Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tories won't be in the top 2 at the next election if Badenoch maintains these numbers

SystemSystem Posts: 12,418
edited April 16 in General
Tories won't be in the top 2 at the next election if Badenoch maintains these numbers– politicalbetting.com

She does have time to turn things around before the next election (if the Tory Party gives her time) but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,747
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!

    I get so exasperated with this story. On occasions, when time allows, I draft a speech for the opposing party. It is the best way to identify the weaknesses and strengths of your own position.

    Frankly, anyone who thought Brexit was a simple question with an obvious solution is an idiot ( yes Nigel, that includes you). There were points to be made on both sides. Setting out both sides so he could recognise that and be prepared for the counter argument is one of the main reasons Boris won. If the remainers had done the same they might have had a chance.
    Well said

    I was exactly the same as Boris. Up until the day of the vote, maybe even the hour, I was not sure which way to go. It was knife edge, so I ran through both arguments in my head, several times

    Even tho I was a lifelong eurosceptic I knew Brexit would cause tremendous turbulence and probably be bad for me personally - London property prices etc. Yet sovereignty and democracy demanded a Leave vote….

    And yet I was ready to be persuaded by the European ideal, one magnificent European nation. Indeed I still could if it was sold properly

    In the end it was probably Cameron’s dismal “deal” that tipped me to Leave. He came back with such pathetic offerings, and he lied about them - yet again a lie about the EU

    If we had a re-run tomorrow I’d be divided again, but I’m pretty sure I’d vote Leave again

    It was madness for him to gamble his premiership on campaigning for Remain.

    It would have been so easy for him to take a backseat and say: "Here's the deal. It's the best deal available. The choice is yours. Whichever way you decide, I will implement the decision, and whichever way you decide, Britain will prosper." That would have taken so much of the divisiveness out of the question.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,368
    I click the link, and find no header?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,368
    edited April 16
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,575
    ydoethur said:
    Try now.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,911
    ydoethur said:
    I'm getting the same as approval of Badenoch.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,747
    Scott_xP said:

    whichever way you decide, Britain will prosper." That would have taken so much of the divisiveness out of the question.

    That's bollocks though
    QED.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,368
    Working! Ta muchly.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,312
    ydoethur said:
    Are you sure you didn't search for "Kemi Badenoch's prospects"?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,368

    ydoethur said:
    Are you sure you didn't search for "Kemi Badenoch's prospects"?
    Surely that would have flashed up as 'bloody awful?'
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,204
    That was the day the Toooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrriees died
  • eekeek Posts: 29,696
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:
    Are you sure you didn't search for "Kemi Badenoch's prospects"?
    Surely that would have flashed up as 'bloody awful?'
    Or Nelson from the Simpsons laughing
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,537
    Is the big "None of Them" vote effectively one for Ed Davey?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,118

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,896
    Yet on most polls we are heading for a hung parliament with the Conservatives holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform. Even if the Tories come third on seats neither Starmer nor Farage could become PM without Badenoch's support
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,896
    edited April 16
    I think Kemi stays regardless, in an ideal world her backers and Cleverly's former backers amongst Tory MPs in the last Tory leadership election final MPs round would probably give Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride a coronation if she ended up so poor she had to be replaced as then Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard replaced IDS as leader by coronation in 2003.

    However unfortunately for them Jenrick has enough Tory MPs behind him to force a leadership contest he would easily win now with Conservative members if his opponent was Mel Stride. So the Tories are probably stuck with Kemi until the next GE
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!

    I get so exasperated with this story. On occasions, when time allows, I draft a speech for the opposing party. It is the best way to identify the weaknesses and strengths of your own position.

    Frankly, anyone who thought Brexit was a simple question with an obvious solution is an idiot ( yes Nigel, that includes you). There were points to be made on both sides. Setting out both sides so he could recognise that and be prepared for the counter argument is one of the main reasons Boris won. If the remainers had done the same they might have had a chance.
    Well said

    I was exactly the same as Boris. Up until the day of the vote, maybe even the hour, I was not sure which way to go. It was knife edge, so I ran through both arguments in my head, several times

    Even tho I was a lifelong eurosceptic I knew Brexit would cause tremendous turbulence and probably be bad for me personally - London property prices etc. Yet sovereignty and democracy demanded a Leave vote….

    And yet I was ready to be persuaded by the European ideal, one magnificent European nation. Indeed I still could if it was sold properly

    In the end it was probably Cameron’s dismal “deal” that tipped me to Leave. He came back with such pathetic offerings, and he lied about them - yet again a lie about the EU

    If we had a re-run tomorrow I’d be divided again, but I’m pretty sure I’d vote Leave again

    It was madness for him to gamble his premiership on campaigning for Remain.

    It would have been so easy for him to take a backseat and say: "Here's the deal. It's the best deal available. The choice is yours. Whichever way you decide, I will implement the decision, and whichever way you decide, Britain will prosper." That would have taken so much of the divisiveness out of the question.
    It would have been far easier to actually do a proper deal. He didn't want one. Cameron was a believer in the European project and did not want Britain to be an 'associate member' in the way that a majority of electors would have found very acceptable. Merkel kept asking him what he wanted.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,537
    HYUFD said:

    Yet on most polls we are heading for a hung parliament with the Conservatives holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform. Even if the Tories come third on seats neither Starmer nor Farage could become PM without Badenoch's support

    Are the Tories, electorally speaking, where the Liberals were 100 years ago? Who is going to be Lloyd-George and who Simon?
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,253
    FPT: On topic: Yesterday, a local TV station (KOMO 4) ran a story on local firefighters who had volunteered to go over to Ukraine to train Ukrainian counterparts. As one explained, the rescue techniques used are about the same, regardless of how a building was knocked down.

    (Here's the 2 minute story on another channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df6syRYlJ90 )
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017
    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.

    To be fair to the Tories, how do you develop meaningful policy in a world where the economic, trade and financial foundations of the last 80 years are currently being torn apart?

  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,629
    Has everyone else seen this? From White Lotus season 3? The payoff at about 2:30 is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on TV


    https://x.com/hmjileswrites/status/1909473848010891555?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,011
    I am ambivalent towards Kemi as she struggles against a devastating defeat and has so much ground to recover but as is said in the header there is time

    I do not see Jenrick as the answer, nor anyone else at present, so whatever will be wil be and I simply cannot get fazed by it

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,312
    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Maybe there isn't one. Or not one that isn't obviously bonkers. Something like the last bit of The Meaning Of Life:

    It's nothing very special, really. Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.

