My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Apparently omniscient deities are super concerned by things like arcane ecclesiastical procedures and not eating certain foods, so I wouldn't be so sure.
The message which Farhat shared was posted from a different X account on the anniversary of Hamas' assault.
It read: "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is one of the most important, valiant, ground-shaking anti-colonial uprisings of our time.
"At the crack of dawn they flew over & burst through the colonial wall, outsmarting and striking a lightning rod blow to the tyrant Goliath.
"Long live the resistance."
Farhat said: "I made a mistake. I retweeted something and I un-retweeted it as soon as I realised but that obviously stays on people's timeline for a while.
"Somebody clearly found it and put in a complaint, which is justified, and all I can do is apologise. It was wholly inappropriate."
I mean, I don't tweet so maybe it's that easy to accidentally retweet something without realising it?
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
It could be worse, it could be the US, where the processed food and pharmaceutical companies have now totally taken over their own regulatory bodies, medicine, academia, media, and politcs.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
I am afraid I don't buy the idea/myth that big pharma is bad. There have been huge advances in medicine made by the profit motive of pharma companies and the regulatory framework under the FDA and UK MHRA is rigorous. There are some of the dodgy generic pharma companies that have encouraged addiction, but this should not sully an otherwise morally sound industry. It is an interesting and little known fact that pharma companies and medical device companies had to bring in their own industry agreed codes to prevent medical professionals from insisting on large scale freebies when purchasing products.
The US Big Pharma have engaged in a range of behaviour from ugly to criminal (see the Sacklers)
A large chunk of their bad behaviour is related to their endeavours to stamp out price completion and achieve massive regulatory capture.
On the other hand big pharma can also be extraordinarily generous. MSD has been running it's Mectizan programme across Africa to wipe out oncocerciasis and lymphatic filliariasis. This is perhaps the most effective pharmaceutical intervention of modern times, comparable to HIV treatment and all for free and unobtrusively.
The message which Farhat shared was posted from a different X account on the anniversary of Hamas' assault.
It read: "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is one of the most important, valiant, ground-shaking anti-colonial uprisings of our time.
"At the crack of dawn they flew over & burst through the colonial wall, outsmarting and striking a lightning rod blow to the tyrant Goliath.
"Long live the resistance."
Farhat said: "I made a mistake. I retweeted something and I un-retweeted it as soon as I realised but that obviously stays on people's timeline for a while.
"Somebody clearly found it and put in a complaint, which is justified, and all I can do is apologise. It was wholly inappropriate."
I mean, I don't tweet so maybe it's that easy to accidentally retweet something without realising it?
She was the Lib Dem candidate in Ynys Mon at the GE
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Sorry I'm caught in the double negatives. Who is the candidate that you prefer, and who is the candidate that Sandpit/Cookie prefer?
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He is framing the race now as one on immigration policy:
“On immigration we do differ. I believe that we should leave the ECHR. In fact I think it’s the only way in which we’ll control our borders. We’ll get foreign criminals out of this country, we’ll get terror suspects out and we’ll actually restore sovereignty to Parliament. Also we do disagree on whether we should have a capped system of migration.
It really feels like trying to recapture the glory days, I'm yet to be convinced the public will get as exercised by the ECHR as the EU, even if they get annoyed at some judgements sometimes, it feels like so much more of a niche issue.
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
It wasn't the view of the commentariat
They also didn't see Jenrick making it to the final two coming yesterday, anymore than most people.
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
Jenrick will never be prime minister.
Close your eyes and imagine tory boy waving from the front steps.
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
It wasn't the view of the commentariat
He’s allowed to hold a different view to Beth Rigby
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
Quite so. When Kirk asked "What would God need with a starship?" in Star Trek 5 I felt like the entity in question had made a misstep aiming too high on the god scale. I can easily see Zeus having a need for a starship.
It's basically neck-and-neck overlaid with MoE. I wish it wasn't but there it is.
My personal evidence-free hope is that the Dems better GOTV operation wins it for Harris. Failing which, Ukraine, Europe, and US democracy are all doomed IMO.
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
It wasn't the view of the commentariat
He’s allowed to hold a different view to Beth Rigby
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
Quite so. When Kirk asked "What would God need with a starship?" in Star Trek 5 I felt like the entity in question had made a misstep aiming too high on the god scale. I can easily see Zeus having a need for a starship.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 57m Not inconsiderable chance that Cleverly is the next Conservative leader, who leads the Tories into the next election, taking over mid-Parliament from whoever wins this contest.
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
Obvs lots of concepts can get called 'god' but the relevant debate is about the putative 'maximally great' god idea - the single being which is in every way better than all of the rest.
Plural god systems tend to have a top god, the ultimate source, though often too remote to be bothered or to bother with, subordinating most of the work to lesser ones.
So the god debate and the 'monotheist rabble' (the largest identifiable group of humans on the planet I should think) are generally talking from the same book about the same either existent or non-existent being.
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
It wasn't the view of the commentariat
He’s allowed to hold a different view to Beth Rigby
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
I suspect Davey has most reason to be pleased today. Farage will be a bit worried as Badenoch or Jenrick could take some of his votes and Starmer is so unpopular he could still lose votes to the Tories whoever they elect as well as to the LDs, Reform and Greens.
Some One Nation Tories who backed Tugendhat and Cleverly though may well give Sir Ed a try
He is framing the race now as one on immigration policy:
“On immigration we do differ. I believe that we should leave the ECHR. In fact I think it’s the only way in which we’ll control our borders. We’ll get foreign criminals out of this country, we’ll get terror suspects out and we’ll actually restore sovereignty to Parliament. Also we do disagree on whether we should have a capped system of migration.
It really feels like trying to recapture the glory days, I'm yet to be convinced the public will get as exercised by the ECHR as the EU, even if they get annoyed at some judgements sometimes, it feels like so much more of a niche issue.
What it is it about Belarus and Russia that Jenrick is so fond to rub shoulders with?
The cynic in me suggests he’s playing the game Cameron played in promising to leave the European People’s Party. Bit of red meat for the members. Only unfortunately for Jenrick there is nothing else left with “Europe” in the name that we can leave that would have salience with the Conservative Party members then the ECHR and the Council of Europe.
Fundamentally leaving the ECHR would make sweet FA difference. Unless he subsequently wants to leave the UN or maybe planet Earth entirely. It’s like he’s seen the Stewart Lee Beaker Folk sketch and not realised it was a joke (although to be fair with Stewart Lee it isn’t always obvious).
Not inconsiderable chance that Cleverly is the next Conservative leader, who leads the Tories into the next election, taking over mid-Parliament from whoever wins this contest.
"He blew it" is a thing in politics and Cleverly is in that territory I think.
Interesting to imagine him, Michael Portillo, David Miliband and Kwasi Kwarteng going for a drink together ...
Well I have to say that I called that completely wrong. I expected Cleverly to top the poll. If he was stupid enough to lend some of his supporters to Jenrick it just may be that the Tories missed a bullet. But fair's fair. I criticised @Leon's prognostications on this and I was wrong.
Where the Tories go from here I really don't know. I fear my semi detached status from the party is going to become ever more precarious under either of the remaining options.
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
Obvs lots of concepts can get called 'god' but the relevant debate is about the putative 'maximally great' god idea - the single being which is in every way better than all of the rest.
Plural god systems tend to have a top god, the ultimate source, though often too remote to be bothered or to bother with, subordinating most of the work to lesser ones.
