200420489986049

My view is gender neutral awards should reserve 50% of nominations for women.

Women represent a majority of the music industry workforce, so the Academy making the nominations should also be weighted to be at least 50% women, too.


https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1613969335373922323

The wrong sort of women.

Peter10 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:

The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.

This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.

(*) Overvalued

As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways.
Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe

Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.

And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Name a winner. Hint: Johnson ain't it.

"Stand up if you hate Boris." That's your red wall crumbling, right there. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/boris-johnson-darts-chant-covid-25751623

Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.

The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace.
WWC in the SE, yes.

I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".

Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.

Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.

Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way

He will lose badly in 2024

Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness

I think you're right about Boris but to me I think the behaviour and personality that made him popular with a large segment also made his downfall inevitable. I suspect lots of people fall in love with Boris. They all seem to fall out of love with him in the end.

JosiasJessop said:

Peter10 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:

The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.

This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.

(*) Overvalued

As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways.
Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe

Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.

And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?

No. Fauci is a fraud who personally circumvented the Obama ban on gain of function research to find exactly that - but in Wuhan China. He then conspired to cover this up when the pandemic hit - eg by getting bogus papers planted in Nature (proximal origins). He is absolutely not an honest broker in this mess. He is deeply implicated

TheValiant said:

noneoftheabove said:

kyf_100 said:

The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.

I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.

Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....

Because of mathematics.......?
Even if there were only two parties in the UK (there aren't) then every election would result in one of those party leaders being a loser.

Every party leader is a loser! The only five I can think of who haven't been (at a General Election level) are Gaiskell and Smith (never got a chance), and Thatcher, Blair and MacMillian, all of whom quit before losing a GE.
All the Liberal/Alliance/LD leaders are always losers........

Gaitskell lost in 1959. Eden, however, won the only election he fought but was definitely a loser.

Edit - incidentally I take it you mean since the war? Else we have to add Neville Chamberlain, Andrew Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman to your list.

You have to hand it to TSE, he said Russian trolls would be all over Bridgen's comments and he was right.

On topic - yes I reckon he will. The membership don't like him and he's not doing well with the public. I think his problems are structural rather than related to him personally - although as a politician he is a bit wet behind the ears and it shows. Fwiw I don't think that replacing him well help the Tories one bit, but it will be pleasant displacement activity for them as they clearly have no interest in actually running the country and this kind of bullshit student politics plotting is the only thing they're even moderately good at.