Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
The divorce allowed him the excuse to set up with his lover and abandon his wife rather than return to his wife and commit to the marriage and full time to his child.
It goes back to the original point that if you make marriage vows you stick to them not just jump on the next round of lust to whoever takes your fancy
Wait a second, did he have a new lover before or after the divorce?
Because you implied before it was adultery during marriage, not after divorce.
If he got married, then divorced, then met someone, then fair enough and the new lover has nothing to do with the divorce. If he got married, then got a new lover, then got a divorce, then the divorce is because the marriage broke down - it didn't cause it. The breakdown had already happened the moment he got a new lover.
Before as the article made clear.
The marriage broke down as he put his own self centered lust before his marriage, which was the whole original point of this argument when TSE dismissed monogamy
Speaking (if we must) of divorce, it was Nelson Rockefeller's divorce of his first wife and subsequent marriage to his second wife - who gave up custody of her four young children - that derailed his 1964 Presidential campaign.
It was certainly a factor in his coming in 2nd in the 1964 NH Republican primary, behind a write-in candidate: former Mass Gov. and US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, a fellow moderate GOP rich guy politico and poster child for the Eastern Establishment.
His marital status also contributed to his decisive loss to Barry Goldwater in the California primary, which effectively won the GOP nomination for AuH20.
Interesting to note that just two years later, in 1966, Ronald Reagan, a divorced and remarried man, was nominated by Republicans and elected Governor of California. Putting him in poll position to advance the Conservative Revolution launched by Goldwater, and ride that wave all the way to the White House.
You're a mine of information on the history of American politics. Thanks, I enjoy reading it all.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
The divorce allowed him the excuse to set up with his lover and abandon his wife rather than return to his wife and commit to the marriage and full time to his child.
It goes back to the original point that if you make marriage vows you stick to them not just jump on the next round of lust to whoever takes your fancy
Wait a second, did he have a new lover before or after the divorce?
Because you implied before it was adultery during marriage, not after divorce.
If he got married, then divorced, then met someone, then fair enough and the new lover has nothing to do with the divorce. If he got married, then got a new lover, then got a divorce, then the divorce is because the marriage broke down - it didn't cause it. The breakdown had already happened the moment he got a new lover.
Before as the article made clear.
The marriage broke down as he put his own self centered lust before his marriage, which was the whole original point of this argument when TSE dismissed monogamy
So the marriage broke down and then they got divorced. Not the other way around.
Some people have always been adulterous sacks of shit. In the past you could be an adulterous sack of shit and remain head of the household and in the marital house.
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
Speaking (if we must) of divorce, it was Nelson Rockefeller's divorce of his first wife and subsequent marriage to his second wife - who gave up custody of her four young children - that derailed his 1964 Presidential campaign.
It was certainly a factor in his coming in 2nd in the 1964 NH Republican primary, behind a write-in candidate: former Mass Gov. and US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, a fellow moderate GOP rich guy politico and poster child for the Eastern Establishment.
His marital status also contributed to his decisive loss to Barry Goldwater in the California primary, which effectively won the GOP nomination for AuH20.
Interesting to note that just two years later, in 1966, Ronald Reagan, a divorced and remarried man, was nominated by Republicans and elected Governor of California. Putting him in poll position to advance the Conservative Revolution launched by Goldwater, and ride that wave all the way to the White House.
It’s never JUST the perceived moral failings is it? Both us and the Americans can be very French about this so long as the candidate is as well.
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
I think that's probably right: 53 - 47 or thereabouts.
Close enough for her to get enough funding to stay in it and hope something turns up?
She will stay in it until the end, for starters he has multiple court cases to face over the next few months, including criminal
Of course, but that’s isn’t cheap for her, and I’m persuaded by the case many have made that she won’t want to lose her own state. So she may yet not stick around if she is below a given level.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
And if the mother for example never remarried while the father does, the children get visits from him once or twice a month at most and the family unit is then effectively broken harming the children in the process and their mother
If the mother and father hate each other and argue all the time then the family unit is already broken even if no divorce ever happens.
You're acting as if divorce causes the breakdown of families, rather than being the outcome of it.
Both sets of my grandparents divorced. My mum's mum never remarried and I never saw my mum's dad in my memory as he left and was never seen from again. My nan was happier living on her own and supporting herself than she was living with him.
I'm lucky that my parents marriage never broke down, they're still married, but both of them were glad when their parents divorced as before the divorce for both of them was the worst period they had by far.
Marriage failures are awful, and bad on children, but marriages fail before the divorce not because of it. Resolving the failure and moving on is the first step to healing, not making the problem worse. The first step to recovery is acknowledging and accepting the problem.
The mother often doesn't hate the father, instead it may be the father's infidelities (as in the case of Clarke) and failure to fully commit to the marriage and vows he made that is the problem.
The father may then divorce the mother, leaving her near destitute, with children to largely bring up herself while the father sets up with his new lover
So, tell me more about this new lover I will be able to attract?
It is not funny, it destroys families
The families were already destroyed before the divorce.
No they were not, Clarke's family certainly wasn't.
He abandoned his wife, who still very much loved him and the family home where his child was for his new lover
Clarke's family certainly was.
He abandoned them. The divorce didn't abandon them, he did. His choice, his actions.
The divorce just finalised what had already happened.
Marriages end. When they do, its better to divorce and move on than to remain trapped and unhappy. Would it be better in your eyes if he was screwing his new lover openly while staying in the family house?
The divorce allowed him the excuse to set up with his lover and abandon his wife rather than return to his wife and commit to the marriage and full time to his child.
It goes back to the original point that if you make marriage vows you stick to them not just jump on the next round of lust to whoever takes your fancy
Wait a second, did he have a new lover before or after the divorce?