So the god debate and the 'monotheist rabble' (the largest identifiable group of humans on the planet I should think) are generally talking from the same book about the same either existent or non-existent being.
The top god is also often not omniscient or omnipotent....more just the ceo of god inc
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
Obvs lots of concepts can get called 'god' but the relevant debate is about the putative 'maximally great' god idea - the single being which is in every way better than all of the rest.
Plural god systems tend to have a top god, the ultimate source, though often too remote to be bothered or to bother with, subordinating most of the work to lesser ones.
So the god debate and the 'monotheist rabble' (the largest identifiable group of humans on the planet I should think) are generally talking from the same book about the same either existent or non-existent being.
You’d think… and hope.
But in reality they seem to think: “my idea of god is exactly right and I believe in him and your idea of god is exactly wrong and I don’t believe in him.” Sometimes, they follow this up with: “wanna fight, infidel?”
It's basically neck-and-neck overlaid with MoE. I wish it wasn't but there it is.
My personal evidence-free hope is that the Dems better GOTV operation wins it for Harris. Failing which, Ukraine, Europe, and US democracy are all doomed IMO.
I agree though your latter comment is a bit overstated, the West survived the last Trump presidency, though Ukraine might be divided by Trump and Putin I agree and Trump will firmly back Netanyahu leading to further conflict in the Middle East
(in other betting news, I just backed tim walz as next president - obviously not for much - at an average price slighly better than 950. That's value imo in the current situation with the hurricaine)
Is Kamala anywhere near the high winds?
It's not a play on Kamala being injured. It's a play on something undefined suddenly meaning she's unelectable PLUS a general trading bet on the possibility of that PLUS all the general other reasons you would back such odds.
Very hard to come up with fair price for such hugely unlikely events of course.
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
It wasn't the view of the commentariat
He’s allowed to hold a different view to Beth Rigby
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
Quite so. When Kirk asked "What would God need with a starship?" in Star Trek 5 I felt like the entity in question had made a misstep aiming too high on the god scale. I can easily see Zeus having a need for a starship.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Sorry I'm caught in the double negatives. Who is the candidate that you prefer, and who is the candidate that Sandpit/Cookie prefer?
I prefer Kemi. I accept she is the high risk candidate, and could be awful. And she'll have a hard job persuading the broadcast media not to hate her (but actually, so will Jenrick). But I also think she is the Carlsberg (/Heineken? can't remember now) candidate who can reach voters other Tories can't. I'd quite like a candidate willing to articulate what conservatism is and should mean, and to articulate the limitations of flabby centrism. I think she's better placed to do that than Jenrick. I accept that (as with all leadership elections) there is a large element of hopecasting here!
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
There are only three answers to the Starmer question, one of them is an aggressive idiot, who has gone mad; the second is a corrupt slimeball who is a dead-end; and the other is a grotesque charlatan - who has become drunk and forgotten all about it.
Badenoch - surely the Conservatives won’t have a big enough death wish to choose the odious Jenrick - should be allowed two years. In that time she can either develop into a potential PM or crash and burn. The threat from Reform may have disappeared, not because of Conservative performance, but because Reform may prove they are unsuitable as an alternative. Then the Conservatives can decide whether she is the person to lead them into the next GE.
A few thoughts on the atheism debate. Firstly on agnosticism:
- In common usage, agnosticism generally means being on the fence on whether God exists. And generally about a specific version of God, e.g. the Christian God may or may not exist. I'm sure people put different probabilities, but somewhere around 50:50. Maybe 75:25 one month and 25:75 another. - As defined above, agnosticism is a helpful description. - This has sometimes been taken too literally to mean anyone with any lack of certainty in their position (which is by definition unknowable) - even if you assign it a 0.01% chance - is agnostic. That makes the term utterly meaningless, as it would surely cover most religious people as well as most atheists.
I think atheism is therefore best described as anyone who lacks a belief in any God or a religion, nor do they have a belief they 'on-the-fence' about. Certainty is not required.
For example: - I'm not on the fence as to whether vampires exist. I am vampire atheist. - I'm uncertain as to whether there is intelligent alien life in the Milky Way more advanced that humans. I am agnostic on that point. - I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe somewhere, despite no explicit evidence. I'm theist there.
But in any case, atheism is not a belief system in the same way religion is. But atheists may choose alternative belief systems or philosophies unrelated to any God. Or they may not.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Why does it have to be so factional/binary?
We are all Conservatives and there will be lots of things we agree on, and others where we perhaps prioritise or place more importance on slightly different things.
There are no litmus tests.
For the past thirty years the question "is he/she one of us?" gets asked by every Tory leader. For all her undoubted gifts and charisma, Margaret Thatcher was extremely polarising, even within the Conservative Party. All subsequent leaders from Major to Hague, to Duncan Smith, to Howard often faced open rebellion. Cameron managed to squeak a victory in 2010 and faced less resistance, until his Brexit vote allowed the fruit cakes and loonies (and closet racists) to get their revenge. May was initially ruthless with her "citizen of nowhere" speech and in purging Osborne and other prominent Cameroons, but more than misread the room as far as previously Tory Remainers were concerned. Johnson, of course, smashed the folk memory of CCHQ and purged an awful lot of genuine Conservatives and in doing so may have destroyed the well educated, middle class core of the party. Truss was so inept that she was purged herself, like Duncan Smith. Sunak was still dealing with the Johnson legacy and was constantly dealing with "the letters" to the point that July 4th was more or less forced on him, with catastrophic results.
The Tories obsession with talismanic leadership has been mostly disastrous. The choice of Jenrick v Badenoch is not going to recover the aspirational middle class. It may be too soon to say the oldest and most successful political party in Western Europe is over, but it is not looking good. Chaotic and inept, out of touch and increasingly detached from wealth creators, it is hard to think of a single effective policy proposal in recent years that was not simply an ill conceived gimmick.
I see no ideological core, like that which, for example, Keith Joseph once provided. All I see is second rate ineptitude offered by dishonest, unprincipled chancers.
Granted the Tories are not Labour, but what, in fact, are they? If any Tory MP even says the word "Rwanda", then they should be sent there with a one way ticket. The Party needs to get a grip and offer a coherent and workable set of economic policies, and I see no one on the current front bench that can even understand economic policy, let alone craft a position on the issues of the day.
Under the circumstances the fact that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are likely ever to become PM is a small mercy.
I can easily see Badenoch becoming PM. Labour can't beat her on racism because she's a black woman, they can't beat her on immigration because Labour likes immigration, they can't beat her on anti-trans because they are on the same side, they can't beat her on economic competence because they gave Ed Milliband 22bn to spunk up the wall on forfuckssake carbon capture, they can't beat her on benefits because they are on the same side, that can't beat her on corruption because Starmer is also corrupt...in short, what can Labour beat her *with*?
Herself.
The problem Badenoch has is she’s her own worst enemy.
If she can get some of her impulses to say zany things or throwaway comments under control she might succeed. But she shows no signs of having the self discipline to do so.
That said, I would much prefer her to be the leader over Jenrick. She at least has a capacity to be interesting.
Could I vote for her? Possibly… but only possibly.
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
There are only three answers to the Starmer question, one of them is an aggressive idiot, who has gone mad; the second is a corrupt slimeball who is a dead-end; and the other is a grotesque charlatan - who has become drunk and forgotten all about it.
The biggest threat to Starmer is himself and his lack of political nous, just like Sunak
It's basically neck-and-neck overlaid with MoE. I wish it wasn't but there it is.