    Harder work and fewer freebies than we're used to, but tough. It's nearly two decades since whoever-it-was said "we know what needs doing, just not how to win an election afterwards."
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.

    To be fair to the Tories, how do you develop meaningful policy in a world where the economic, trade and financial foundations of the last 80 years are currently being torn apart?

    I think in a time of turbulence and crisis (most of it self-induced) the solutions become clearer, not more obscured. And I think the idea of being very policy-driven is a good one. Farage has the upper hand, and I now sense a bit of the Keir Starmer ming vase about Reform. Perhaps I'm wrong. The Tories can't afford to be like that - the swing against Labour won't automatically be back to them, so they must now fight for every vote.

    I am getting a bit antsy again over Kemi's glacial pace though. Ok, she came out against the Net Zero deadline and created a policy commission - great. So what about all the other issues? Immigration? Crime and Justice? Growth? - Presumably different people will be on all these different commissions, so why can't their work be concurrent, or at least overlapping? I don't mind the commissions being allowed to do their work, but if they haven't even started, it's like being in a restaurant and waiting for ages when you haven't even ordered.

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,391
    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Having ideas seems to have gone out of fashion. Labour had none when they first won power after a lengthy opposition.

    Perhaps this is more of a cultural shift in that people aren't educated to think for themselves the way used to be. I've heard & read various indicators to that effect but tended to discount them.
  • CollegeCollege Posts: 55
    edited April 16
    I remember going to a talk on Tutankhamun at the British Museum when I was a child. The person giving the talk explained that few tombs were left in Egypt in the 19th century with stuff in them for archaeologists to discover, because "graverobbers" (how scary!) had got there first. I didn't buy into the difference between an archaeologist and a graverobber then, and I still don't now. Who are a bunch of western neo-colonial types from the 21st century to say aborigines must do what they're told because the western types want so much to find stuff out about the distant past using their poxy "science"? If they were bright enough to know how, they could take their grant-funded heads out of their arses and ask the aborigines who'd probably tell them.

    Perhaps the neo-colonials could apply their superior brains to the question of what they themselves would do if someone told them come on, get out of our way and stop whingeing about your culture, because we've got important stuff to do, using our superior knowledge, culture, and technology.

    But the aborigines are so "woke", right, such "diversity hire" types, out of kilter with whatever's happened in white "civilised" culture in the past five minutes.

    In other news, I doubt that the reason so many who would otherwise vote Tory don't fancy the idea of Kemi Badenoch as prime minister is because they've assessed her as not being mentally astute. There may be something else about her they've noticed that for them is of more importance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,896

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.

    To be fair to the Tories, how do you develop meaningful policy in a world where the economic, trade and financial foundations of the last 80 years are currently being torn apart?

    I think in a time of turbulence and crisis (most of it self-induced) the solutions become clearer, not more obscured. And I think the idea of being very policy-driven is a good one. Farage has the upper hand, and I now sense a bit of the Keir Starmer ming vase about Reform. Perhaps I'm wrong. The Tories can't afford to be like that - the swing against Labour won't automatically be back to them, so they must now fight for every vote.

    I am getting a bit antsy again over Kemi's glacial pace though. Ok, she came out against the Net Zero deadline and created a policy commission - great. So what about all the other issues? Immigration? Crime and Justice? Growth? - Presumably different people will be on all these different commissions, so why can't their work be concurrent, or at least overlapping? I don't mind the commissions being allowed to do their work, but if they haven't even started, it's like being in a restaurant and waiting for ages when you haven't even ordered.

    Members are being consulted on policy

    https://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/

    https://www.conservatives.com/news/watch-live-kemi-launches-the-policy-renewal-programme
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,972
    HYUFD said:

    Yet on most polls we are heading for a hung parliament with the Conservatives holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform. Even if the Tories come third on seats neither Starmer nor Farage could become PM without Badenoch's support

    If over time it looks that way as we head towards 2029, a central question for voters would be whether the Tories would get into alliance with Reform, or Labour or neither or both.

    FWIW, as a lifelong Tory voter, Labour voting in 2024, and would be pleased to have a Tory party I could vote for again, if they didn't tell me, I wouldn't vote for them, as I am not voting for a party who would do a deal with Reform.

    OTOH lots of potential voters would, I imagine, vote Reform if there was any chance of Tories dealing with Labour.

    This is how far apart the Tory identities are. They have lost voters to: LDs, Lab, Reform, DK and NOTA and it is hard to see the formula which could get most of them back. Neither Labour's deep unpopularity nor Reform's romance with a wicked dictator has shifted them back. Hard to see what can.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,391

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!

    I get so exasperated with this story. On occasions, when time allows, I draft a speech for the opposing party. It is the best way to identify the weaknesses and strengths of your own position.

    Frankly, anyone who thought Brexit was a simple question with an obvious solution is an idiot ( yes Nigel, that includes you). There were points to be made on both sides. Setting out both sides so he could recognise that and be prepared for the counter argument is one of the main reasons Boris won. If the remainers had done the same they might have had a chance.
    Well said

    I was exactly the same as Boris. Up until the day of the vote, maybe even the hour, I was not sure which way to go. It was knife edge, so I ran through both arguments in my head, several times

    Even tho I was a lifelong eurosceptic I knew Brexit would cause tremendous turbulence and probably be bad for me personally - London property prices etc. Yet sovereignty and democracy demanded a Leave vote….

    And yet I was ready to be persuaded by the European ideal, one magnificent European nation. Indeed I still could if it was sold properly

    In the end it was probably Cameron’s dismal “deal” that tipped me to Leave. He came back with such pathetic offerings, and he lied about them - yet again a lie about the EU

    If we had a re-run tomorrow I’d be divided again, but I’m pretty sure I’d vote Leave again

    It was madness for him to gamble his premiership on campaigning for Remain.