Because you implied before it was adultery during marriage, not after divorce.
If he got married, then divorced, then met someone, then fair enough and the new lover has nothing to do with the divorce. If he got married, then got a new lover, then got a divorce, then the divorce is because the marriage broke down - it didn't cause it. The breakdown had already happened the moment he got a new lover.
Before as the article made clear.
The marriage broke down as he put his own self centered lust before his marriage, which was the whole original point of this argument when TSE dismissed monogamy
So the marriage broke down and then they got divorced. Not the other way around.
Some people have always been adulterous sacks of shit. In the past you could be an adulterous sack of shit and remain head of the household and in the marital house.
Thank goodness now divorce is an option instead.
Divorce has been an option for adultery for over 150 years, however it is too many people committing adultery rather than committing to marriage and leading to divorce that is the problem as well as divorce being far easier on other grounds rather than marital commitment
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
I think that's probably right: 53 - 47 or thereabouts.
Close enough for her to get enough funding to stay in it and hope something turns up?
She will stay in it until the end, for starters he has multiple court cases to face over the next few months, including criminal
Of course, but that’s isn’t cheap for her, and I’m persuaded by the case many have made that she won’t want to lose her own state. So she may yet not stick around if she is below a given level.
Given she is now the only alternative in the primaries to Trump and clearly hates him of course she will stick around.
For starters the SC could rule Trump can be removed from ballots next month or he could be convicted of a criminal offence by mid April and potentially jailed
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
I think that's probably right: 53 - 47 or thereabouts.
Close enough for her to get enough funding to stay in it and hope something turns up?
She will stay in it until the end, for starters he has multiple court cases to face over the next few months, including criminal
Of course, but that’s isn’t cheap for her, and I’m persuaded by the case many have made that she won’t want to lose her own state. So she may yet not stick around if she is below a given level.
Given she is now the only alternative in the primaries to Trump and clearly hates him of course she will stick around.
For starters the SC could rule Trump can be removed from ballots next month or he could be convicted of a criminal offence by mid April and potentially jailed
I'll be absolutely amazed if either of those things happen.
Heh. Having a fun debate below one of the BBB's Youtubes about the altercation over King BoogieWoogie or HonkyTonky or whatever his name is, and the rights to film piano-playing in St Pancras Station.
The latest, which is Freemen of the Land Level:
It's owned by the UK government, which is owned by the people, which makes it public.
Hope he tries that at an RAF station or Aldermaston.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
The problem for the Tories is that there really is no conceivable alternative that would be mote popular, and the process of defenestration of the fifth leader this Parliament would undermine Tory support even further. Even if we accept Sunak is a dud, removing him will cost more Tory seats in the increasingly imminent GE.
"Dave Wasserman @Redistrict I've seen enough: Donald Trump (R) wins the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, defeating Nikki Haley (R). 12:20 AM · Jan 24, 2024"
I think that's probably right: 53 - 47 or thereabouts.
Close enough for her to get enough funding to stay in it and hope something turns up?
She will stay in it until the end, for starters he has multiple court cases to face over the next few months, including criminal
Of course, but that’s isn’t cheap for her, and I’m persuaded by the case many have made that she won’t want to lose her own state. So she may yet not stick around if she is below a given level.
Given she is now the only alternative in the primaries to Trump and clearly hates him of course she will stick around.
For starters the SC could rule Trump can be removed from ballots next month or he could be convicted of a criminal offence by mid April and potentially jailed
I'll be absolutely amazed if either of those things happen.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
The problem for the Tories is that there really is no conceivable alternative that would be mote popular, and the process of defenestration of the fifth leader this Parliament would undermine Tory support even further. Even if we accept Sunak is a dud, removing him will cost more Tory seats in the increasingly imminent GE.
So go on, Tories... you know you want to
i wake to find people are talking seriously about replacing the PM.
I think I must still be asleep and dreaming, but no...it's Cicero so it must be real.
I have a bet says they will lose 200 seats. Change the Leader and it will be 300.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
Well, that’s Haley done. Shame. Trump has the nomination unless SCOTUS throws a spanner in the works or there is a mass desertion from him owing to a conviction (which, given current trends, I’m unconvinced will even deter people).
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
You mean, people like himself?
Oh indeed. He admitted in a debate with Hillary, that he’d been funding politicians on all sides for decades.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
You mean, people like himself?
Oh indeed. He admitted in a debate with Hillary, that he’d been funding politicians on all sides for decades.
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
You don’t have ‘leadership contests’ in the Tory system since 1997. You have ‘votes of confidence.’
Which he would win because (a) the alternatives are worse and (b) four PMs in one parliament is asking for electoral trouble.
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
I think it'll fizzle but the embers will remain. Each attempt creates dry kindling for the next one. Same happened with May, and to an extent with Johnson. The very obvious problem for the rebels is there is no king across the water. The putative queen across the water is only queen for one smallish libertarian faction of the party. The king across the water is no longer an MP and the long wished-for prince across the water is in a different party.
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
I've been trying to figure out how much of this is a design issue, a build issue, and/or a maintenance issue.
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
I think it'll fizzle but the embers will remain. Each attempt creates dry kindling for the next one. Same happened with May, and to an extent with Johnson. The very obvious problem for the rebels is there is no king across the water. The putative queen across the water is only queen for one smallish libertarian faction of the party. The king across the water is no longer an MP and the long wished-for prince across the water is in a different party.
Indeed. If this is a “Trussite” coup, I look forward to them explaining how they will sell the return of Liz Truss to the electorate. I cannot think of a current politician more widely discredited and the subject of ridicule among the electorate. Boris comes close, but he still has his die hard fans.