My personal evidence-free hope is that the Dems better GOTV operation wins it for Harris. Failing which, Ukraine, Europe, and US democracy are all doomed IMO.
Interesting survey here pointing to a low turnout election:
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
It wasn't the view of the commentariat
He’s allowed to hold a different view to Beth Rigby
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
The idea that we don't have free will is terrifying, although it is backed by 'science'. If it is accepted then how could anyone ever be held responsible for their actions? You would have to accept that they are all randomly determined. The conclusion I came to 20 years ago is that this is probably best left as a paradox/mystery; certainly it is something that has led me to an agnostic and sceptical position on both religion and science.
If we don't have free will then nobody's holding anybody responsible for anything but it doesn't matter anyway because there's no choices to be made. I find it simpler to assume we have the free will it intuitively feels like we do. But I do think that fewer of the actions we take are controlled by the "conscious thought" bit of our brain than we imagine. Some of those experiments showing brain activity before the point in time we think we make a choice to act suggest that at least some of our conscious experience of choice is likely faked up by other parts of the brain to present the conscious with a coherent "you're in charge" view of the world...
My view is that the membership have to vote Badenoch.
Roll the dice.
There is no point electing 'pound shop tory boy let's pretend I am Nigel' Jenrick.
Given where they are tonight it has to be Kemi.
Can she last 3 weeks against Jenrick? He seems somehow developed a reputation for being a ruthless operator. for some reason.
My wallet no longer cares as I bailed out on BF with some laying.
I am free of the shadow of the poor house.
But as an outsider: they have to elect Kemi.
It has to be worth a shot.
I seem to dimly recall that Maggie was seen as the total outside maverick choice all those years ago.
I'm not saying she is Thatcher.
But Jenrick is the very worse. A combination of faux radical right jonny come lately (he voted Remain!!) and yet another tory boy, careerist, oxbridge lawyer with five houses.
The party would be literally mad to give him it over Bandenoch.
Thatcher had a brain, as does Jenrick, Badenoch is more a maverick with a one track anti woke agenda.
Jenrick also tends to poll better with voters with fewer unfavourables than Badenoch, 10 years ago Jenrick was a Cameroon. Having secured the right to win the leadership it would be far easier for him to shift to the centre than Kemi. Jenrick's message on building more homes and stopping the boats is also a sensible one in terms of broadening Tory support
I know you are a Jenrick supporter and I admit I just cannot stand him, but then I know very little about Badenoch and she seems to be popular with members
So who do you think will win ?
At the moment Kemi has the edge, however Jenrick is a sharp speaker and if there is a debate between the 2 could win
A television debate would be interesting but to be honest, I heard his conferences speech and he was underwhelming
He spoke well in my view
It wasn't the view of the commentariat
He’s allowed to hold a different view to Beth Rigby
Commentariat is far more than Rigby
He’s allowed a different view to Kay Burley too!
You think Sky is the only commentariat
Well there’s GB News for starters
No idea - never watch it but I do read the guardian and the independent together with the times
No 10 has clarified Starmer comments about his uncle at pmqs as he misspoke and meant to say his uncle was on board a vessel that was bombed
Apparently he was on board HMS Antelope that sank
If that is the case it is really just a mistake on detail for an event he would have been told about as a child forty years ago (yes, it was that long ago).
A few thoughts on the atheism debate. Firstly on agnosticism:
- In common usage, agnosticism generally means being on the fence on whether God exists. And generally about a specific version of God, e.g. the Christian God may or may not exist. I'm sure people put different probabilities, but somewhere around 50:50. Maybe 75:25 one month and 25:75 another. - As defined above, agnosticism is a helpful description. - This has sometimes been taken too literally to mean anyone with any lack of certainty in their position (which is by definition unknowable) - even if you assign it a 0.01% chance - is agnostic. That makes the term utterly meaningless, as it would surely cover most religious people as well as most atheists.
I think atheism is therefore best described as anyone who lacks a belief in any God or a religion, nor do they have a belief they 'on-the-fence' about. Certainty is not required.
For example: - I'm not on the fence as to whether vampires exist. I am vampire atheist. - I'm uncertain as to whether there is intelligent alien life in the Milky Way more advanced that humans. I am agnostic on that point. - I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe somewhere, despite no explicit evidence. I'm theist there.
But in any case, atheism is not a belief system in the same way religion is. But atheists may choose alternative belief systems or philosophies unrelated to any God. Or they may not.
Christianity - pineapple must be on every pizza. Atheism - pineapple must never be on pizza. Agnosticism - I don’t care whether pineapple is on pizza.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
The idea that we don't have free will is terrifying, although it is backed by 'science'. If it is accepted then how could anyone ever be held responsible for their actions? You would have to accept that they are all randomly determined. The conclusion I came to 20 years ago is that this is probably best left as a paradox/mystery; certainly it is something that has led me to an agnostic and sceptical position on both religion and science.
If we don't have free will then nobody's holding anybody responsible for anything but it doesn't matter anyway because there's no choices to be made. I find it simpler to assume we have the free will it intuitively feels like we do. But I do think that fewer of the actions we take are controlled by the "conscious thought" bit of our brain than we imagine. Some of those experiments showing brain activity before the point in time we think we make a choice to act suggest that at least some of our conscious experience of choice is likely faked up by other parts of the brain to present the conscious with a coherent "you're in charge" view of the world...
We can never tell if we have free will or not, but we like to believe that we do. How else could we live?
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I don't really think that argument stacks up. There is a distinction between belief and knowledge. You're quite right that it's not terribly rational to say I "know" God exists or not - we all must accept the limitations of science at this time and the reality that something could happen to change our view.
But it does appear to me to be possible not to have a belief about something. "Belief" implies a level of confidence or trust that something is likely to be true, and a level of consistency over time.
I accept the strict linguistic point about "atheism" in the sense that the word technically encompasses everything that isn't theism. But it seems to me there is a difference between someone who believes there is no God and someone who doesn't have any (or has no consistent) view on the matter.
You may think there is a difference but both are atheists.
Which is the point, atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the absence of one. It covers the set of people of everyone who is not a theist, without any regimented beliefs or orthodoxies.
Closed minded ignorant theists trying to pigeonhole atheism into something they dislike which it's not is just them showing their ignorance.
I think a big, potential difference between agnostics and atheists is the level of credence they'd probably give to God existing. I'd consider myself an agnostic for instance because I'm pretty on the fence whether there is a 'creator being' of some kind or not. With Dawkins, by comparison, his level of credence would be near 0. Of course, you might get an agnostic who thinks the probability of there being God is only around 10% or so and just has a preference for the term of agnostic rather than atheist. But I think the point is that there probably a good chunk of agnostics (like myself) who'd be uncomfortable being referred to as atheists.
One less-uninteresting thing about Dawkins is that he varies categories within "atheist" - he has long called himself a "protestant atheist". I'm not clear precisely what he means as he tends to word-salad a bit, but that's his chosen label.
There has long been an atheist movement within Christianity. In the Church of England this has been embodied in the Sea of Faith network.
Writers associated are people like Don Cupitt, John Hick and Maurice Wiles.
Perhaps in recent memory most prominent in the book The Myth of God Incarnate, which is a lovely punny title containing at least 3 different simultaneous meanings.
All an indication that it is nothing like as simplistic as some would pretend.
I'm a Protestant atheist of the more umcompromising sort. Catholicism and Orthodoxy leave me cold. If my religious loins could be stirred, they would be stirred by the austere whitewashed chapels of the far North West of Scotland, or perhaps of the cinematic churches of the deep south. The only religious song which has ever inspired me is Johmny Cash's "When the man comes around".