    It would have been so easy for him to take a backseat and say: "Here's the deal. It's the best deal available. The choice is yours. Whichever way you decide, I will implement the decision, and whichever way you decide, Britain will prosper." That would have taken so much of the divisiveness out of the question.
    It would have been far easier to actually do a proper deal. He didn't want one. Cameron was a believer in the European project and did not want Britain to be an 'associate member' in the way that a majority of electors would have found very acceptable. Merkel kept asking him what he wanted.
    Difficult for him. He wanted the UK to stay in the EU; to dissolve the populace and elect another that mostly agreed with him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,896
    edited April 16

    HYUFD said:

    Yet on most polls we are heading for a hung parliament with the Conservatives holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform. Even if the Tories come third on seats neither Starmer nor Farage could become PM without Badenoch's support

    Are the Tories, electorally speaking, where the Liberals were 100 years ago? Who is going to be Lloyd-George and who Simon?
    Only if Reform replaced them as the main party of the right, though of course Labour really rose in votes and seats with the expansion of universal suffrage so all the working class got a vote, especially after the Representation of the People Act in 1918. No longer would elections be fought between 2 upper and middle class parties, the Tories and Liberals and Labour became the party of the working class and some Liberals went Conservative to keep out Labour.

    Now the party of the working class is Reform so they pose a threat to Labour on class lines as much as the Tories on ideological grounds, hence the Conservatives, Labour and Reform are all close to level pegging in most polls
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    edited April 16
    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,833
    edited April 16
    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,394
    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean?

    It's a small bullet/big bullet thing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,575
    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdnyiotdLFw
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    AnneJGP said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!

    I get so exasperated with this story. On occasions, when time allows, I draft a speech for the opposing party. It is the best way to identify the weaknesses and strengths of your own position.

    Frankly, anyone who thought Brexit was a simple question with an obvious solution is an idiot ( yes Nigel, that includes you). There were points to be made on both sides. Setting out both sides so he could recognise that and be prepared for the counter argument is one of the main reasons Boris won. If the remainers had done the same they might have had a chance.
    Well said

    I was exactly the same as Boris. Up until the day of the vote, maybe even the hour, I was not sure which way to go. It was knife edge, so I ran through both arguments in my head, several times

    Even tho I was a lifelong eurosceptic I knew Brexit would cause tremendous turbulence and probably be bad for me personally - London property prices etc. Yet sovereignty and democracy demanded a Leave vote….

    And yet I was ready to be persuaded by the European ideal, one magnificent European nation. Indeed I still could if it was sold properly

    In the end it was probably Cameron’s dismal “deal” that tipped me to Leave. He came back with such pathetic offerings, and he lied about them - yet again a lie about the EU

    If we had a re-run tomorrow I’d be divided again, but I’m pretty sure I’d vote Leave again

    It was madness for him to gamble his premiership on campaigning for Remain.

    It would have been so easy for him to take a backseat and say: "Here's the deal. It's the best deal available. The choice is yours. Whichever way you decide, I will implement the decision, and whichever way you decide, Britain will prosper." That would have taken so much of the divisiveness out of the question.
    It would have been far easier to actually do a proper deal. He didn't want one. Cameron was a believer in the European project and did not want Britain to be an 'associate member' in the way that a majority of electors would have found very acceptable. Merkel kept asking him what he wanted.
    Difficult for him. He wanted the UK to stay in the EU; to dissolve the populace and elect another that mostly agreed with him.
    His plan was solid - scare the people into voting remain and use the democratic mandate to force through all the EU stuff going for the next 10 years.

    Sadly he underestimated the strength of feeling against the EU amongst the public, and overestimated his own abilities.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,286
    Cyclefree said:

    Just popping in from Purgatory to say

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.

    I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.

    Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.

    But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......

    Sorry to hear all that health stuff @Cyclefree - hope it's all better than it seems.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,972
    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Having ideas seems to have gone out of fashion. Labour had none when they first won power after a lengthy opposition.

    Perhaps this is more of a cultural shift in that people aren't educated to think for themselves the way used to be. I've heard & read various indicators to that effect but tended to discount them.
    Ideas are less important at the moment because it seems obvious that
    the current need is for the government to run all the plethora of activity over which it already presides with great competence, and quite a lot of them are not. Look at: NHS waiting lists; some schools sub-optimal; criminal justice; even small bits like driving tests. Once all that is sorted and running excellently well, ideas can be tossed around. Competence is not an idea. It's a basic requirement of all systems.

    I don't need Hayek, Marx, or Rawls to deliver state competence, we just need competence.

    To add to that, the last huge shift was privatisation/big bang in the city/globalisation. While there are gains, there is also substantial disillusion about it too. Water? Banks? Plutocrat oligarchy?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.

    To be fair to the Tories, how do you develop meaningful policy in a world where the economic, trade and financial foundations of the last 80 years are currently being torn apart?

    I think in a time of turbulence and crisis (most of it self-induced) the solutions become clearer, not more obscured. And I think the idea of being very policy-driven is a good one. Farage has the upper hand, and I now sense a bit of the Keir Starmer ming vase about Reform. Perhaps I'm wrong. The Tories can't afford to be like that - the swing against Labour won't automatically be back to them, so they must now fight for every vote.

    I am getting a bit antsy again over Kemi's glacial pace though. Ok, she came out against the Net Zero deadline and created a policy commission - great. So what about all the other issues? Immigration? Crime and Justice? Growth? - Presumably different people will be on all these different commissions, so why can't their work be concurrent, or at least overlapping? I don't mind the commissions being allowed to do their work, but if they haven't even started, it's like being in a restaurant and waiting for ages when you haven't even ordered.

    Members are being consulted on policy

    https://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/

    https://www.conservatives.com/news/watch-live-kemi-launches-the-policy-renewal-programme
    Suppose it's something...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,833

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdnyiotdLFw
    Ah... some obscure West Wing reference. 😂
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,896
    edited April 16
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yet on most polls we are heading for a hung parliament with the Conservatives holding the balance of power between Labour and Reform. Even if the Tories come third on seats neither Starmer nor Farage could become PM without Badenoch's support

    If over time it looks that way as we head towards 2029, a central question for voters would be whether the Tories would get into alliance with Reform, or Labour or neither or both.

    FWIW, as a lifelong Tory voter, Labour voting in 2024, and would be pleased to have a Tory party I could vote for again, if they didn't tell me, I wouldn't vote for them, as I am not voting for a party who would do a deal with Reform.

    OTOH lots of potential voters would, I imagine, vote Reform if there was any chance of Tories dealing with Labour.