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
I think it'll fizzle but the embers will remain. Each attempt creates dry kindling for the next one. Same happened with May, and to an extent with Johnson. The very obvious problem for the rebels is there is no king across the water. The putative queen across the water is only queen for one smallish libertarian faction of the party. The king across the water is no longer an MP and the long wished-for prince across the water is in a different party.
Timing is something of a problem as well.
Getting from establishing "the leader must go" as a meme to the leader going tends not to happen quickly. (It did for Truss, but she was a impressively special case.) Furthermore, there isn't a standout unity candidate this time, is there? So there would surely have to be some sort of electoral process.
In theory, there's time to insert yet another PM before the General Election, but the Gantt chart isn't pretty.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
I think it'll fizzle but the embers will remain. Each attempt creates dry kindling for the next one. Same happened with May, and to an extent with Johnson. The very obvious problem for the rebels is there is no king across the water. The putative queen across the water is only queen for one smallish libertarian faction of the party. The king across the water is no longer an MP and the long wished-for prince across the water is in a different party.
Indeed. If this is a “Trussite” coup, I look forward to them explaining how they will sell the return of Liz Truss to the electorate. I cannot think of a current politician more widely discredited and the subject of ridicule among the electorate. Boris comes close, but he still has his die hard fans.
I plan is for Simon Clarke to stand in front of her at all times - after all he's tall which is where the Someone Rishi looks up to "joke" came from.
Mind you the fact Simon Clarke thinks his electoral chances will change by switching PM shows how completely deluded he his.
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
I've been trying to figure out how much of this is a design issue, a build issue, and/or a maintenance issue.
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
It's a Boeing plane in the post merger era - it's got multiple design flaws because planes needed to go out the door.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
I await his condemnation of big money donors to the Conservative Party with eager anticipation.
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
I've been trying to figure out how much of this is a design issue, a build issue, and/or a maintenance issue.
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
It’s certainly an unusual design, with the door outside the hole and bigger than it, and opening outward. It’s only ever an emergency exit.
Most plane doors open inward and are bigger than the hole, which means they can’t possibly open in flight against the pressurisation forces.
The ‘plug’ is the outer skin sector of a door, that mounts in the same way against four pins and a dozen locator points, and it moves down to clear the pins, then up to clear the locator points, then is hinged at the bottom. The locator pins on the ‘plug’ have bolts through them that are tightened with castle nuts and locked with wire. These nuts and bolts, are what where seemingly missing on the accident aircraft, and have been found loose on many others. The plug door can be removed the same way, and replaced with a real door in future, as the fuselage is identical on both models. Interestingly, the plug door doesn’t have an open/closed indicator in the cockpit, as it ‘never’ opens in service. The accident plane reported an unknown pressurisation issue the previous day.
A combination of bad design (to maintain commonality with actual doors), bad processes, bad build, possibly bad materials, and bad inspection regime. The bolts are hidden by the interior panel, and are only supposed to need inspection every few years on a C or D check, heavy maintenance when the interior is replaced.
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
I've been trying to figure out how much of this is a design issue, a build issue, and/or a maintenance issue.
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
It's a Boeing plane in the post merger era - it's got multiple design flaws because planes needed to go out the door.
And as a result, the doors are going out of the plane?
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Sheldon Adelson died three years ago, so I can’t see how he’s given anyone money this campaign.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
The problem for the Tories is that there really is no conceivable alternative that would be mote popular, and the process of defenestration of the fifth leader this Parliament would undermine Tory support even further. Even if we accept Sunak is a dud, removing him will cost more Tory seats in the increasingly imminent GE.
So go on, Tories... you know you want to
It's the attraction of the undefined alternative to an unpopular status quo..
The 'generic' Republican or Democrat usually outperforms any even vaguely unpopular politician in US polling.
Few people have much idea of what Starmer will do in government. But many will vote for him.
Brexit seemed like a good idea at the time to 52% of those who voted...
The problem for Tory MPs is that most of the country has already defined the generic Tory alternative PM - after all, they've had quite a lot of examples in recent years - and they don't want it.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here) that Judaism is a race not a religion.
Yet it was those of the Jewish religion he primarily exterminated not racial Blacks or Asians or even those of races of other nations he conquered.
Irrespective of that however fine Bart it seems is OK with discriminating against Christians, Muslims or Hindus or religious Orthodox Jews (if you want to ignore those of only Jewish 'ethnicity' rather than committed religion) as long as nobody else is discriminated against
Sorry but even by your standards this is breathtakingly bullshit bollocks. As is fairly widely known, Nazis committed genocide against those they defined as Jews primarily as a racial policy. Where are you getting this shit from? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
Compare with the treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses, who were persecuted because of their rejection of the authority of the state, refusal to give the Hitler salute, and refusal to join, or support in any way, the military. Though many were murdered by the Nazis, they weren't subject to a program of extermination, they weren't classed as "enemies of the race-based state" by the Nuremberg Race Laws. And, unlike Jews, they could avoid persecution by renouncing their beliefs.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Sheldon Adelson died three years ago, so I can’t see how he’s given anyone money this campaign.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
The problem for the Tories is that there really is no conceivable alternative that would be mote popular, and the process of defenestration of the fifth leader this Parliament would undermine Tory support even further. Even if we accept Sunak is a dud, removing him will cost more Tory seats in the increasingly imminent GE.
So go on, Tories... you know you want to
It's the attraction of the undefined alternative to an unpopular status quo..
The 'generic' Republican or Democrat usually outperforms any even vaguely unpopular politician in US polling.
Few people have much idea of what Starmer will do in government. But many will vote for him.
Brexit seemed like a good idea at the time to 52% of those who voted...
The problem for Tory MPs is that most of the country has already defined the generic Tory alternative PM - after all, they've had quite a lot of examples in recent years - and they don't want it.