But what makes you a *protestant* atheist?
Discerning Dawkins I think - but I'm not sure - it is his attachment to what he characterises as 'logic', and his lack of feeling-at-home in a culture which is based on ritual, as happens in Roman Catholic or Orthodox milieus.
But that would be him using the term to characterise a culture, rather than his beliefs / values.
'Cos the God I don't believe in isn't into all that ritual shit. The God I don't believe in is an ascetic God. The God I don't believe in isn't found in cathedrals, but in quiet, windless plains; in empty moorlands, in still, brooding forests, hidden valleys. The God I don't believe in is a bottom-up God, a democratic God available to all without intermediary.
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
There are only three answers to the Starmer question, one of them is an aggressive idiot, who has gone mad; the second is a corrupt slimeball who is a dead-end; and the other is a grotesque charlatan - who has become drunk and forgotten all about it.
The biggest threat to Starmer is himself and his lack of political nous, just like Sunak
Indeed. It’s not about wanting him to fail. He had little plan, beyond, it seems, trying to bulldoze the governmental system with Gray. That has failed. As all such attempts to move complex organisations fail - the mythical “one true fixer” doesn’t exist outside of fiction.
To move the culture of a large organisation takes far more than that.
At this point, I think we need a huge round of applause for the strategic genius, political shaman and rainmaker who was hand picked to mastermind @JamesCleverly's campaign.
Nah. Disagree. £2000 to the likes of Rishi is the proportionate equivalent of a supplier offering me a nice biscuit. I think “that was a nice biscuit” but I am influenced not one jot.
You're ignoring a lot of behavioural economics there. Studies are pretty clear that people *say* they're not influenced by freebies - and genuinely believe it - but actually are.
And also thinking we're all rational about freebies and their costs is just not right at all. Firstly, think of it as an "evening out" - an evening out to someone that wealthy probably feels worth more than two bags. And tbh being far less wealthy than Rishi I can lose £2k in the markets and not give a stuff, but I will go to a surprising amount of effort to "cash in" a 75p freebee voucher. I once spent many hours trying to gain an edge on 2p pusher machines that could never, ever, have been worth more than a couple of pounds an hour if it had worked (spoiler - it doesn't - don't try this - although I did get a fluffy octopus amongst other things). They're different mental accounts that are not fungible.
I have always found in my business life that it is often the people that believe they cannot be influenced are the most suggestible.
A big scandal in my view is how the betting industry has sought to buy politicians, including Rachel Reeves. It is an industry that has all the morals of the tobacco industry and Labour ministers (and Tory ones before them) should be ashamed of taking freebies from them.
It could be worse, it could be the US, where the processed food and pharmaceutical companies have now totally taken over their own regulatory bodies, medicine, academia, media, and politcs.
Today’s Joe Rogan podcast, with Calley and Casey Means, should be required listening as to just how screwed up a society can get. Life expectancy is now falling in the US, because of addiction and the medicalisation of common complaints.
For those who don’t like Joe Rogan, I think this podcast is his record for staying silent and letting the guests talk.
I am afraid I don't buy the idea/myth that big pharma is bad. There have been huge advances in medicine made by the profit motive of pharma companies and the regulatory framework under the FDA and UK MHRA is rigorous. There are some of the dodgy generic pharma companies that have encouraged addiction, but this should not sully an otherwise morally sound industry. It is an interesting and little known fact that pharma companies and medical device companies had to bring in their own industry agreed codes to prevent medical professionals from insisting on large scale freebies when purchasing products.
I think you’re correct with regard to the UK, but the US is a very, very different place from a regulatory point of view when it comes to food standards and the pharma industry, which spends more than a trillion dollars a year on marketing, which is why there’s been a total regulatory capture.
I didn’t know until recently, that the big food companies in the US were bought out by the tobacco companies once there was a push against cigarettes, and the same tobacco marketing people then started on the highly-processed food industry in America.
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
There are only three answers to the Starmer question, one of them is an aggressive idiot, who has gone mad; the second is a corrupt slimeball who is a dead-end; and the other is a grotesque charlatan - who has become drunk and forgotten all about it.
The biggest threat to Starmer is himself and his lack of political nous, just like Sunak
The biggest threat to Sunak was that the Conservatives had been in office for a hell of a long time and were a shit show. His political nous didn't help, granted. But it certainly wasn't his biggest problem.
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.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Not all deities are omniscient, that tends to be reserved for the monotheist rabble
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 57m Not inconsiderable chance that Cleverly is the next Conservative leader, who leads the Tories into the next election, taking over mid-Parliament from whoever wins this contest.
Lewis not taking today's result particularly well.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Sorry I'm caught in the double negatives. Who is the candidate that you prefer, and who is the candidate that Sandpit/Cookie prefer?
I prefer Kemi. I accept she is the high risk candidate, and could be awful. And she'll have a hard job persuading the broadcast media not to hate her (but actually, so will Jenrick). But I also think she is the Carlsberg (/Heineken? can't remember now) candidate who can reach voters other Tories can't. I'd quite like a candidate willing to articulate what conservatism is and should mean, and to articulate the limitations of flabby centrism. I think she's better placed to do that than Jenrick. I accept that (as with all leadership elections) there is a large element of hopecasting here!
Trouble is we had all that lecturing shit along those lines from Thatcher four decades ago. It proved a route to the problems we have now.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
Petty crime in Geneva? Bit of a change from the 1970s/80s/90s when it was supposed to be almost totally crime free.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
It's basically neck-and-neck overlaid with MoE. I wish it wasn't but there it is.
My personal evidence-free hope is that the Dems better GOTV operation wins it for Harris. Failing which, Ukraine, Europe, and US democracy are all doomed IMO.
I agree though your latter comment is a bit overstated, the West survived the last Trump presidency, though Ukraine might be divided by Trump and Putin I agree and Trump will firmly back Netanyahu leading to further conflict in the Middle East
I very much hope my catastrophising does prove overstated if put to the test.
Then again, I am sure back in the 1930s plenty of Germans thought the fears about what Hitler might do were 'overstated'.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
She is intelligent and speaks well, but also is thin skinned and has no filter when responding.
I note too that she couldn't win over the 7660 Reform voters in her own constituency in July. The 14% for Reform there was pretty near the national average for them.
Interesting theory related by Nick Watt on Newsnight: Tugendhat supporters may have split between trying to boost Jenrick to stop Badenoch and the opposite, thereby cancelling each other out.
Interesting theory related by Nick Watt on Newsnight: Tugendhat supporters may have split between trying to boost Jenrick to stop Badenoch and the opposite, thereby cancelling each other out.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
I graduated in comp sci. She did a similar degree.
She talks about taking an engineer approach to the shit the country is in and the shit the party is in.
For me - and I am not a member - that has to be worth a punt in contrast to tory boy who will just look at every manifesto commitment and see if it can be tweaked to make migrant children more unhappy.
He's performative cruelty Farage wannabe act on stlits.
Interesting theory related by Nick Watt on Newsnight: Tugendhat supporters may have split between trying to boost Jenrick to stop Badenoch and the opposite, thereby cancelling each other out.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
She is intelligent and speaks well, but also is thin skinned and has no filter when responding.
I note too that she couldn't win over the 7660 Reform voters in her own constituency in July. The 14% for Reform there was pretty near the national average for them.
Agree. I hope she can maximise the upsides and minimises the downsides.
