Jenrick’s price is collapsing like the England test team's batting in the 1990s

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

@hugorifkind

I'm very impressed that the Conservatives have managed to lose an election which only had Conservatives running in it.

All these tedious, "scathing", repasted remarks from people who aren't Tories or are the reason the Tories fucked up so mightily in GE2024

Cleverly was a centrist Dad Cameroon with no energy or ideas and would have led the Tories nowhere, AGAIN

Jenrick is dislikeable, Badenoch is insane, but... the Tories had to roll the dice. They have correctly done so

A Starmer voter writes...

rottenborough said:

Sandpit said:

So Cleverly lost two votes from yesterday, despite 20 Tugendhat votes being available for redistribution.

Must mean some of yesterday's were lent from other candidates as no way a chunk of Tugendhat voters did not go Cleverly.

Why? To what end? Who gained out of this?

This may not be the most sophisticated electorate in the world but it is certainly the one with the greatest tendency for playing silly buggers.

FrankBooth said:

Cleverly being an atheist. Have Badenoch or Jenrick expressed any religious convictions?

Badenoch says she is an agnostic but has a Methodist background

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Would Donald Trump - or any PBers - favor OR oppose the following proposd amendment to the US Constitution:

No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.

Seems like a logical extension of SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade?

I presume that question is based on the hypothesis that 1865 didn't happen?

I don't think it is a logical extension though. But either way, and on whatever issue, hard-coding any rights to that extent into any constitution is foolish. Ultimately, rights rest on popular acceptance and perceived legitimacy. If a right becomes expected but impossible to achieve politically - or popularly unacceptable but impossible to remove - then violence will tend to result.

rottenborough said:

Was it Harold Wilson who said the first rule of politics is learn to count?

LBJ iirc.

The only sensible thing now to secure a swift Tory return to power is for a bidding war to commence between the two candidates. Offering sensible policies for a sensible Britain.

Badenoch opened the bidding at 50,000 civil servants in jail. How many would Jenrick jail?
Jenrick opened the bidding at £12k in a brown envelope and a tin of grey paint. How many children would Badenoch make cry?

Come on Tories, now is your moment. The crazier and more corrupt to get these two to be, the more certain you can be of returning to power very soon.

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.

Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.

Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up

You've never been to Middlesbrough, then...

williamglenn said:

The assumption that Badenoch is a gift to Labour seems very presumptuous. The sight of the centre-left calling her a far-right extremist will look weird to normal people.

An inverse Diane Abbot, if you will, who said that anyone saying she had mad policies was just obviously racist and sexist.

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.

Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.

Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up

You've never been to Middlesbrough, then...

Useful staging post for doing the Whitby train line

bondegezou said:

FrankBooth said:

2) She speaks frankly and doesn't consider how her words can be twisted.

It's not that her words can be twisted. It's that she actually says batshit stuff and then tries to pretend she didn't.

It's that sometimes she doesn't check reality, or put brain in gear, before opening mouth.

Andy_JS said:

BBC News Channel thinks a hurricane in another continent is more important than British politics.

BBC doesn't want to do anything to promote its enemies

Scott_xP said:

@hugorifkind

I'm very impressed that the Conservatives have managed to lose an election which only had Conservatives running in it.

Hugo Rifkind is the biggest centrist dad in the country.

I would just like to refer to @HYUFD comments that Starmer and Davey will be pleased but Farage not so

He has it right on this, and it is simply impossible to come to a definitive conclusion as to how this plays out, not least because Reform are the threat at present

I wanted Cleverly but then I am a one nation conservative but I can understand the largely English based conservative mps coming to the conclusion they want a leader from the right

Nigelb said:

You can judge how successful a move this is likely to be for the Tories from the fact that it's delighted both Luckyguy and Leon.