A quick survey:
Who would you prefer as Prime Minister:
1) Sunak 2) Starmer 3) an imaginary wizard who provides free owls?
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
My father's parents rowed from time to time, they ended up divorced, he had to support his mother through much of his adult life himself while his father remarried.
Of course in your self centred libertarian nirvana self sacrifice and commitment to marriage and your children is irrelevant but no surprise there
Again, what the flippety flip are you talking about?
My father's parents divorced too, and both remarried. As a result I grew up with bonus grandparents, who are not biologically related but they were always my grandparents.
My grandparents in their second marriages were happy for fifty years as having divorced from the wrong person for them, they were now married to the right person and they were happy.
And the family was better for it, as the toxic fighting that happened prior to the separation stopped as time went on.
Commitment to children doesn't end at divorce. Indeed commitment to children means ensuring they have happy homes, not sad ones.
The data is pretty clear that the environment for children to grow up is a happy, stable, two parent family unit.
In general marriage is best at delivering this (vs eg civil partnerships or ‘committed long term relationships’ where on partner wants to keep their options open where they don’t believe in marriage.
But, as your case indicates, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a first or second marriage or gay/straight. It’s stability and the environment that matters
(More controversially, the data shows that be parent - doesn’t matter which - staying at home delivers better outcomes than latch key kids)
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Sheldon Adelson died three years ago, so I can’t see how he’s given anyone money this campaign.
Wednesday morning, the Clarke household. Simon sits at the dining room table with his head against the ceiling, reading the newspaper. He does this to avoid his phone, which instead of being filled with updates of colleagues joining the Truss-push is mostly silent. With the occasional 4-letter expletive messages to him by colleagues.
"It was worth it" Simon mutters, "Liz WILL lead us to victory. I WILL win my seat"
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Sheldon Adelson died three years ago, so I can’t see how he’s given anyone money this campaign.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Sheldon Adelson died three years ago, so I can’t see how he’s given anyone money this campaign.
Wednesday morning, the Clarke household. Simon sits at the dining room table with his head against the ceiling, reading the newspaper. He does this to avoid his phone, which instead of being filled with updates of colleagues joining the Truss-push is mostly silent. With the occasional 4-letter expletive messages to him by colleagues.
"It was worth it" Simon mutters, "Liz WILL lead us to victory. I WILL win my seat"
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
The problem for the Tories is that there really is no conceivable alternative that would be mote popular, and the process of defenestration of the fifth leader this Parliament would undermine Tory support even further. Even if we accept Sunak is a dud, removing him will cost more Tory seats in the increasingly imminent GE.
So go on, Tories... you know you want to
It's the attraction of the undefined alternative to an unpopular status quo..
The 'generic' Republican or Democrat usually outperforms any even vaguely unpopular politician in US polling.
Few people have much idea of what Starmer will do in government. But many will vote for him.
Brexit seemed like a good idea at the time to 52% of those who voted...
The problem for Tory MPs is that most of the country has already defined the generic Tory alternative PM - after all, they've had quite a lot of examples in recent years - and they don't want it.
A quick survey:
Who would you prefer as Prime Minister:
1) Sunak 2) Starmer 3) an imaginary wizard who provides free owls?
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
The problem for the Tories is that there really is no conceivable alternative that would be mote popular, and the process of defenestration of the fifth leader this Parliament would undermine Tory support even further. Even if we accept Sunak is a dud, removing him will cost more Tory seats in the increasingly imminent GE.
So go on, Tories... you know you want to
It's the attraction of the undefined alternative to an unpopular status quo..
The 'generic' Republican or Democrat usually outperforms any even vaguely unpopular politician in US polling.
Few people have much idea of what Starmer will do in government. But many will vote for him.
Brexit seemed like a good idea at the time to 52% of those who voted...
The problem for Tory MPs is that most of the country has already defined the generic Tory alternative PM - after all, they've had quite a lot of examples in recent years - and they don't want it.
A quick survey:
Who would you prefer as Prime Minister:
1) Sunak 2) Starmer 3) an imaginary wizard who provides free owls?
Put me down as 3)
Ed Miliband is a wizard?? If only I had known.
Thank heaven that we evaded that coalition of chaos in 2015!
Could Simon Clarke be dumped from the lineup for the launch of PopCon - the new Conservative grassroots movement?
Oh dear, what a shame...
He must have believed others would follow him over the top.
That was silly of him.
At the moment, individual Conservatives seem to be bouncing between denial, anger and depression on the five stages map. Out of synch with each other and largely at random.
It's not the ideal basis for a government or an election campaign.
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Sheldon Adelson died three years ago, so I can’t see how he’s given anyone money this campaign.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
There is a serious point to be made by Goodwin: he could point out that a large number of people who become British citizens end up in social housing, and seek to understand the reasons.
Are these the same citizen or immigrants as are boosting our economy? Getting subsidised housing and disproportionate benefits on the back of larger families? Something doesn't quite compute.
I suspect it's a bit of a barbell: quite a few very high income new citizens, and lots of very low income ones, with not that many in the middle.
Quite a few high skilled immigrants going straight into high end jobs. See IT for examples.
Haley has had a little bit of a surge: she's pulled it back to 53-47.
Not enough to win... but a very decent performance. It's good to know that almost half of Republican Primary voters are sane.
That’s the key takeaway for me
Based on media reporting you might think that all of the GOP are nuts
But Trump won only just over 50% in both IA and NH. That’s obviously enough - but (a) it was independent of the number of candidates; and (b) on the assumption that the average Trump voter is more motivated than others then Trump has less than 50% of the party as a whole committed to him
Talking of 'free money' bets, isn't Biden as the Democrat nominee at 1.25 a good bet?
He can comfortably win primaries where he's not on the ballot, and the actuarial risk of less than 10 months at his age and health is far, far below 25%.