    This is how far apart the Tory identities are. They have lost voters to: LDs, Lab, Reform, DK and NOTA and it is hard to see the formula which could get most of them back. Neither Labour's deep unpopularity nor Reform's romance with a wicked dictator has shifted them back. Hard to see what can.
    Before the next GE no.

    After the next GE the best result for the Tories ironically might be a Labour and LD government in a hung parliament.

    Then they can win back some home counties LDs who dislike Labour but voted Tory before and Farage will have twice failed to become PM as Reform leader so a leader like Jenrick could replace a defeated Badenoch and try and squeeze the Reform vote by showing only the Conservatives can still beat Labour.

    If Farage became PM with Kemi Deputy however that could see further Tory leakage to the LDs while Reform as the main party of government could squeeze the right of the Tories too
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,189
    Cyclefree said:

    ...I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says...

    The thread is here: https://xcancel.com/HarrietHarman/status/1912511592429723666

  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,564
    edited April 16
    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    ...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.

    There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

    There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
    No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
    Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
    This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
    How do you determine the correct level of representation?
    You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
    I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
    Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
    Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers.
    Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know.
    And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
    Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
    Increasingly CofE Bishops
    31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
    Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
    50% is not 'dominating.'

    I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...

    And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
    On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.

    Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
    The bookie's favourite has got a couple of challenges to overcome, though. One is quite a few provinces still don't have women bishops- are we going to have a flying... erm, flying even more than normal... Archbishop for them? York might be different, but a lady ABC is probably too much of a can of worms for now.

    The other issue is the whole gay marriage thing. Whilst the majority of the CofE is broadly OK with it, the opponents still have something near a blocking minority. It remains to be seen whether that feeds through to the Canterbury CNC, but there have been a couple of stalemates in diocesan CNCs in the last year or so.

    I wonder how long the Anglican Communion can go without an Archbishop of Canterbury?
    The position in the CofE is that female bishops were approved in around 2015, and the system - with fudgy edges * - was made that there would be an aim to prefer female diocesan bishops to the positions in the Lords first. The normal process is the top 5 (Canterbury, York, London, Durham, Winchester) are in anyway, and then it is length of service.

    I make female Bishops in the Lords as 8 from 26 at present. In Diocesan Bishops iirc that is 8 from 42. There are 6 vacancies at present, and 2 of the 6 Acting Bishops are women, who are both little Bishops. I'd suggest women amongst the Lords Spiritual will be 11 or 12 when these vacancies are filled.

    A third of little Bishops are now women (23), so there's a pipeline in place for future Diocesans. 23 is about 1/3 of the total.

    Like @HYUFD I still don't see a woman as ABC this time, not least because "worldwide church" representation in the process has been increased. But I think there is a decent probability I could be mistaken.

    * The makeup of the Crown Nomination Commission for a bishopric is such that, whilst blocking minorities don't exist aiui, in practice a near of blocking minority is possible due to the makeup of the commission, and the vote works on a supermajority of 10 from 17. I have heard a few moans about it. Plus CofE bodies generally are more comfortable with fudge and consensus, so dogmatics on an issue can have a modest extra influence.
  • DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.
    Lucky Guy is always the 1st person I want to read on this site..simple logic eloquently put as usual..😎
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,118

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.

    To be fair to the Tories, how do you develop meaningful policy in a world where the economic, trade and financial foundations of the last 80 years are currently being torn apart?

    That's a fair point. My answer is that you go back to first principles but accept that these have to be flexible enough to cope with the chaos that has been inflicted upon us by Trump.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,537
    Leon said:

    Best wishes to @Cyclefree and all ailing PBers


    Tho in a sense that is everyone. Best wishes to all!

    Thank you! For both sets of good wishes!!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.
    Lucky Guy is always the 1st person I want to read on this site..simple logic eloquently put as usual..😎
    Oh you. :lol:
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,501
    Govt consulting on changes to make bringing so-called equal pay claims easier by expanding the scope to cover outsourced workers too.

    The rent seeking cabal referred to will be rubbing its grubby, grimy, hands in glee at the thought.

    https://x.com/archiehall/status/1912506248047509795?s=61
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,189
    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    Leon said:

    Best wishes to @Cyclefree and all ailing PBers


    Tho in a sense that is everyone. Best wishes to all!

    Yes, best wishes to all but especially Cyclefree.

    Hospital isn't easy. If you get desperate for underwear, you could shove it in your washbag when they let you shower and give it a wash with shower gel? Would dry quite quickly, hospitals are usually sweltering.

    And please remember, Doctors are for diagnosing, not necessarily to be treated with blind obedience - you must carefully consider your own path back to health, and use those analytical and research skills to ascertain the best way forward for you.

    Wishing you an astonishingly speedy recovery.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,771
    When selecting party leaders, when will MPs learn?

    Forget policies. If a party leader is going to be successful and win an election they have to look and sound like a PM. In particular their speech / diction / tone has to be authoritative, fluent and confident - they have to sound (and look) as if they are in charge and actually going to get things done.

    Badenoch simply does not pass this test. It's blindingly obvious. She will never win a GE.

    And the ridiculous thing is this should have been obvious to every MP well before the leadership election.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,668
    Cyclefree said:

    Just popping in from Purgatory to say

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.

    I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.

    Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.

    But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......

    Just remember to bring some of your PB-type aggression to the situation. Institutionally the NHS doesn't give a flying fuck about you and will take the path of least resistance, effort, and curiosity when it comes to treating you.

    Sharpen your pointy elbows and take precisely nothing at face value unless you are absolutely sure it's been said or done for your and not the institution's benefit.

    And yes as OKC notes it had better happen tomorrow because if not, precious little will happen until Tuesday.

    Good luck.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,668
    As for Kemi, I like her but she has plenty to do before she entices me back to the Conservative party.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,097

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.
    A while since I studied Smith, but I don't think he'd advocate massively subsiding domestic coal and steel in place of importing cheap stuff from overseas either.

    Now, given the Chinese have flooded the market with subsidised steel themselves and there are possible security considerations around this, you can justify suspending those principles. But don't pretend autarky is consistent with them.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,189

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    Noted.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,288
    Which party is most against a digital ID system? I'm trying to work out who to vote for at the local elections, and that's the most important topic for me.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,553

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    "I like to see girls of that... calibre. By "calibre," of course, I refer to both the size of their gun barrels and the high quality of their characters... Two meanings... calibre... it's a homonym... Forget it!"
    - Dr. Evil.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    MikeL said:

    When selecting party leaders, when will MPs learn?