Er, it really hasn't "delighted" me, at all

I believe this is a sub-standard selection of leaders. Because it is. None of them leaps out (from all six starters) not one of them is without grave flaws

It is a pity Mordaunt lost her seat, if she could have reined in the Wokeness she would have been a stronger contender than all of them

More thoughts:

I personally rather like Patel, but I accept everyone else doesn't. Stride lol. Tugendhat is simply too wet

That leaves the three today. I can see the affable appeal of managerial Cleverly, but I agree with @HYUFD's diagnosis, the Tories need a big new break, and someone energetic and intelligent with a more Reform-friendly outlook, because that is where the immediate danger to the Tories lies

So I am, I suppose, satisfied that Cleverly has gone - but delighted, no

Of the last two I dunno. Jenrick is quite unlikeable, but maybe has a ruthless streak. Badenoch could be a "black Truss", or she could surprise on the upside

Probably I'd go for Badenoch then be ready to dump her in two years if she is indeed insane

Andy_JS said:

BBC News Channel thinks a hurricane in another continent is more important than British politics.

Hurricane Milton is a 1in a 100 years happening, Tories are forming their circular firing squad every few months.

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eabhal said:

Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?

It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.

Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.

*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.

And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.

Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.

I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.

When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eabhal said:

Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?

It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.

Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.

*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.

And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.

Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.

I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.

When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.

The problem is with seeing corruption whenever a Conservative breathes, yet you seem to ignore everything by everyone else. As you show in your very post with your look-Tories! paragraph.

When it's a Tory, you see wrong-doing everywhere. Yet you excuse Labour. You don't defend 'non-Conservative corruption' because you don't see it; whilst every Tory is corrupt.

If these claims were being made about a Tory, you would be all over them.

Did you read my post?

RichardDesmondgate is not comparable to Aliigate. Wallpapergate is comparable to Aliigate and I don't care about either.

Of course I read your post.

The problem is in your 'not comparable'; which is where, I fear, you are going wrong.

Do you genuinely believe that Alli's bankrolling of Starmer is equitable to Johnson visiting Lebedev's villa or Ministers's relatives making pots of money on dodgy PPE or Jenrick accepting a (pathetic) £10,000 donation to the Conservative Party for interfering with planning decisions?

And that's your problem.

Let's assume Allie is not an angel, as you assume, but an evil actor. Then *think* about if he was a Tory, and had got his sticky fingers into candidate selection and having a No. 10 pass - as well as all the other access he'd have got. You would be *furious*.

Allie probably is not an evil actor. But if he was one, the influence he has bought is significant.

Then compare that to the stuff you mention.

You assume that because he is Labour, intentions are bad. In the cases above, you assume that as they are Tories, their intentions are evil. This is particularly ridiculous in Johnson's case given his longstanding pro-Ukraine stance.

A Foreign Secretary throws off his minders after a meeting to discuss the Salisbury poisonings by Russia a few days earlier, to attend a party hosted by a one of Putin's circle. He makes the son of Putin's friend ( a KGB Officer) a member of the House of Lords. This is years before Ukraine. For those of us with Johnson derangement syndrome we might suggest that Johnson's enthusiasm for Ukraine was the last throw of the dice for his troubled and dying premiership.

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eabhal said:

Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?

It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.

Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.

*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.

And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.

Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.

I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.

When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eabhal said:

Have we done Starmer's uncle was on the Belgrano yet?

It’ll be bigger than RAF gate than last week.

Fair play to BigG and Sky News. They have got all the big calls right; Currygate, Goonergate, RAFgate and TaylorSwiftgate*.

*Although Jenrick just got a pasting on LBC for TaylorSwiftgate.

And you, seemingly, will defend anyone-but-Tories over everything. No-one ever does anything wrong; unless they're Tories, in which case they're automagically guilty.

Here you go again. As far as I am aware other than a late submission, Starmer has done nothing contrary to the rules. Now whether the rules are inappropriate and Starmer is a hypocrite are pertinent but different questions.

I believe one of the current Tory candidates failed to acknowledge his wife's free tickets to the Women's World Cup in Sydney. I don't care about that. I don't care about Mrs Bamford paying for Johnson's home delivered dinner or wallpaper paid for by Lord Brownlow. Johnson by the way complained of Starmer's greedy freebies just yesterday. What I do care about is PPE contract fast lanes and Foreign Secretaries attending Bunga Bunga Parties with KGB officers and over ruling planning in favour of Richard Desmond. One is froth, one is corruption.

When I defend non-Conservative corruption you will have a point.

The problem is with seeing corruption whenever a Conservative breathes, yet you seem to ignore everything by everyone else. As you show in your very post with your look-Tories! paragraph.