And him dropping out is incredibly unlikely if Trump remains nominee (currently 1.06).
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
I've been trying to figure out how much of this is a design issue, a build issue, and/or a maintenance issue.
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
It's a Boeing plane in the post merger era - it's got multiple design flaws because planes needed to go out the door.
One thing not much discussed is the role of FAA in all of this. The FAA has given Boeing a free ride on a whole load of design and build issues, while at the same time being particularly zealous in policing Airbus.
This cosy relationship between Boeing and the FAA was intended to give the home team (Boeing) something of an easier run (even though Boeing also benefits from massive Pentagon contracts, which Airbus does not).
The idea that the FAA bends the rules to favour Boeing is another example of why regulatory capture is dangerous. If McDonnell Douglas was still around, the competition might have kept the FAA honest.
Haley has had a little bit of a surge: she's pulled it back to 53-47.
Not enough to win... but a very decent performance. It's good to know that almost half of Republican Primary voters are sane.
That’s the key takeaway for me
Based on media reporting you might think that all of the GOP are nuts
But Trump won only just over 50% in both IA and NH. That’s obviously enough - but (a) it was independent of the number of candidates; and (b) on the assumption that the average Trump voter is more motivated than others then Trump has less than 50% of the party as a whole committed to him
It’s a small flash a light… dawn is coming…
Key question- when the choice comes down to Trump or Biden, how many decide that a good(ish) Democrat is better than a bad Republican?
The big names in the party have had to bend the knee to The Donald, but individual voters in the privacy of the voting booth?
Talking of 'free money' beys, isn't Biden as the Democrat nominee at 1.25 a good bet?
He can comfortably win primaries where he's not on the ballot, and the actuarial risk of less than 10 months at his age and health is far, far below 25%.
And him dropping out is incredibly unlikely if Trump remains nominee (currently 1.06).
Anything I'm missing?
You are using the actuarial risk of death. That is, you are assuming that the only way that his health can stop him running is if he actually dies.
As I predicted the day after Iowa, Biden won NH by a bigger margin than Trump won IA, even as a write in. And Haley lost in NH (everywhere in NH!) despite it being demographically the best state in the country for her. Tbh, I thought it would be 60-40 or more so she has slightly improved, but she's going to get hammered elsewhere, and I think will get humiliated in her home state very shortly. As I have been saying for the past year, it will be Biden-Trump, and Biden will win both the popular vote and the electoral college.
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
I've been trying to figure out how much of this is a design issue, a build issue, and/or a maintenance issue.
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
It's a Boeing plane in the post merger era - it's got multiple design flaws because planes needed to go out the door.
One thing not much discussed is the role of FAA in all of this. The FAA has given Boeing a free ride on a whole load of design and build issues, while at the same time being particularly zealous in policing Airbus.
This cosy relationship between Boeing and the FAA was intended to give the home team (Boeing) something of an easier run (even though Boeing also benefits from massive Pentagon contracts, which Airbus does not).
The idea that the FAA bends the rules to favour Boeing is another example of why regulatory capture is dangerous. If McDonnell Douglas was still around, the competition might have kept the FAA honest.
Yes it’s also a systemic regulatory favour, the regulator not staying on top of the changes at Boeing. They should have been much quicker to step in and being all over the manufacturer, especially with the original 737 Max issue.
Could Simon Clarke be dumped from the lineup for the launch of PopCon - the new Conservative grassroots movement?
Oh dear, what a shame...
He must have believed others would follow him over the top.
That was silly of him.
At the moment, individual Conservatives seem to be bouncing between denial, anger and depression on the five stages map. Out of synch with each other and largely at random.
It's not the ideal basis for a government or an election campaign.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
I realise it's annoying that the Governing party gets so many chances, but it's a feature of the constitution, boohoo. And if the new leader proves successful within the small timeframe they would have, and the electorate prefers their retail offer to Labour's 'give change a chance' or whatever meaningless guff they're filling leaflets with at the moment, that's democracy.
Change leader all you like. Tory problems run far deeper than the leader.
Is that a reason not to change the leader though, if the leader is a dud?
Simon Clarke may be a nutter, but that doesn't mean Sunak isn't a dud.
The problem for the Tories is that there really is no conceivable alternative that would be mote popular, and the process of defenestration of the fifth leader this Parliament would undermine Tory support even further. Even if we accept Sunak is a dud, removing him will cost more Tory seats in the increasingly imminent GE.
So go on, Tories... you know you want to
It's the attraction of the undefined alternative to an unpopular status quo..
The 'generic' Republican or Democrat usually outperforms any even vaguely unpopular politician in US polling.
Few people have much idea of what Starmer will do in government. But many will vote for him.
Brexit seemed like a good idea at the time to 52% of those who voted...
The problem for Tory MPs is that most of the country has already defined the generic Tory alternative PM - after all, they've had quite a lot of examples in recent years - and they don't want it.
A quick survey:
Who would you prefer as Prime Minister:
1) Sunak 2) Starmer 3) an imaginary wizard who provides free owls?
Put me down as 3)
Ed Miliband is a wizard?? If only I had known.
Thank heaven that we evaded that coalition of chaos in 2015!
On reflection it was hidden in plain sight. He certainly made that bacon sarnie disappear!
She’s getting loads of income from people are are usually Democrat donors, as well as all of the old guard of Republican financiers. Exactly the sort of Big Money Donor Classes that Trump is campaigning on getting out of politics.
His PAC got $75m from Sheldon Adelson so he's not doing a very fucking good job at getting rid of "Big Money Donors".
Sandpit is sometimes almost as uncritical an observer of Republican politics as is Justin Webb.
Sheldon Adelson died three years ago, so I can’t see how he’s given anyone money this campaign.