I don't think too much can be read into the local vote for Reform. I suspect if you compare it to the Essex average she may loom rather better. In any case, the overlap between Reform voters and potential Consetvative voters is far from 100% - many/most of those 14% wouldn't have voted for any Tory in 2024.
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
Interesting theory related by Nick Watt on Newsnight: Tugendhat supporters may have split between trying to boost Jenrick to stop Badenoch and the opposite, thereby cancelling each other out.
It would be interesting to know how many have voted for the candidate they want to win and how many have voted in these scheming games.
As someone who posted a while back that I fancied Badenoch to win, put a few tenners on it then watched as many on this forum said she'd lose (and not without logic), I am mightily relieved shes in the last two.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Why does it have to be so factional/binary?
We are all Conservatives and there will be lots of things we agree on, and others where we perhaps prioritise or place more importance on slightly different things.
There are no litmus tests.
For the past thirty years the question "is he/she one of us?" gets asked by every Tory leader. For all her undoubted gifts and charisma, Margaret Thatcher was extremely polarising, even within the Conservative Party. All subsequent leaders from Major to Hague, to Duncan Smith, to Howard often faced open rebellion. Cameron managed to squeak a victory in 2010 and faced less resistance, until his Brexit vote allowed the fruit cakes and loonies (and closet racists) to get their revenge. May was initially ruthless with her "citizen of nowhere" speech and in purging Osborne and other prominent Cameroons, but more than misread the room as far as previously Tory Remainers were concerned. Johnson, of course, smashed the folk memory of CCHQ and purged an awful lot of genuine Conservatives and in doing so may have destroyed the well educated, middle class core of the party. Truss was so inept that she was purged herself, like Duncan Smith. Sunak was still dealing with the Johnson legacy and was constantly dealing with "the letters" to the point that July 4th was more or less forced on him, with catastrophic results.
The Tories obsession with talismanic leadership has been mostly disastrous. The choice of Jenrick v Badenoch is not going to recover the aspirational middle class. It may be too soon to say the oldest and most successful political party in Western Europe is over, but it is not looking good. Chaotic and inept, out of touch and increasingly detached from wealth creators, it is hard to think of a single effective policy proposal in recent years that was not simply an ill conceived gimmick.
I see no ideological core, like that which, for example, Keith Joseph once provided. All I see is second rate ineptitude offered by dishonest, unprincipled chancers.
Granted the Tories are not Labour, but what, in fact, are they? If any Tory MP even says the word "Rwanda", then they should be sent there with a one way ticket. The Party needs to get a grip and offer a coherent and workable set of economic policies, and I see no one on the current front bench that can even understand economic policy, let alone craft a position on the issues of the day.
Under the circumstances the fact that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are likely ever to become PM is a small mercy.
I can easily see Badenoch becoming PM. Labour can't beat her on racism because she's a black woman, they can't beat her on immigration because Labour likes immigration, they can't beat her on anti-trans because they are on the same side, they can't beat her on economic competence because they gave Ed Milliband 22bn to spunk up the wall on forfuckssake carbon capture, they can't beat her on benefits because they are on the same side, that can't beat her on corruption because Starmer is also corrupt...in short, what can Labour beat her *with*?
They can beat her by being apparently normal people with normal people's concerns. Labour wouldn't be able to do so against Cleverly and may not be able to do so against Jenrick, although he has other character flaws.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
She is intelligent and speaks well, but also is thin skinned and has no filter when responding.
I note too that she couldn't win over the 7660 Reform voters in her own constituency in July. The 14% for Reform there was pretty near the national average for them.
She was also hopeless as a minister, and cowardly. Seems an odd choice.
I’m just catching up with the news after a whole day driving. Torrential rain from Calais all the way to Chalon sur Saone. And now it seems hurricane Milton is avoiding Tampa Bay and hitting Burgundy instead.
What fun. Badenoch will win, and that will make for an entertaining 5 years. Her personality will divide opinion but it’ll leave less room for Farage’s own brand of charisma.
I’m just catching up with the news after a whole day driving. Torrential rain from Calais all the way to Chalon sur Saone. And now it seems hurricane Milton is avoiding Tampa Bay and hitting Burgundy instead.
What fun. Badenoch will win, and that will make for an entertaining 5 years. Her personality will divide opinion but it’ll leave less room for Farage’s own brand of charisma.
Good point.
Nigel will not be wanting Kemi to come through the vote.
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
So it's the jet-skier for you, then?
I would be OK with the jet-skier but he didn't mention anything about going back to constituencies to prepare for government so I would conclude he isn't actually a likely alternative to Starmer.
It looks like Sam Coates off sky is annoyed that he didn't receive any free Swifty tickets.
Lolz. Their obsession with this story really is excruciating. He actually interjected Sophie’s otherwise great show to breathlessly report that Ed Balls had got some tickets.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
She is intelligent and speaks well, but also is thin skinned and has no filter when responding.
I note too that she couldn't win over the 7660 Reform voters in her own constituency in July. The 14% for Reform there was pretty near the national average for them.
Agree. I hope she can maximise the upsides and minimises the downsides.
I don't think too much can be read into the local vote for Reform. I suspect if you compare it to the Essex average she may loom rather better. In any case, the overlap between Reform voters and potential Consetvative voters is far from 100% - many/most of those 14% wouldn't have voted for any Tory in 2024.
Surge could be 10 feet in some areas says Newsnight on Storm Milton.
How the US decides Biden and Harris and Trump have each responded to this could well decide the election.
Trumps behaviour has been a disgrace but that won’t make a difference to his supporters . Everything just seems to bounce off him. I really don’t know what could cause a real dent in his support.
I’m just catching up with the news after a whole day driving. Torrential rain from Calais all the way to Chalon sur Saone. And now it seems hurricane Milton is avoiding Tampa Bay and hitting Burgundy instead.
What fun. Badenoch will win, and that will make for an entertaining 5 years. Her personality will divide opinion but it’ll leave less room for Farage’s own brand of charisma.
Good point.
Nigel will not be wanting Kemi to come through the vote.
She's gotta be his worst opponent.
And she won’t be afraid to attack him. Jenrick seemed to want to suck up.
I admit I find her personally highly irritating and kind of fascinating. In the same way Boris Johnson was annoyingly interesting. Whereas Jenrick is just a Tory boy from the 80s, brought up to date with fashionable alt-right toning.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
I learned this afternoon on PB (remember everyday on PB is a schoolday) that Swiftgate is a substantially more significant breach of protocol than Jenrick accepting a mere £12,000 (and Desmond got a dinner out of it) for his party, having saved the Pornographer £45m after an intervention by the then Housing Secretary, overturning Tower Hamlets Council 's due planning process.
Swiftgate has already been surpassed. Sir Keir is now accused of fabricating his military record by claiming he received extensive shrapnel wounds aboard a ship that never existed during a battle that never occurred.
I find it remarkable that for a £45m saving Jenrick gratefully accepted a mere £12,000 (less a dinner) from Desmond for his efforts. What an utterly shite businessman, the Tories should have drummed him out for criminal underselling.
There seemed to be a revelling in keeping money from the poorest. Not unlike Rishi's redirecting funds from the inner cities to Richmond. Jenerick's is nasty and corrupt and this Neo-Conservative Party deserve him.
The Richmond which has low pay, unaffordable housing and limited public services ?
Another Yorkshire district, Richmondshire, has the lowest pay in the entire UK.
Residents of Richmondshire earn an average of just £377.30 a week, which is over £100 less than the UK average pay of £504 a week.