When it's a Tory, you see wrong-doing everywhere. Yet you excuse Labour. You don't defend 'non-Conservative corruption' because you don't see it; whilst every Tory is corrupt.

If these claims were being made about a Tory, you would be all over them.

Did you read my post?

RichardDesmondgate is not comparable to Aliigate. Wallpapergate is comparable to Aliigate and I don't care about either.

Of course I read your post.

The problem is in your 'not comparable'; which is where, I fear, you are going wrong.

Do you genuinely believe that Alli's bankrolling of Starmer is equitable to Johnson visiting Lebedev's villa or Ministers's relatives making pots of money on dodgy PPE or Jenrick accepting a (pathetic) £10,000 donation to the Conservative Party for interfering with planning decisions?

And that's your problem.

Let's assume Allie is not an angel, as you assume, but an evil actor. Then *think* about if he was a Tory, and had got his sticky fingers into candidate selection and having a No. 10 pass - as well as all the other access he'd have got. You would be *furious*.

Allie probably is not an evil actor. But if he was one, the influence he has bought is significant.

Then compare that to the stuff you mention.

You assume that because he is Labour, intentions are bad. In the cases above, you assume that as they are Tories, their intentions are evil. This is particularly ridiculous in Johnson's case given his longstanding pro-Ukraine stance.

A Foreign Secretary throws off his minders after a meeting to discuss the Salisbury poisonings by Russia a few days earlier, to attend a party hosted by a one of Putin's circle. He makes the son of Putin's friend ( a KGB Officer) a member of the House of Lords. This is years before Ukraine. For those of us with Johnson derangement syndrome we might suggest that Johnson's enthusiasm for Ukraine was the last throw of the dice for his troubled and dying premiership.

And they got nothing, which is where your little tinfoil-hat rubbish rather falls down. And Johnson could have done lots before 2022 to hurt Ukraine.

Now apply the scepticism you outline above to the Alli situation, and the way he has bought large parts of the government. Why do you assume he is a saint?

Another observation: it's difficult to believe all or most of Tugendhat's votes went to Jenrick and Badenoch.

Not watched it yet, but Trump just appeared on comedian Andrew Schulz’s podcast, for a 90’ interview. He has nearly 2m followers.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ry1IjOft95c

This is unbelievable. Clearly Jenrick lent some votes to Cleverley at the last round and couldn`t do so this time as it was so close.

And the header hasn`t aged well...

Damn, I forgot that the BBC News channel and BBC World News are now one and the same channel.

bondegezou said:

FrankBooth said:

Cleverly being an atheist. Have Badenoch or Jenrick expressed any religious convictions?

Jenrick's wife is Jewish and they are raising the kids Jewish. But I don't know how he identifies.

So, we can expect Jenrick to stop work at 5pm on Friday. What do PB Tories think of that?

bondegezou said:

FrankBooth said:

Cleverly being an atheist. Have Badenoch or Jenrick expressed any religious convictions?

Kemi calls herself agnostic, but goes on about her Christian cultural roots.

Kemi's husband is an evangelical Christian, Jenrick is C of E but with a Jewish wife and kids

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:

Curious question. Why do people think Badenoch is mad? Feisty I'll give you. I see three main issues for her at the moment:

1) She's very popular with Tory grassroots. Fairly or otherwise this automatically makes the rest of the country suspicious.

2) She speaks frankly and doesn't consider how her words can be twisted.

3) She's actually very anti populist. Good luck getting the British people to accept an end to cakeism.

I think she doesn't realise that other people aren't going to automatically agree with her, even if she thinks she has a great idea, and so she doesn't realise that she needs to be persuasive. All her opinions are "obvious" to her and she acts as though they should be obvious to everyone else.

I think that if she was convinced this was necessary, and put a bit of work in, she might end up being a very significant politician. A bit of mad can go a long way, if properly directed.

If she wins, she has four years as LotO to refine herself.

Where did we all see Sir Keir five years ago?