    Forget policies. If a party leader is going to be successful and win an election they have to look and sound like a PM. In particular their speech / diction / tone has to be authoritative, fluent and confident - they have to sound (and look) as if they are in charge and actually going to get things done.

    Badenoch simply does not pass this test. It's blindingly obvious. She will never win a GE.

    And the ridiculous thing is this should have been obvious to every MP well before the leadership election.

    I think I disagree on this.

    I don't think any of the particulars you suggest are lacking - nothing a bit of growing into the job won't give her. I wouldn't mind being represented at international junkets by PM Kemi.

    It is the policy for me.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    edited April 16
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.
    A while since I studied Smith, but I don't think he'd advocate massively subsiding domestic coal and steel in place of importing cheap stuff from overseas either.

    Now, given the Chinese have flooded the market with subsidised steel themselves and there are possible security considerations around this, you can justify suspending those principles. But don't pretend autarky is consistent with them.
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    The Tories need to work out what they're for first.

    They still haven't bothered to do that.

    This. They haven’t even started to do that and it is going to be a long and difficult process.

    We all want our economy to do better ( well all of us except some lunatic Greens and Ed). How do we achieve that in this complicated and uncertain world? How do we incentivise investment, innovation and productivity? What sort of society do we want?

    Where is the modern equivalent of the monetarist school that drove Thatcher’s changes? Where are the ideas? Just not seeing them.
    Why do we need such a thing as a 'new idea'? What would we do with this new idea, try it for 10 years and if it was a total cock up, sit in a room and wait for another one?

    The causes of prosperity have not changed since Adam Smith - since long before Adam Smith - he just codified them. They are immutable laws - peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice.

    I see our economy as a cork being forcibly held under the water at present. What healthy polity doesn't use its own coal to keep its last virgin steel producing furnace open, and needs to import it from another country, defeating the entire security exercise?

    That is a country gnawing off its own leg. We don't need new ideas, we need to stop doing stupid shit.
    A while since I studied Smith, but I don't think he'd advocate massively subsiding domestic coal and steel in place of importing cheap stuff from overseas either.

    Now, given the Chinese have flooded the market with subsidised steel themselves and there are possible security considerations around this, you can justify suspending those principles. But don't pretend autarky is consistent with them.
    If we had adhered to the principles of Smith, I don't think the industry would require defensive nationalisation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,496

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    A .357 Magnum is a US design, so it's caliber.
    If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

    (You could quibble about the .22, but that's also essentially an American standard.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    A .357 Magnum is a US design, so it's caliber.
    If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

    (You could quibble about the .22, but that's also essentially an American standard.)
    No it's not. What difference does the origin of the item make?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,121
    So the DOJ has a week to cure the contempt of court or the showdown with the judicial branch reaches new lows
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,496
    edited April 16
    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    She's a professional assassin, and not Dirty Harry ?
    (Though that's a .44)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,371
    Taz said:

    Govt consulting on changes to make bringing so-called equal pay claims easier by expanding the scope to cover outsourced workers too.

    The rent seeking cabal referred to will be rubbing its grubby, grimy, hands in glee at the thought.

    https://x.com/archiehall/status/1912506248047509795?s=61

    What could pissibly go wrong....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,496

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    A .357 Magnum is a US design, so it's caliber.
    If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

    (You could quibble about the .22, but that's also essentially an American standard.)
    No it's not. What difference does the origin of the item make?
    You have a strangely French attitude towards the English language.
    It's very odd.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,553
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    A .357 Magnum is a US design, so it's caliber.
    If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

    (You could quibble about the .22, but that's also essentially an American standard.)
    No it's not. What difference does the origin of the item make?
    You have a strangely French attitude towards the English language.
    It's very odd.
    One of the great features of our beautiful English language is that we lack an equivalent to the authoritarian Académie française.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 304
    Andy_JS said:

    Which party is most against a digital ID system? I'm trying to work out who to vote for at the local elections, and that's the most important topic for me.

    I suspect it's a toss-up between the Greens and the Lib Dems (depending on the local candidates, of course).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,368

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    A .357 Magnum is a US design, so it's caliber.
    If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

    (You could quibble about the .22, but that's also essentially an American standard.)
    No it's not. What difference does the origin of the item make?
    You have a strangely French attitude towards the English language.
    It's very odd.
    One of the great features of our beautiful English language is that we lack an equivalent to the authoritarian Académie française.
    Indeed. No comma or garden Oxford diktat.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,972
    edited April 16
    MattW said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    ...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.

    There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

    There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
    No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
    Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
    This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
    How do you determine the correct level of representation?
    You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
    I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
    Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
    Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers.
    Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know.
    And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
    Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
    Increasingly CofE Bishops
    31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
    Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
    50% is not 'dominating.'

    I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...

    And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
    On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.

    Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
    The bookie's favourite has got a couple of challenges to overcome, though. One is quite a few provinces still don't have women bishops- are we going to have a flying... erm, flying even more than normal... Archbishop for them? York might be different, but a lady ABC is probably too much of a can of worms for now.

    The other issue is the whole gay marriage thing. Whilst the majority of the CofE is broadly OK with it, the opponents still have something near a blocking minority. It remains to be seen whether that feeds through to the Canterbury CNC, but there have been a couple of stalemates in diocesan CNCs in the last year or so.

    I wonder how long the Anglican Communion can go without an Archbishop of Canterbury?
    The position in the CofE is that female bishops were approved in around 2015, and the system - with fudgy edges * - was made that there would be an aim to prefer female diocesan bishops to the positions in the Lords first. The normal process is the top 5 (Canterbury, York, London, Durham, Winchester) are in anyway, and then it is length of service.

    I make female Bishops in the Lords as 8 from 26 at present. In Diocesan Bishops iirc that is 8 from 42. There are 6 vacancies at present, and 2 of the 6 Acting Bishops are women, who are both little Bishops. I'd suggest women amongst the Lords Spiritual will be 11 or 12 when these vacancies are filled.

    A third of little Bishops are now women (23), so there's a pipeline in place for future Diocesans. 23 is about 1/3 of the total.