A few thoughts on the atheism debate. Firstly on agnosticism:
- In common usage, agnosticism generally means being on the fence on whether God exists. And generally about a specific version of God, e.g. the Christian God may or may not exist. I'm sure people put different probabilities, but somewhere around 50:50. Maybe 75:25 one month and 25:75 another. - As defined above, agnosticism is a helpful description. - This has sometimes been taken too literally to mean anyone with any lack of certainty in their position (which is by definition unknowable) - even if you assign it a 0.01% chance - is agnostic. That makes the term utterly meaningless, as it would surely cover most religious people as well as most atheists.
I think atheism is therefore best described as anyone who lacks a belief in any God or a religion, nor do they have a belief they 'on-the-fence' about. Certainty is not required.
For example: - I'm not on the fence as to whether vampires exist. I am vampire atheist. - I'm uncertain as to whether there is intelligent alien life in the Milky Way more advanced that humans. I am agnostic on that point. - I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe somewhere, despite no explicit evidence. I'm theist there.
But in any case, atheism is not a belief system in the same way religion is. But atheists may choose alternative belief systems or philosophies unrelated to any God. Or they may not.
I like your post. But I somewhat disagree with 'a belief system the same way religion is', as I don't think religion is (necessarily mainly) a belief system.
I guess Starmer might treat himself to another couple of Swift tickets this evening and perhaps push the boat out with a natty new tie by way of a minor celebration of the day's events?
Pushing the boat out for a man of his lavish taste would probably be a luxury world cruise. That said if it meant getting rid of the boring grifting c*** for a whole year I'd offer to pay myself!
If Starmer fails, as some on here want him to, the likely alternatives as of today are an aggressive idiot, an actually corrupt slimeball or a grotesque charlatan - Badenoch, Jenrick and Farage. These are not good alternatives.
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
I learned this afternoon on PB (remember everyday on PB is a schoolday) that Swiftgate is a substantially more significant breach of protocol than Jenrick accepting a mere £12,000 (and Desmond got a dinner out of it) for his party, having saved the Pornographer £45m after an intervention by the then Housing Secretary, overturning Tower Hamlets Council 's due planning process.
Swiftgate has already been surpassed. Sir Keir is now accused of fabricating his military record by claiming he received extensive shrapnel wounds aboard a ship that never existed during a battle that never occurred.
I find it remarkable that for a £45m saving Jenrick gratefully accepted a mere £12,000 (less a dinner) from Desmond for his efforts. What an utterly shite businessman, the Tories should have drummed him out for criminal underselling.
There seemed to be a revelling in keeping money from the poorest. Not unlike Rishi's redirecting funds from the inner cities to Richmond. Jenerick's is nasty and corrupt and this Neo-Conservative Party deserve him.
The Richmond which has low pay, unaffordable housing and limited public services ?
Another Yorkshire district, Richmondshire, has the lowest pay in the entire UK.
Residents of Richmondshire earn an average of just £377.30 a week, which is over £100 less than the UK average pay of £504 a week.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
She is intelligent and speaks well, but also is thin skinned and has no filter when responding.
I note too that she couldn't win over the 7660 Reform voters in her own constituency in July. The 14% for Reform there was pretty near the national average for them.
Agree. I hope she can maximise the upsides and minimises the downsides.
I don't think too much can be read into the local vote for Reform. I suspect if you compare it to the Essex average she may loom rather better. In any case, the overlap between Reform voters and potential Consetvative voters is far from 100% - many/most of those 14% wouldn't have voted for any Tory in 2024.
Are you saying she will surprise on the upside?
No - I was, in response to Foxy's considered response setting out, quite pithily, her strengths and weaknesses as a potential LOTO* - that (as I hope she wins) I hope she can maximise her strengths (good speaker, intelligent) while minimise (i.e. take steps to work on or minimise the impact of) her weaknesses i.e. seeming thin skinned and lack of filter while responding.
I'm not saying she will surprise on the upside. Basically, her range of possibilities for how she could do is so wide; our expectations of her so muddy, that that would be impossible. We don't have a baseline expectation of what a Kemi leadership would be liked to be surprised from. I hope she wins, and I hope she does well. But it is very much a leap in the dark.
*her merits or otherwise as a potential PM are another matter, but not one we have to even consider in the near future.
I’m just catching up with the news after a whole day driving. Torrential rain from Calais all the way to Chalon sur Saone. And now it seems hurricane Milton is avoiding Tampa Bay and hitting Burgundy instead.
What fun. Badenoch will win, and that will make for an entertaining 5 years. Her personality will divide opinion but it’ll leave less room for Farage’s own brand of charisma.
Good point.
Nigel will not be wanting Kemi to come through the vote.
She's gotta be his worst opponent.
Yougov has Jenrick with a -9% rating with 2024 Reform voters but Badenoch with a -1% rating. Both miles behind Farage on +82% with Reform voters.
Labour voters though give Jenrick a -36% rating to -49% for Badenoch and LD voters Jenrick -32% to -46% for Badenoch.
Remember, I've been on the Kemi bandwagon on PB long before anyone else!
I've been Kemi-curious for a few years. I liked the idea of her, ooh, before the 2022 leadership election anyway. A Conservative MP interested in the idea and philosophical framework of Conservativism and unapologetic about it. Like an MP version of Roger Scruton. Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
She is intelligent and speaks well, but also is thin skinned and has no filter when responding.
I note too that she couldn't win over the 7660 Reform voters in her own constituency in July. The 14% for Reform there was pretty near the national average for them.
Agree. I hope she can maximise the upsides and minimises the downsides.
I don't think too much can be read into the local vote for Reform. I suspect if you compare it to the Essex average she may loom rather better. In any case, the overlap between Reform voters and potential Consetvative voters is far from 100% - many/most of those 14% wouldn't have voted for any Tory in 2024.
Are you saying she will surprise on the upside?
No - I was, in response to Foxy's considered response setting out, quite pithily, her strengths and weaknesses as a potential LOTO* - that (as I hope she wins) I hope she can maximise her strengths (good speaker, intelligent) while minimise (i.e. take steps to work on or minimise the impact of) her weaknesses i.e. seeming thin skinned and lack of filter while responding.
I'm not saying she will surprise on the upside. Basically, her range of possibilities for how she could do is so wide; our expectations of her so muddy, that that would be impossible. We don't have a baseline expectation of what a Kemi leadership would be liked to be surprised from. I hope she wins, and I hope she does well. But it is very much a leap in the dark.
*her merits or otherwise as a potential PM are another matter, but not one we have to even consider in the near future.
I agree with you not least because she is unknown to me unlike Jenrick who I just do not want to win
It will certainly make politics interesting if she wins
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
I learned this afternoon on PB (remember everyday on PB is a schoolday) that Swiftgate is a substantially more significant breach of protocol than Jenrick accepting a mere £12,000 (and Desmond got a dinner out of it) for his party, having saved the Pornographer £45m after an intervention by the then Housing Secretary, overturning Tower Hamlets Council 's due planning process.
Swiftgate has already been surpassed. Sir Keir is now accused of fabricating his military record by claiming he received extensive shrapnel wounds aboard a ship that never existed during a battle that never occurred.
I find it remarkable that for a £45m saving Jenrick gratefully accepted a mere £12,000 (less a dinner) from Desmond for his efforts. What an utterly shite businessman, the Tories should have drummed him out for criminal underselling.