It's been Jenrick all the time with the 50 or so Tory party members I speak to on a daily or weekly basis. But then Cleverly wasn't very good at an event in Cumbria a few years back which some of us attended. Tugenhart was the flavour of our ex MP but he didn't get much traction with members as far as I can see. Members see the primary need within the party to be to come to some modus vivendi along the right not least to make sure we don't have right on right fights in council elections. Winning isn't everything but it sure beats losing.

algarkirk said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.

Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.

Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up

Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.

Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.

Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.

Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).

It really doesn't, it's simply a rejection of the idea that there is a God, a supreme being. It's not a credo, nor a design for life.

Lol

So the tories go down the rabbit hole. Labour 1983 Redux. Brilliant news for Labour. Bad for everyone hoping for proper Opposition and decent discourse as opposed to rabid dogs foaming at the mouth.

Labour landslide next General Election.

Oh and p.s. Kamala will win the ECV ‘comfortably’ (i.e. not a landslide but comfortably)

LostPassword said:

I think she doesn't realise that other people aren't going to automatically agree with her, even if she thinks she has a great idea, and so she doesn't realise that she needs to be persuasive. All her opinions are "obvious" to her and she acts as though they should be obvious to everyone else.

Which is a trait typically seen far more commonly on the Left and particularly within the Leftist commentariat (Owen Jones, James O'Brien, Kevin Maguire...)

But is it necessarily a 'bad' thing?

If enough people share the same underlying view then this kind of 'obviously, it stands to reason...' mentality can play well, and she doesn't need to convince anyone else or win any new friends. Those who are 'wrong' can be dismissed without a moments further thought.

Farage also benefits from this playbook. And many people got the impression that Thatcher did too (even though the truth is that she was incredibly considered in her policy-making).

A positive story.

Bereaved parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy in England can now receive a certificate in recognition of their loss.

Ministers say they have listened to bereaved parents who have gone through the painful experience of miscarriage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68353310

A small but very significant, intervention which will be of very great benefit for many parents who lost a child. I think there will be an impact on long-term mental health for some.

Despite having bo children myself, I have female relations who have had miscarriages. I've seen a little of the need to acknowledge baby loss, as some CofE parishes I have been associated with have been running once-a-year open services for this group of parishioners going back as far the 1980s.

I'm glad that it's "parent" not "mother".

Something that was brought in in Scotland last year; the rest of us are catching up on this one.

And with that I’ll slink away again and leave you to it.

The tories are lunatics.

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

BBC News Channel thinks a hurricane in another continent is more important than British politics.

BBC doesn't want to do anything to promote its enemies

Can you tell the difference between the hurricane and the vote result? Scenes of devastation. People who thought they were home and dry swept away in the torrent.

Anabobazina said:

algarkirk said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.

Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.

Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up

Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.

Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.

Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.

Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).

It really doesn't, it's simply a rejection of the idea that there is a God, a supreme being. It's not a credo, nor a design for life.

Yes, it really is the very simplest of religions, and the simplest to understand.

Religion is very little discussed in Britain so most of the time we have no way of knowing what people privately believe – but personally I am always surprised when someone turns out not to be an atheist. I accept there is a lot of generalising-from-self going on here!

@nicholaswatt

A former Tory minister tells me: “I don’t know when the death certificate for the Conservative Party will be issued. But it will be a private funeral with no wake afterwards.” More on @BBCNewsnight feed and on BBC Two 10.30pm

RochdalePioneers said:

Have the Tories learned nothing from the election?

Something, given Cleverly was Rishi 2. However whether going even further right to win over Reform voters is the best way to win the next GE is debateable

FrankBooth said:

david_herdson said:

On the Tories, stupid choice, although perhaps a necessary one in the circumstances.

They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).

But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.

That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.

If the choice is between aping Farage or being destroyed by Farage perhaps it makes some sense?

That's what they think. They are, however, wrong.

The fundamental purpose of the Tory party is (or always was) to provide reliable government and not get dragged into ideological battles. That's what the public wants, and expects, from them. Same as it expects Labour to prioritise public services, probably at the expense of the economy.

Yes, Thatcher, blah-de-blah. She won (as Heath didn't) because she spent four years explaining why her policies weren't ideological but practically necessary - which the unions helpfully substantiated in 1978-9. When she did go off the ideological deep end with the Poll Tax, she got the boot.