    Like @HYUFD I still don't see a woman as ABC this time, not least because "worldwide church" representation in the process has been increased. But I think there is a decent probability I could be mistaken.

    * The makeup of the Crown Nomination Commission for a bishopric is such that, whilst blocking minorities don't exist aiui, in practice a near of blocking minority is possible due to the makeup of the commission, and the vote works on a supermajority of 10 from 17. I have heard a few moans about it. Plus CofE bodies generally are more comfortable with fudge and consensus, so dogmatics on an issue can have a modest extra influence.
    The Anglican communion resembles the Tory party in some respects. The first thing you have to accept is that for both the Church of England and the wider communion there is no possibility of a candidate that is acceptable to all as some sort of compromise. Just like the Tory party, choices have to be made, and as with politics, making actual choices is avoided as long as possible, and once faced tends to go with the position of maximal continuation of current confusion.

    As things stand even agreement on the appointment of diocesan bishops, who now are not very important people in the national picture or indeed the local one, is proving sometimes intractable.

    For those outside all this, the irreconcilable issues include:

    women - status and function
    gays - including 'are there any?' from some of our overseas friends
    sexual morality generally (but oddly excluding Jesus's teaching on remarriage after divorce as this sometimes touches the lives of the right sort)
    what counts as orthodoxy/acceptability in credal belief.

    NB Bishop of Chelmsford or Bishop of Newcastle would do. Both tough cookies.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,496
    I hadn't realised just how useless the UK F35s were compared to their US counterparts.

    They can't use the UK's most capable air to air (Meteor) or air to surface (SPEAR) missiles, as Lockheed never integrated them into the airframe.
    And likely won't until the next decade.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,564
    edited April 16
    More on the demolished oak tree in Enfield.

    I'm interested that the Metropolitan Police have closed their investigation viewing it as a "Civil Matter".

    I don't see how the Sycamore Gap felling was "criminal damage" which has come to trial, and this one was not. Criminal damage can be intentional or reckless. That Met decision looks hasty. In both cases the destruction of the tree was by a party not entitled to do so (absent - maybe - the so far undisclosed terms of the lease held by the Toby Carvery, and exactly where the oak tree is located).

    The Council had had a report done indicating a future lifetime of hundreds of years as recently as last December.

    The Enfield Tree is assessed as far more important than the Sycamore.

    For an appropriately strong response, the Met will have to reverse their decision, or perhaps the Council will need to forfeit the lease or threaten to do so. Toby Carvery are sloping their shoulders and hoping it will go away.

    This one will run and run.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8jwjx5kppo
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,454
    Afternoon all :)

    Though I'm no supporter of the Conservatives, the truth is parties need time to adapt to the reality of a crushing defeat and let's not call a spade a garden implement, the defeat suffered by the Conservatives in July 2024 was historic in terms of seats lost and share of the vote.

    The only consolation was they finished second on both measures thus remaining His Majesty's Official Opposition but beyond that there was very little from which comfort could be taken.

    How should parties respond to defeats of that magnitude? The options are to become introspective or to start asking the tough questions about what went wrong and why it went wrong and then seek a new way forward. The Conservatives seem, to a point, to be doing the latter but consulting members on policy? It's an idea as long as the leadership is under no obligation to follow any of the policy suggestions.

    At the moment, it has to be "back to basics" (as someone once said). What is the point of the Conservative Party? What differentiates it from Labour, Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens? Is it to be economically liberal and socially conservative? Is it to be a party of low tax and low spending and what does that mean at a time of huge demands on the public finances?

    The Party is currently adrift relying on a core of older voters to prop it up in the polls - the demographics from last year are damning and remain desperate - the lead in the 65+ age poll was 20 points at the election, it's now 6 points (according to today's YouGov data). 20% of those voting Conservative last July have gone to Reform and while there are some encouraging signs among the 18-24 age group whether that will be sustained remains to be seen.

    I don't envy Badenoch any more than I envied Hague in 1997 - it will be a thankless task but the rest she can hope to do is put the foundations in place in terms of principles and organisation before moving on - I think the next successful Conservative leader has to be completely untainted with the failures of the 2010-24 period.

    Whehter that's a Katie Lam or another of the 2024 intake I'm not sure.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,288

    So the DOJ has a week to cure the contempt of court or the showdown with the judicial branch reaches new lows

    Also just noticed this.

    "U.S. Department of Justice sues Maine over transgender athlete policy
    Case is a matter of states rights and defending the rule of law, said Maine Gov. Janet Mills"

    https://mainemorningstar.com/2025/04/16/u-s-department-of-justice-sues-maine-over-transgender-athlete-policy/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,368
    MattW said:

    More on the demolished oak tree in Enfield.

    I'm interested that the Metropolitan Police have closed their investigation viewing it as a "Civil Matter".

    I don't see how the Sycamore Gap felling was "criminal damage" which has come to trial, and this one was not. Criminal damage can be intentional or reckless. That Met decision looks hasty. In both cases the destruction of the tree was by a party not entitled to do so (absent - maybe - the so far undisclosed terms of the lease held by the Toby Carvery, and exactly where the oak tree is located).

    The Council had had a report done indicating a future lifetime of hundreds of years as recently as last December.

    The Enfield Tree is assessed as far more important than the Sycamore.

    For an appropriately strong response, the Met will have to reverse their decision, or perhaps the Council will need to forfeit the lease or threaten to do so. Toby Carvery are sloping their shoulders and hoping it will go away.

    This one will run and run.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8jwjx5kppo

    The Sycamore damaged Hadrian's Wall as well, so was vandalising a scheduled monument.

    Although I agree on your main point.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,972
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    More on the demolished oak tree in Enfield.

    I'm interested that the Metropolitan Police have closed their investigation viewing it as a "Civil Matter".

    I don't see how the Sycamore Gap felling was "criminal damage" which has come to trial, and this one was not. Criminal damage can be intentional or reckless. That Met decision looks hasty. In both cases the destruction of the tree was by a party not entitled to do so (absent - maybe - the so far undisclosed terms of the lease held by the Toby Carvery, and exactly where the oak tree is located).

    The Council had had a report done indicating a future lifetime of hundreds of years as recently as last December.

    The Enfield Tree is assessed as far more important than the Sycamore.