There seemed to be a revelling in keeping money from the poorest. Not unlike Rishi's redirecting funds from the inner cities to Richmond. Jenerick's is nasty and corrupt and this Neo-Conservative Party deserve him.
The Richmond which has low pay, unaffordable housing and limited public services ?
Another Yorkshire district, Richmondshire, has the lowest pay in the entire UK.
Residents of Richmondshire earn an average of just £377.30 a week, which is over £100 less than the UK average pay of £504 a week.
Why do people assume that rural areas are always affluent and middle class ?
Because that’s the bit you see.
The well off folk live in the nice old stone buildings. The original inhabitants live in the estate over the hill and out of sight.
I didn't think 'This Country' was the work of comic brilliance the BBC thought it was. It was amusing enough. But, as with many of the best sitcoms, it was a really interesting glance at a slice of British society - in this case poor rural.
I’m just catching up with the news after a whole day driving. Torrential rain from Calais all the way to Chalon sur Saone. And now it seems hurricane Milton is avoiding Tampa Bay and hitting Burgundy instead.
What fun. Badenoch will win, and that will make for an entertaining 5 years. Her personality will divide opinion but it’ll leave less room for Farage’s own brand of charisma.
Good point.
Nigel will not be wanting Kemi to come through the vote.
She's gotta be his worst opponent.
Yougov has Jenrick with a -9% rating with 2024 Reform voters but Badenoch with a -1% rating. Both miles behind Farage on +82% with Reform voters.
Labour voters though give Jenrick a -36% rating to -49% for Badenoch and LD voters Jenrick -32% to -46% for Badenoch.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
The idea that we don't have free will is terrifying, although it is backed by 'science'. If it is accepted then how could anyone ever be held responsible for their actions? You would have to accept that they are all randomly determined. The conclusion I came to 20 years ago is that this is probably best left as a paradox/mystery; certainly it is something that has led me to an agnostic and sceptical position on both religion and science.
If we don't have free will then nobody's holding anybody responsible for anything but it doesn't matter anyway because there's no choices to be made. I find it simpler to assume we have the free will it intuitively feels like we do. But I do think that fewer of the actions we take are controlled by the "conscious thought" bit of our brain than we imagine. Some of those experiments showing brain activity before the point in time we think we make a choice to act suggest that at least some of our conscious experience of choice is likely faked up by other parts of the brain to present the conscious with a coherent "you're in charge" view of the world...
As someone who posted a while back that I fancied Badenoch to win, put a few tenners on it then watched as many on this forum said she'd lose (and not without logic), I am mightily relieved shes in the last two.
I put £5 at 11/8 on her whilst in Brighton for the RSS Conference. I may have mentioned it... 😎
Gotta say, whatever else happens, four years of @KemiBadenoch telling Labour MPs Britain's history is something to be proud of, Britain isn't full of structural racism & women don't have penises is going to be a lot of fun.
She seems the option with the widest range of outcomes, positive and negative. Go big, go bold, go Badenoch?
Watching @TheScreamingEagles go from a couple of dozen “Kemi-kaze” headers, to…
Voting for Badenoch, it's a bit vote for the lizard not the wizard.
Has definitely been something to behold.
Kemi is an STD, Jenrick is necrotising fasciitis.
So you’re voting for Kemi then?
After consultation with JohnO, who is primus inter pares of the PB Tories, I am reluctantly voting for Badenoch.
As somebody who believes in ethics and probity then Jenrick is not fit to be an MP let alone party leader, the Dirty Desmond deal would have seen councillors ending up in prison.
I learned this afternoon on PB (remember everyday on PB is a schoolday) that Swiftgate is a substantially more significant breach of protocol than Jenrick accepting a mere £12,000 (and Desmond got a dinner out of it) for his party, having saved the Pornographer £45m after an intervention by the then Housing Secretary, overturning Tower Hamlets Council 's due planning process.
Swiftgate has already been surpassed. Sir Keir is now accused of fabricating his military record by claiming he received extensive shrapnel wounds aboard a ship that never existed during a battle that never occurred.
I find it remarkable that for a £45m saving Jenrick gratefully accepted a mere £12,000 (less a dinner) from Desmond for his efforts. What an utterly shite businessman, the Tories should have drummed him out for criminal underselling.
There seemed to be a revelling in keeping money from the poorest. Not unlike Rishi's redirecting funds from the inner cities to Richmond. Jenerick's is nasty and corrupt and this Neo-Conservative Party deserve him.
The Richmond which has low pay, unaffordable housing and limited public services ?
Another Yorkshire district, Richmondshire, has the lowest pay in the entire UK.
Residents of Richmondshire earn an average of just £377.30 a week, which is over £100 less than the UK average pay of £504 a week.
Why do people assume that rural areas are always affluent and middle class ?
Because that’s the bit you see.
The well off folk live in the nice old stone buildings. The original inhabitants live in the estate over the hill and out of sight.
I didn't think 'This Country' was the work of comic brilliance the BBC thought it was. It was amusing enough. But, as with many of the best sitcoms, it was a really interesting glance at a slice of British society - in this case poor rural.
When I lived in Wiltshire, there were many interesting angles on how the world works. For example - The middle class incomers, were upset at the locals not liking travellers. The locals had surnames like Wicks and Pike - it was the type of travellers they had an issue with.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
Petty crime in Geneva? Bit of a change from the 1970s/80s/90s when it was supposed to be almost totally crime free.
They have endemic tax evasion. It's a serious problem.
On the subject of the Conservative leadership, I think they should go with Kemi.
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
Just a repeat of something I posted a week or so ago about Israel's response the Iranian ballistic missile attack, watch for the possible direction of any response. The assumption is west to east but Israel has other options.
As another note, Not everything needs to be bombed to be damaged.
The Israelis have assessed that any strike on Iran will be another point in a series of back and forths that could go multiple rounds before any halt. They have it appears, been vague with the Biden admin about the targets, certain target data sharing is hard fact but they are possibly allowing the US to read into things what they choose, which is not the same as what Israel will do. The US believes it has tempered the Israeli plans but only time will tell and a good time to strike could be when the Biden admin is looking elsewhere.
On the subject of the Conservative leadership, I think they should go with Kemi.
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
Badenoch combines Boris’ integrity, Truss’ judgement, May’s easy charm, Cameron’s humility and Sunaks down to earth common touch. It’s an impressive combination.
On the subject of the Conservative leadership, I think they should go with Kemi.
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
I agree. What a pair! But that is the pair and Badenoch is the least bad of the two - whoever is not Jenrick will always be the least bad of the two.
A quibble where you say she has had little experience of managing things. That's because she didn't bother, not because of a lack of opportunity. She's had several high profile ministerial posts, in which she did very little.
Comments
https://order-order.com/2024/10/09/jenrick-it-is-now-a-choice-between-leave-or-remain/
He is framing the race now as one on immigration policy:
“On immigration we do differ. I believe that we should leave the ECHR. In fact I think it’s the only way in which we’ll control our borders. We’ll get foreign criminals out of this country, we’ll get terror suspects out and we’ll actually restore sovereignty to Parliament. Also we do disagree on whether we should have a capped system of migration.
It really feels like trying to recapture the glory days, I'm yet to be convinced the public will get as exercised by the ECHR as the EU, even if they get annoyed at some judgements sometimes, it feels like so much more of a niche issue.
Close your eyes and imagine tory boy waving from the front steps.
You know it isn't going to happen.
My personal evidence-free hope is that the Dems better GOTV operation wins it for Harris. Failing which, Ukraine, Europe, and US democracy are all doomed IMO.