Donald is a reformed character this time around, then ?
You're making my point for me.
I’m pretty sure Adelson didn’t donate $75m to Trump as a party candidate, as opposed to as the Republican nominee.
My point is that the big money is all behind Haley.
My issue is with Ramaswamy using the term "puppet master" it's deeply unpleasant.
Doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable, for a system that will see that best part of $5bn spent this year just on the presidential race.
The Kochs and Soros will likely chip in a billion between them in donations this year, it’s not particularly difficult to expect the winners to dance to their tune.
Cambodia consistently does the best iced coffee I’ve ever had. It’s quite peculiar - and ubiquitous. I’ve now had them all over the country and all over Phnom Penh and they’re always good and often deliciously good
Why? Hangover from French colonial times? Surely the Khmer Rouge killed anyone who could make great coffee
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
I've been trying to figure out how much of this is a design issue, a build issue, and/or a maintenance issue.
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
It's a Boeing plane in the post merger era - it's got multiple design flaws because planes needed to go out the door.
One thing not much discussed is the role of FAA in all of this. The FAA has given Boeing a free ride on a whole load of design and build issues, while at the same time being particularly zealous in policing Airbus.
This cosy relationship between Boeing and the FAA was intended to give the home team (Boeing) something of an easier run (even though Boeing also benefits from massive Pentagon contracts, which Airbus does not).
The idea that the FAA bends the rules to favour Boeing is another example of why regulatory capture is dangerous. If McDonnell Douglas was still around, the competition might have kept the FAA honest.
If the detailed design run through I saw is correct, then the door design is quite an old, standard one.
The bolts didn’t hold the door closed. They held it in a position where it was held shut by multiple lugs on the door and aircraft. The door has to lift a bit to clear the lugs, and this is what the bolts prevented.
It was supposed to be bolted to hold it in the shut position. It ended up not being bolted shut. So it rattled open, eventually. If even one bolt had been there out of 4 (I think), the door couldn’t have moved.
Bolting things on aircraft, complete with locking devices that prevent the bolts coming undone, is an old, old thing.
If the bolts were there, but loose, it looks like the locking devices on the bolts were left off, or put on incorrectly.
Talking of 'free money' beys, isn't Biden as the Democrat nominee at 1.25 a good bet?
He can comfortably win primaries where he's not on the ballot, and the actuarial risk of less than 10 months at his age and health is far, far below 25%.
And him dropping out is incredibly unlikely if Trump remains nominee (currently 1.06).
Anything I'm missing?
You are using the actuarial risk of death. That is, you are assuming that the only way that his health can stop him running is if he actually dies.
Pretty sure even allowing for morbidity you'd come out way under 25% in under 10 months.
As I predicted the day after Iowa, Biden won NH by a bigger margin than Trump won IA, even as a write in. And Haley lost in NH (everywhere in NH!) despite it being demographically the best state in the country for her. Tbh, I thought it would be 60-40 or more so she has slightly improved, but she's going to get hammered elsewhere, and I think will get humiliated in her home state very shortly. As I have been saying for the past year, it will be Biden-Trump, and Biden will win both the popular vote and the electoral college.
She did better than I expected as well, presumably motivating a lot of independents to come out for her. She also worked the state hard and NH has always appreciated that, as Bill Clinton showed many years ago now.
But NH is as good as it gets for Haley and it wasn't good enough. Only the courts can prevent Trump from being the Republican nominee and they won't.
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
I think it'll fizzle but the embers will remain. Each attempt creates dry kindling for the next one. Same happened with May, and to an extent with Johnson. The very obvious problem for the rebels is there is no king across the water. The putative queen across the water is only queen for one smallish libertarian faction of the party. The king across the water is no longer an MP and the long wished-for prince across the water is in a different party.
There is always the sword-bearer faction of the party.
Cambodia consistently does the best iced coffee I’ve ever had. It’s quite peculiar - and ubiquitous. I’ve now had them all over the country and all over Phnom Penh and they’re always good and often deliciously good
Why? Hangover from French colonial times? Surely the Khmer Rouge killed anyone who could make great coffee
And yet, here it is
You'll have to try harder than that to hijack the thread. A very weak effort.
Sums up the majority of the current Republican Party, and its subservience to a bully.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/23/trump-victory-speech-haley-playground-bully ...Then there was Senator Tim Scott, another ex-rival who has already debased himself with a fawning endorsement of Trump. With his unerring ability to get under people’s skin, he said to Scott that, since former South Carolina governor Haley appointed him to the Senate, “You must really hate her.”
There was an awkward silence in the room and a rare grunt of dissent from someone. To rescue the situation, Scott stepped forward to the lectern, looked at Trump and grovelled: “I just love you!” The crowd exhaled in relief. ..
You won't hear much of this stuff from the BBC, which this morning had Mick Mulvaney, Trump's former White House Chief of Staff, joking along with Justin Webb about "those of us in the centre".
Musing on the Telegraph piece, I just wonder if Sunak might come out of this attempted defenestration stronger, by defeating his enemies publicly. Its like when John Major had his contest with Redwood.
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
I’m inclined to think the challenge is going to fizzle away. It needed big names to come out after Clarke last night. So far, at least, very few have gone public apart from the usual suspects.
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
I think it'll fizzle but the embers will remain. Each attempt creates dry kindling for the next one. Same happened with May, and to an extent with Johnson. The very obvious problem for the rebels is there is no king across the water. The putative queen across the water is only queen for one smallish libertarian faction of the party. The king across the water is no longer an MP and the long wished-for prince across the water is in a different party.
There is always the sword-bearer faction of the party.
Stand up and fight, fight, fight for another food pantry!