    For an appropriately strong response, the Met will have to reverse their decision, or perhaps the Council will need to forfeit the lease or threaten to do so. Toby Carvery are sloping their shoulders and hoping it will go away.

    This one will run and run.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8jwjx5kppo

    The Sycamore damaged Hadrian's Wall as well, so was vandalising a scheduled monument.

    Although I agree on your main point.
    Just to note that the Sycamore Gap case is sub judice, and (last I heard) is due to be tried at the end of this month.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,288
    "Solar power surge threatens to throw Britain’s grid off balance

    The National Energy System Operator may have to tell some power stations to switch off this summer to maintain flexibility in the system" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/energy/article/solar-power-surge-threatens-to-throw-britains-grid-off-balance-x78svvxn2
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,434
    Taken together, the twin decisions by the judges represented a remarkable attempt by jurists to hold the White House accountable not only for its apparent willingness to flout court orders, but also more broadly its inclination to probe the traditional, but increasingly fragile, balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.

    NY Times blog
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "but it appears the country has concluded that when it comes to Kemi Badenoch we might be talking about a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world."

    Anyone know what is that supposed to mean? Seems like some sort of reference to guns and bullets, which hardly seems appropriate in relation to a politician?

    Bullets have calibers denoted by numbers and modified by letters, hence .22lr. The higher the number, the higher the size and the strength of the propellant charge. The ".22" caliber number denotes a small bullet thought fit for hunting small animals and possibly for self defence, but its small charge makes it unsuitable for larger animals. ".357 magnum" is a larger bullet. Here are some videos

    22lr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCmI5-JRp8
    357 Magnum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-2BKZgZVA
    Calibres.
    A .357 Magnum is a US design, so it's caliber.
    If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

    (You could quibble about the .22, but that's also essentially an American standard.)
    No it's not. What difference does the origin of the item make?
    You have a strangely French attitude towards the English language.
    It's very odd.
    You must mean a Francais attitude under your rules.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,276
    Cyclefree said:

    Just popping in from Purgatory to say

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.

    I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.

    Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.

    But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......

    You poor thing.

    Thinking of you.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,560
    Cyclefree said:

    Just popping in from Purgatory to say

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.

    I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.

    Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.

    But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......

    Hope you recover soon. The garden awaits.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Though I'm no supporter of the Conservatives, the truth is parties need time to adapt to the reality of a crushing defeat and let's not call a spade a garden implement, the defeat suffered by the Conservatives in July 2024 was historic in terms of seats lost and share of the vote.

    The only consolation was they finished second on both measures thus remaining His Majesty's Official Opposition but beyond that there was very little from which comfort could be taken.

    How should parties respond to defeats of that magnitude? The options are to become introspective or to start asking the tough questions about what went wrong and why it went wrong and then seek a new way forward. The Conservatives seem, to a point, to be doing the latter but consulting members on policy? It's an idea as long as the leadership is under no obligation to follow any of the policy suggestions.

    At the moment, it has to be "back to basics" (as someone once said). What is the point of the Conservative Party? What differentiates it from Labour, Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens? Is it to be economically liberal and socially conservative? Is it to be a party of low tax and low spending and what does that mean at a time of huge demands on the public finances?

    The Party is currently adrift relying on a core of older voters to prop it up in the polls - the demographics from last year are damning and remain desperate - the lead in the 65+ age poll was 20 points at the election, it's now 6 points (according to today's YouGov data). 20% of those voting Conservative last July have gone to Reform and while there are some encouraging signs among the 18-24 age group whether that will be sustained remains to be seen.

    I don't envy Badenoch any more than I envied Hague in 1997 - it will be a thankless task but the rest she can hope to do is put the foundations in place in terms of principles and organisation before moving on - I think the next successful Conservative leader has to be completely untainted with the failures of the 2010-24 period.

    Whehter that's a Katie Lam or another of the 2024 intake I'm not sure.

    Whoever is Conservative leader will be going into some form of coalition Government with Reform. Starmer isn't going to make it, and there is no replacement. Their success will be measured against whether they become PM or fill the runner up role.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,288
    "For the first time, the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu has access to electronic banking after its first ATM was unveiled. Officials called it a "transformative" era of modern banking in the remote archipelago. For years, the nation's 12,000 residents have done all their banking in cash, with workers enduring long lines to withdraw their wages from the bank each pay day. Now they will be able to withdraw money at the swipe of a card, with five ATMs and 30 point-of-sale terminals installed."

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-17/tuvalu-unveils-first-atm-electronic-banking/105185956
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,454
    Plenty of polling in Canada overnight and this morning but all confirming a Liberal lead of between two and seven points.

    In Australia, the latest Freshwater Strategy poll has the Coalition ahead by seven (39-32) in the primary bote but the 2pp is now tied at 50.

    There's some interesting analysis over on PB's Aussie cousin, Pollbludger, suggesting Labor has picked up in the rural seats - the heartland for the Coalition. It may be that any Labor improvement in the primary vote won't be reflected in seats or electorates.

    Oddly enough, Labor is doing worst in the Inner Metropolitan seats which are its heartland so it may be overall seat numbers won't change very much with the Coalition parties slashing inner metropolitan Labor majorities and Labor cutting Coalition majorities in the countryside but the overall changes in seat numbers limited.

    Back to Canada, and a poll in the traditional heartland of the Atlantic provinces shows the Liberals with a massive 39 point lead over the Conservatives. The four provinces contain 32 ridings which in 2021 returned 24 Liberals and 8 Conservatives. The NDP has basically fallen to the Liberals suggesting Liberal gains in the region are likely.

    In Quebec, a 1.5% Liberal lead over the Bloc Quebecois in 2021 is now a 15 point lead (42-27) and a 15 point Liberal lead over the Conservatives is now a 21 point lead. Quebec has 78 ridings and in 2021 returned 35 Liberals, 32 Bloc Quebecois, 10 Conservatives and a single NDP MP.

    We really need an Ontario regional poll (121 ridings) but the evidence continues to show the Liberals gaining far more from the NDP than anything they are losing to the Conservatives. Carney needs 20 gains to win a majority - will he get them from BQ and the NDP and will that be enough to offset any losses to the Conservatives?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,454

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Though I'm no supporter of the Conservatives, the truth is parties need time to adapt to the reality of a crushing defeat and let's not call a spade a garden implement, the defeat suffered by the Conservatives in July 2024 was historic in terms of seats lost and share of the vote.