@lewis_goodall
·
57m
Not inconsiderable chance that Cleverly is the next Conservative leader, who leads the Tories into the next election, taking over mid-Parliament from whoever wins this contest.
Plural god systems tend to have a top god, the ultimate source, though often too remote to be bothered or to bother with, subordinating most of the work to lesser ones.
So the god debate and the 'monotheist rabble' (the largest identifiable group of humans on the planet I should think) are generally talking from the same book about the same either existent or non-existent being.
Keiran Pedley
@keiranpedley
·
6h
Am reminded of when Gordon Brown was told to lend votes to McDonnell to 'have a contest' and just said nah.
A lesson there I think. If you are winning just win.
Some One Nation Tories who backed Tugendhat and Cleverly though may well give Sir Ed a try
The cynic in me suggests he’s playing the game Cameron played in promising to leave the European People’s Party. Bit of red meat for the members. Only unfortunately for Jenrick there is nothing else left with “Europe” in the name that we can leave that would have salience with the Conservative Party members then the ECHR and the Council of Europe.
Fundamentally leaving the ECHR would make sweet FA difference. Unless he subsequently wants to leave the UN or maybe planet Earth entirely. It’s like he’s seen the Stewart Lee Beaker Folk sketch and not realised it was a joke (although to be fair with Stewart Lee it isn’t always obvious).
Where the Tories go from here I really don't know. I fear my semi detached status from the party is going to become ever more precarious under either of the remaining options.
But in reality they seem to think: “my idea of god is exactly right and I believe in him and your idea of god is exactly wrong and I don’t believe in him.” Sometimes, they follow this up with: “wanna fight, infidel?”
Very hard to come up with fair price for such hugely unlikely events of course.
I accept she is the high risk candidate, and could be awful. And she'll have a hard job persuading the broadcast media not to hate her (but actually, so will Jenrick). But I also think she is the Carlsberg (/Heineken? can't remember now) candidate who can reach voters other Tories can't.
I'd quite like a candidate willing to articulate what conservatism is and should mean, and to articulate the limitations of flabby centrism. I think she's better placed to do that than Jenrick.
I accept that (as with all leadership elections) there is a large element of hopecasting here!
- In common usage, agnosticism generally means being on the fence on whether God exists. And generally about a specific version of God, e.g. the Christian God may or may not exist. I'm sure people put different probabilities, but somewhere around 50:50. Maybe 75:25 one month and 25:75 another.
- As defined above, agnosticism is a helpful description.
- This has sometimes been taken too literally to mean anyone with any lack of certainty in their position (which is by definition unknowable) - even if you assign it a 0.01% chance - is agnostic. That makes the term utterly meaningless, as it would surely cover most religious people as well as most atheists.
I think atheism is therefore best described as anyone who lacks a belief in any God or a religion, nor do they have a belief they 'on-the-fence' about. Certainty is not required.
For example:
- I'm not on the fence as to whether vampires exist. I am vampire atheist.
- I'm uncertain as to whether there is intelligent alien life in the Milky Way more advanced that humans. I am agnostic on that point.
- I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe somewhere, despite no explicit evidence. I'm theist there.
But in any case, atheism is not a belief system in the same way religion is. But atheists may choose alternative belief systems or philosophies unrelated to any God. Or they may not.
The problem Badenoch has is she’s her own worst enemy.
If she can get some of her impulses to say zany things or throwaway comments under control she might succeed. But she shows no signs of having the self discipline to do so.
That said, I would much prefer her to be the leader over Jenrick. She at least has a capacity to be interesting.
Could I vote for her? Possibly… but only possibly.
Could I vote for Jenrick? No.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/10/8/2275616/-Millions-of-Christians-not-planning-to-vote-this-November-could-shape-election-Study
Atheism - pineapple must never be on pizza.
Agnosticism - I don’t care whether pineapple is on pizza.
That's why I'm a Protestant atheist.
To move the culture of a large organisation takes far more than that.
At this point, I think we need a huge round of applause for the strategic genius, political shaman and rainmaker who was hand picked to mastermind @JamesCleverly's campaign.
*Drum roll*
Step forward son and take a bow
@grantshapps
https://civileats.com/2020/11/02/how-four-years-of-trump-reshaped-food-and-farming/
Recent case had ten deaths from this deli business.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9z4ge7n25o
How the US decides Biden and Harris and Trump have each responded to this could well decide the election.
Again though, there may be hopecasting involved here.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/british-family-florida-disneyworld-hurricane-milton/
Then again, I am sure back in the 1930s plenty of Germans thought the fears about what Hitler might do were 'overstated'.
I note too that she couldn't win over the 7660 Reform voters in her own constituency in July. The 14% for Reform there was pretty near the national average for them.
She talks about taking an engineer approach to the shit the country is in and the shit the party is in.
For me - and I am not a member - that has to be worth a punt in contrast to tory boy who will just look at every manifesto commitment and see if it can be tweaked to make migrant children more unhappy.
He's performative cruelty Farage wannabe act on stlits.
And he's another f*cking lawyer from fenland.
Half a metre!!
I don't think too much can be read into the local vote for Reform. I suspect if you compare it to the Essex average she may loom rather better. In any case, the overlap between Reform voters and potential Consetvative voters is far from 100% - many/most of those 14% wouldn't have voted for any Tory in 2024.
https://x.com/LBC/status/1844084648164332024
What fun. Badenoch will win, and that will make for an entertaining 5 years. Her personality will divide opinion but it’ll leave less room for Farage’s own brand of charisma.
Nigel will not be wanting Kemi to come through the vote.
She's gotta be his worst opponent.
Who cares?
I admit I find her personally highly irritating and kind of fascinating. In the same way Boris Johnson was annoyingly interesting. Whereas Jenrick is just a Tory boy from the 80s, brought up to date with fashionable alt-right toning.
Another Yorkshire district, Richmondshire, has the lowest pay in the entire UK.
Residents of Richmondshire earn an average of just £377.30 a week, which is over £100 less than the UK average pay of £504 a week.
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/19936703.craven-district-second-lowest-wages-yorkshire/
Why do people assume that rural areas are always affluent and middle class ?
The well off folk live in the nice old stone buildings. The original inhabitants live in the estate over the hill and out of sight.
I'm not saying she will surprise on the upside. Basically, her range of possibilities for how she could do is so wide; our expectations of her so muddy, that that would be impossible. We don't have a baseline expectation of what a Kemi leadership would be liked to be surprised from. I hope she wins, and I hope she does well. But it is very much a leap in the dark.
*her merits or otherwise as a potential PM are another matter, but not one we have to even consider in the near future.
Labour voters though give Jenrick a -36% rating to -49% for Badenoch and LD voters Jenrick -32% to -46% for Badenoch.
2024 Tory voters also prefer Jenrick giving him a +12% rating to +1% for Badenoch.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_241007.pdf
It will certainly make politics interesting if she wins
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
As another note, Not everything needs to be bombed to be damaged.
The Israelis have assessed that any strike on Iran will be another point in a series of back and forths that could go multiple rounds before any halt. They have it appears, been vague with the Biden admin about the targets, certain target data sharing is hard fact but they are possibly allowing the US to read into things what they choose, which is not the same as what Israel will do. The US believes it has tempered the Israeli plans but only time will tell and a good time to strike could be when the Biden admin is looking elsewhere.
A quibble where you say she has had little experience of managing things. That's because she didn't bother, not because of a lack of opportunity. She's had several high profile ministerial posts, in which she did very little.