Jason Beer returned today to the Post Office Inquiry. Sad announcement at the start of today's proceedings about the death of a core participant Gillian Blakey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbnGva05qN0

Stereodog said:

Andy_JS said:

Scott_xP said:

@hugorifkind

I'm very impressed that the Conservatives have managed to lose an election which only had Conservatives running in it.

Hugo Rifkind is the biggest centrist dad in the country.

I'm curious as to why this has become an insult and a constituency to be avoided. Surely if centrist dads do exist then they must make up one of the largest pool of voters in the UK? By definition they are centrist so should be in play for the Tories?

It's unfathomable. The Conservative electoral strategy is apparently to unite pensioners, landlords and the 18 year old male Andrew Tate demographic.

Centrist dads are a bunch of woke lefties who actually work for a living (imagine) and are therefore of no interest to them.

Scott_xP said:

@nicholaswatt

A former Tory minister tells me: “I don’t know when the death certificate for the Conservative Party will be issued. But it will be a private funeral with no wake afterwards.” More on @BBCNewsnight feed and on BBC Two 10.30pm

Probably David Gauke. Sounds like the sort of inane thing he'd say after he has lost again.

Anabobazina said:

I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.

Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.

We are not an irreligious nation.

Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

It's a ridiculous, if fun, voting system. They should vote just once and list all their preferences to prevent these shaninigans.

God no, because that would be AV, and @TheScreamingEagles keeps insisting that this contest is like AV.

When clearly it’s nothing like AV whatsoever.

It’s a bit like the French system, but evolved to have more scope for skullduggery

OK I put my hands up, I called this completely wrong.

I thought there was not a snowballs chance in hell of it being Badenoch v Jenrick, as I thought there was no way that Tugendhat/Cleverly (whomever was eliminated) would not transfer to each other by more than they transfer to Badenoch or Jenrick.

I was wrong. Very wrong.

I do not understand the logic of the MPs voting.

david_herdson said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

david_herdson said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Would Donald Trump - or any PBers - favor OR oppose the following proposd amendment to the US Constitution:

No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.

Seems like a logical extension of SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade?

I presume that question is based on the hypothesis that 1865 didn't happen?

I don't think it is a logical extension though. But either way, and on whatever issue, hard-coding any rights to that extent into any constitution is foolish. Ultimately, rights rest on popular acceptance and perceived legitimacy. If a right becomes expected but impossible to achieve politically - or popularly unacceptable but impossible to remove - then violence will tend to result.

So the Bill of Rights (US Constitution amendments I-X) was a bad idea, even though it was copied (sorta) from UK?

Some were. The 2nd springs obviously to mind. Most, however, are so basic and uncontested as to be sensible to embed at such a high level, and others (eg the 1st) are necessary as to the functioning of the whole thing.

However, those provisions could still (in theory) be repealed by a future amendment, in the same way as they were introduced, and grant all states equal rights in the process. Giving any state a veto over the other 49 would be mad.

To paraphrase, the second amendment is the mechanism by which we hold the government to the first amendment - Dave Chappelle.

david_herdson said:

FrankBooth said:

david_herdson said:

On the Tories, stupid choice, although perhaps a necessary one in the circumstances.

They lost on delivery, not ideology. If the economy, public services and Brexit had been successful in 2024 they'd have won whether led by Cameron, Johnson or Truss. Ultimately, it's results that count. (Not that Truss would ever have delivered results but the principle stands).

But the point will need demonstrating to them by the electorate. They clearly need to lose again before there's any acceptance of what will be necessary.

That said, they're obviously terrified of Farage and have no idea of how to counter him other than aping him, which is also stupid but understandable. Instead, what they do is give his arguments legitimacy by echoing them, while lacking his conviction.

If the choice is between aping Farage or being destroyed by Farage perhaps it makes some sense?

That's what they think. They are, however, wrong.

The fundamental purpose of the Tory party is (or always was) to provide reliable government and not get dragged into ideological battles. That's what the public wants, and expects, from them. Same as it expects Labour to prioritise public services, probably at the expense of the economy.

Yes, Thatcher, blah-de-blah. She won (as Heath didn't) because she spent four years explaining why her policies weren't ideological but practically necessary - which the unions helpfully substantiated in 1978-9. When she did go off the ideological deep end with the Poll Tax, she got the boot.