On the Tories the BBC are setting the bar low for labelling someone a “Senior Tory MP” this morning. He is not senior in longevity, senior in age or senior in position but I guess it makes the story more exciting to report.
On the Republicans if Haley has the money behind her she should keep running to the end. Firstly if something happens to Trump legally or due to health before the end then by staying in she would likely be the Nominee.
Secondly if she is making Trump campaign it means he is spending money from his PACs and the more he has to spend on the Nomination race the less there is for the GE but also less to find its way to cover his legal costs and bolster his accounts.
Wednesday morning, the Clarke household. Simon sits at the dining room table with his head against the ceiling, reading the newspaper. He does this to avoid his phone, which instead of being filled with updates of colleagues joining the Truss-push is mostly silent. With the occasional 4-letter expletive messages to him by colleagues.
"It was worth it" Simon mutters, "Liz WILL lead us to victory. I WILL win my seat"
Simon Clarke wrote very uncomplimentary things about me, when I applied to become a candidate, 22 years ago.
Comments
The marriage broke down as he put his own self centered lust before his marriage, which was the whole original point of this argument when TSE dismissed monogamy
Trump 53.9
Haley 36.3
So Haley is massively overperforming the polls.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/new-hampshire/
Some people have always been adulterous sacks of shit. In the past you could be an adulterous sack of shit and remain head of the household and in the marital house.
Thank goodness now divorce is an option instead.
Not enough to win... but a very decent performance. It's good to know that almost half of Republican Primary voters are sane.
For starters the SC could rule Trump can be removed from ballots next month or he could be convicted of a criminal offence by mid April and potentially jailed
Poised between Dover and Portsmouth, where Haley is winning, on Maine border, and Manchester/Nashua to southwest where Trump is prevailing.
Good luck persuading all those people to have the same "Core Conservative Values" !
The latest, which is Freemen of the Land Level:
It's owned by the UK government, which is owned by the people, which makes it public.
Hope he tries that at an RAF station or Aldermaston.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/23/us/elections/results-new-hampshire-republican-primary.html
So go on, Tories... you know you want to
So Trump wins New Hampshire but by a much narrower margin than expected. Even if that secures him the nomination it’s a bad sign for the election.
“She's doing like a speech like she won,” he said. “She didn't win. She lost.”
I think I must still be asleep and dreaming, but no...it's Cicero so it must be real.
I have a bet says they will lose 200 seats. Change the Leader and it will be 300.
Puppet masters ?
https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1749977704810582502?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Much more likely it will be a fiasco with him limping on wounded, to the destination of massive electoral collapse.
Here was the article about Haley from last month, and her big-money donors. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/democratic-donor-nikki-haley/index.html
Would you prefer a Trump presidency?
I could be doing them a disservice and maybe they’re trying to reach across multiple news cycles (1 article a night, death by a thousand cuts until the last letter lands to trigger a contest) but I’m not sure I credit them with that level of competence.
They might bounce Sunak into a leadership contest but I’m not sure how plausible it is that he’d lose it.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be highly damaging for the Tories to be seen to be going through civil war again.
Which he would win because (a) the alternatives are worse and (b) four PMs in one parliament is asking for electoral trouble.
“The chief executive of Alaska Airlines has revealed that air safety inspectors found “many” loose bolts on his company’s Boeing 737 Max passenger jets, in a review launched after a panel fell off a plane in mid-air earlier this month.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/01/23/alaska-airlines-finds-many-loose-bolts-on-boeing-737-max/
It's been looking as though it's a build issue, although sometimes build issues can be caused by poor design. Maintenance issues were unlikely on such a new aircraft, with problems seen at two airlines.
With older non-Max planes having to be checked, I'm starting to think one of the significant root causes of this is actually bad design.
Getting from establishing "the leader must go" as a meme to the leader going tends not to happen quickly. (It did for Truss, but she was a impressively special case.) Furthermore, there isn't a standout unity candidate this time, is there? So there would surely have to be some sort of electoral process.
In theory, there's time to insert yet another PM before the General Election, but the Gantt chart isn't pretty.
Mind you the fact Simon Clarke thinks his electoral chances will change by switching PM shows how completely deluded he his.
Nose wheel falls off Boeing 757 airliner waiting for takeoff
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/24/delta-air-lines-plane-nose-wheel-falls-off
Most plane doors open inward and are bigger than the hole, which means they can’t possibly open in flight against the pressurisation forces.
The ‘plug’ is the outer skin sector of a door, that mounts in the same way against four pins and a dozen locator points, and it moves down to clear the pins, then up to clear the locator points, then is hinged at the bottom. The locator pins on the ‘plug’ have bolts through them that are tightened with castle nuts and locked with wire. These nuts and bolts, are what where seemingly missing on the accident aircraft, and have been found loose on many others. The plug door can be removed the same way, and replaced with a real door in future, as the fuselage is identical on both models. Interestingly, the plug door doesn’t have an open/closed indicator in the cockpit, as it ‘never’ opens in service. The accident plane reported an unknown pressurisation issue the previous day.
A combination of bad design (to maintain commonality with actual doors), bad processes, bad build, possibly bad materials, and bad inspection regime. The bolts are hidden by the interior panel, and are only supposed to need inspection every few years on a C or D check, heavy maintenance when the interior is replaced.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson
The 'generic' Republican or Democrat usually outperforms any even vaguely unpopular politician in US polling.
Few people have much idea of what Starmer will do in government. But many will vote for him.
Brexit seemed like a good idea at the time to 52% of those who voted...
The problem for Tory MPs is that most of the country has already defined the generic Tory alternative PM - after all, they've had quite a lot of examples in recent years - and they don't want it.