I'm not sure I've seen much from Badenoch or Jenrick to say they are very ideological. They are both Thatcher admirers which won't go down well with some but what are they proposing that is so un Tory? Leaving the ECHR? The main criticism of doing that is that we'll somehow stand out from the rest of Europe but given it's growing relevance as a living document a debate on it is well overdue.

You just made a cogent argument against protected rights yourself.

The biggest problem with this result for the Tories I think is that, rather like Ed Miliband beating David in a weird way, whoever wins will be the one who won after the Tory MPs managed to cock things up and exclude the one candidate who'd genuinely impressed in the campaign, who represented the moderate wing, and was apparently a shoo-in before game playing.

It's a problem for whoever wins in a way it wouldn't be if they'd say beaten Cleverly having had this last bit of a campaign to argue why their more right-wing approach had more merit.

Unless the winner performs miracles they'll always be a case of "ah, but they only picked them after that huge cock up".

Stark_Dawning said:

Anabobazina said:

algarkirk said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.

Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.

Yeah, great, what this country really needs is a guy who thinks life has no purpose, a painful death is all that awaits us, and the universe is a meaningless great void of howling nullity. That'll get the voters queueing up

Who says life has no purpose? What a silly interpretation of atheism.

Leon possibly means that atheists find it hard to discern a purpose to either individuals or the universe as a whole if, from their atheism, they can't find a source outside themselves to give a foundation to that purpose. Making it up for yourself doesn't count. I think he is on to something significant.

Some quite interesting atheists work it out differently of course. Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos' is a good example, but in doing so he sets himself against most forms of atheism.

Atheism is becoming so common in recent years it needs more detailed attention as to what it is saying. Not all atheists are alike. (Full disclosure, I am not one).

It really doesn't, it's simply a rejection of the idea that there is a God, a supreme being. It's not a credo, nor a design for life.

I think the problem is that for many people nowadays 'God' has been reduced to various fluffy senses of wonder and mystery. So if you say you're an atheist people like Leon take it to mean you're just a bit hard nosed.

Atheist is nothing more and nothing less than not theist, not religious.

It's not a positive belief in anything, it's not a creed, it's the absence of a religious creed but leaves space for any other one instead.

So, who is Mike Atherton in this analogy?

Theuniondivvie said:

Great that he took time off from his busy schedule

https://x.com/progdirectorate/status/1844037785428377600?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Ah... Ron DeSantis... who is threatening TV execs with imprisonment if they don't stop showing a political ad he doesn't like.

MJW said:

The biggest problem with this result for the Tories I think is that, rather like Ed Miliband beating David in a weird way, whoever wins will be the one who won after the Tory MPs managed to cock things up and exclude the one candidate who'd genuinely impressed in the campaign, who represented the moderate wing, and was apparently a shoo-in before game playing.

It's a problem for whoever wins in a way it wouldn't be if they'd say beaten Cleverly having had this last bit of a campaign to argue why their more right-wing approach had more merit.

Unless the winner performs miracles they'll always be a case of "ah, but they only picked them after that huge cock up".

Doesn't really matter though. If the winner isn't performing miracles (or at least appearing somewhat competent) they don't deserve to be PM.

A couple of weeks ago, did anybody else spot Kemi channelling the "Master Control Program" in the movie "Tron" (original and best):

"Somebody pushes me, I push back!"

Just seen that result. Well, blow me.

Got to be Jenrick.

Unless it's Badenoch.

So, they will take on Farage one way or another.

I don't think that is necessarily a wrong call, I'm just not sure these are the choices to do it. I think the Tories tacking right have got to do it in terms of - we are going to reclaim our spot as a party of government and administration, we will do policy in detail, work through the wrinkles and pick Reform's ideas to bits systematically.

Does anyone on right of the Tory party have the heft to do that? Jenrick stands an outside chance, Badenoch not a cat in hell's chance.

I do see the best Tory shot being to replicate FdI vs Lega during 18-22: we will be the grown ups making tacking back right work, you are a shambolic clown show (and trust that Reform will oblige). Win 3:1 on the right leaning vote and you have a fine chance.