Compare with the treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses, who were persecuted because of their rejection of the authority of the state, refusal to give the Hitler salute, and refusal to join, or support in any way, the military. Though many were murdered by the Nazis, they weren't subject to a program of extermination, they weren't classed as "enemies of the race-based state" by the Nuremberg Race Laws. And, unlike Jews, they could avoid persecution by renouncing their beliefs.
You're making my point for me.
Who would you prefer as Prime Minister:
1) Sunak
2) Starmer
3) an imaginary wizard who provides free owls?
Put me down as 3)
Not only did nobody follow Simon Clarke over the top, now this
@KateEMcCann
Could Simon Clarke be dumped from the lineup for the launch of PopCon - the new Conservative grassroots movement?
Oh dear, what a shame...
He says if she doesn't drop out, she'll end up under investigation for "stuff she doesn't want to talk about.”
https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1749987134298014145
In general marriage is best at delivering this (vs eg civil partnerships or ‘committed long term relationships’ where on partner wants to keep their options open where they don’t believe in marriage.
But, as your case indicates, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a first or second marriage or gay/straight. It’s stability and the environment that matters
(More controversially, the data shows that be parent - doesn’t matter which - staying at home delivers better outcomes than latch key kids)
My point is that the big money is all behind Haley.
"It was worth it" Simon mutters, "Liz WILL lead us to victory. I WILL win my seat"
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/trump-2024-campaign-cash-funding-election
I don’t think the odd $250k from a few Dems will shift it that much.
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1749922739467477072
"Let's turn this country around," says minister Kevin Hollinrake, speaking on behalf of a party that has been in power for 14 years.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Tory election slogan turns out to be: "Britain is broken. Don't let Labour fix it."
At the moment, individual Conservatives seem to be bouncing between denial, anger and depression on the five stages map. Out of synch with each other and largely at random.
It's not the ideal basis for a government or an election campaign.
'The big money' is largely a result of Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance by justices appointed by Republicans.
'The big money' is available in one form or another, and given, to just about any candidate - GOP or Democrat - with any prospect of power.
Trump has done nothing, and proposes to do nothing, to change that.
Define middle.
Actual numbers would be interesting.
Based on media reporting you might think that all of the GOP are nuts
But Trump won only just over 50% in both IA and NH. That’s obviously enough - but (a) it was independent of the number of candidates; and (b) on the assumption that the average Trump voter is more motivated than others then Trump has less than 50% of the party as a whole committed to him
It’s a small flash a light… dawn is coming…
He can comfortably win primaries where he's not on the ballot, and the actuarial risk of less than 10 months at his age and health is far, far below 25%.
And him dropping out is incredibly unlikely if Trump remains nominee (currently 1.06).
Anything I'm missing?
lol
This cosy relationship between Boeing and the FAA was intended to give the home team (Boeing) something of an easier run (even though Boeing also benefits from massive Pentagon contracts, which Airbus does not).
The idea that the FAA bends the rules to favour Boeing is another example of why regulatory capture is dangerous. If McDonnell Douglas was still around, the competition might have kept the FAA honest.
Vermin Supreme got 0.6% - so is evidently a couple of orders of magnitude less attractive to Democrat than to Republican voters.
The big names in the party have had to bend the knee to The Donald, but individual voters in the privacy of the voting booth?
Have to hope.
As I have been saying for the past year, it will be Biden-Trump, and Biden will win both the popular vote and the electoral college.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/gaza-war-sunak-tories-starmer-labour-merged-single-pro-war-party?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Social_Traffic&utm_content=ap_2xbszmelnn
Surely Haley would be very competitive in those states and they could have changed the narrative .
Anyway it’s all over now .
The Kochs and Soros will likely chip in a billion between them in donations this year, it’s not particularly difficult to expect the winners to dance to their tune.
Why? Hangover from French colonial times? Surely the Khmer Rouge killed anyone who could make great coffee
And yet, here it is
The bolts didn’t hold the door closed. They held it in a position where it was held shut by multiple lugs on the door and aircraft. The door has to lift a bit to clear the lugs, and this is what the bolts prevented.
It was supposed to be bolted to hold it in the shut position. It ended up not being bolted shut. So it rattled open, eventually. If even one bolt had been there out of 4 (I think), the door couldn’t have moved.
Bolting things on aircraft, complete with locking devices that prevent the bolts coming undone, is an old, old thing.
If the bolts were there, but loose, it looks like the locking devices on the bolts were left off, or put on incorrectly.
This is basic, basic stuff
"I am only going to be a Dictator on day 1". Best to stock up with ammunition in anticipation.
But NH is as good as it gets for Haley and it wasn't good enough. Only the courts can prevent Trump from being the Republican nominee and they won't.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/23/trump-victory-speech-haley-playground-bully
...Then there was Senator Tim Scott, another ex-rival who has already debased himself with a fawning endorsement of Trump. With his unerring ability to get under people’s skin, he said to Scott that, since former South Carolina governor Haley appointed him to the Senate, “You must really hate her.”
There was an awkward silence in the room and a rare grunt of dissent from someone. To rescue the situation, Scott stepped forward to the lectern, looked at Trump and grovelled: “I just love you!” The crowd exhaled in relief. ..
You won't hear much of this stuff from the BBC, which this morning had Mick Mulvaney, Trump's former White House Chief of Staff, joking along with Justin Webb about "those of us in the centre".
Not only allowing Trump the Presidency but effecting loads of downballot races .
If Biden remains illness free then I still think he has a decent chance of winning. But that’s a big if at his age .
On the Republicans if Haley has the money behind her she should keep running to the end. Firstly if something happens to Trump legally or due to health before the end then by staying in she would likely be the Nominee.
Secondly if she is making Trump campaign it means he is spending money from his PACs and the more he has to spend on the Nomination race the less there is for the GE but also less to find its way to cover his legal costs and bolster his accounts.
I dodged a wide bullet.