    The only consolation was they finished second on both measures thus remaining His Majesty's Official Opposition but beyond that there was very little from which comfort could be taken.

    How should parties respond to defeats of that magnitude? The options are to become introspective or to start asking the tough questions about what went wrong and why it went wrong and then seek a new way forward. The Conservatives seem, to a point, to be doing the latter but consulting members on policy? It's an idea as long as the leadership is under no obligation to follow any of the policy suggestions.

    At the moment, it has to be "back to basics" (as someone once said). What is the point of the Conservative Party? What differentiates it from Labour, Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens? Is it to be economically liberal and socially conservative? Is it to be a party of low tax and low spending and what does that mean at a time of huge demands on the public finances?

    The Party is currently adrift relying on a core of older voters to prop it up in the polls - the demographics from last year are damning and remain desperate - the lead in the 65+ age poll was 20 points at the election, it's now 6 points (according to today's YouGov data). 20% of those voting Conservative last July have gone to Reform and while there are some encouraging signs among the 18-24 age group whether that will be sustained remains to be seen.

    I don't envy Badenoch any more than I envied Hague in 1997 - it will be a thankless task but the rest she can hope to do is put the foundations in place in terms of principles and organisation before moving on - I think the next successful Conservative leader has to be completely untainted with the failures of the 2010-24 period.

    Whehter that's a Katie Lam or another of the 2024 intake I'm not sure.

    Whoever is Conservative leader will be going into some form of coalition Government with Reform. Starmer isn't going to make it, and there is no replacement. Their success will be measured against whether they become PM or fill the runner up role.
    Being the "junior" partner in a coalition doesn't end well as the LDs can attest. I'm far from convinced a Reform-Conservative Government is a starter at this time however much those opposed to Labour may wish it otherwise. The Conservatives have no experience being the junior partner and the experience of traditional conservative parties going into Government with populist alternatives is at best mixed in Europe.

    I also wouldn't write off Starmer at this stage - come back to me in a couple of years on that one.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,307
    Two stories local to me, both from today:

    "Council fined millions after three busway deaths" (1)

    and

    "A crash between a fire engine and two buses has left 16 people injured, including children. The crash happened this afternoon (April 16) on the B1050 Station Road between Longstanton and Willingham. Cambridgeshire Police are at the scene, alongside other emergency services." (2)

    The (mis)guided busway in Cambridge has been an absolute clusterfuck, with several deaths and injuries put down to it, and vast construction and legal costs. Hope the people injured in today's accident recover soon. The council have been absolutely desperate to sell it as being a success, but in reality it's been a barely-hidden scandal.

    Oh, and I hope Ms Free gets good positive soon, and recovers well.

    (1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrg65y3107o
    (2): https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/live-b1050-updates-crash-closes-31438387
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,114
    edited April 16
    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't realised just how useless the UK F35s were compared to their US counterparts.

    They can't use the UK's most capable air to air (Meteor) or air to surface (SPEAR) missiles, as Lockheed never integrated them into the airframe.
    And likely won't until the next decade.

    Meteor has done the basic captive carry tests this year.

    Spear 3 - which is still in development - is scheduled for full deployment on F35 in 2028, IIRC
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,114
    Cyclefree said:

    Just popping in from Purgatory to say

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.

    I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.

    Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.

    But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......

    Get well soon. Looking forward to another header - don’t hold back, this time.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,732
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Though I'm no supporter of the Conservatives, the truth is parties need time to adapt to the reality of a crushing defeat and let's not call a spade a garden implement, the defeat suffered by the Conservatives in July 2024 was historic in terms of seats lost and share of the vote.

    The only consolation was they finished second on both measures thus remaining His Majesty's Official Opposition but beyond that there was very little from which comfort could be taken.

    How should parties respond to defeats of that magnitude? The options are to become introspective or to start asking the tough questions about what went wrong and why it went wrong and then seek a new way forward. The Conservatives seem, to a point, to be doing the latter but consulting members on policy? It's an idea as long as the leadership is under no obligation to follow any of the policy suggestions.

    At the moment, it has to be "back to basics" (as someone once said). What is the point of the Conservative Party? What differentiates it from Labour, Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens? Is it to be economically liberal and socially conservative? Is it to be a party of low tax and low spending and what does that mean at a time of huge demands on the public finances?

    The Party is currently adrift relying on a core of older voters to prop it up in the polls - the demographics from last year are damning and remain desperate - the lead in the 65+ age poll was 20 points at the election, it's now 6 points (according to today's YouGov data). 20% of those voting Conservative last July have gone to Reform and while there are some encouraging signs among the 18-24 age group whether that will be sustained remains to be seen.

    I don't envy Badenoch any more than I envied Hague in 1997 - it will be a thankless task but the rest she can hope to do is put the foundations in place in terms of principles and organisation before moving on - I think the next successful Conservative leader has to be completely untainted with the failures of the 2010-24 period.

    Whehter that's a Katie Lam or another of the 2024 intake I'm not sure.

    Whoever is Conservative leader will be going into some form of coalition Government with Reform. Starmer isn't going to make it, and there is no replacement. Their success will be measured against whether they become PM or fill the runner up role.
    Being the "junior" partner in a coalition doesn't end well as the LDs can attest. I'm far from convinced a Reform-Conservative Government is a starter at this time however much those opposed to Labour may wish it otherwise. The Conservatives have no experience being the junior partner and the experience of traditional conservative parties going into Government with populist alternatives is at best mixed in Europe.

    I also wouldn't write off Starmer at this stage - come back to me in a couple of years on that one.
    In order to recover meaningfully, Labour will need an aggressive policy u-turn. They haven’t got that in them. Even their welfare u-turn just upset everyone for a measly £5bn off the welfare bill which will still grow.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,434
    The Bulwark
    @BulwarkOnline
    ·
    1m
    Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell: “The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated, and the same is likely to be true of the economic effect, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

    https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1912564860363083969


    ====

    Sacked by end of the week?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,459

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't realised just how useless the UK F35s were compared to their US counterparts.

    They can't use the UK's most capable air to air (Meteor) or air to surface (SPEAR) missiles, as Lockheed never integrated them into the airframe.
    And likely won't until the next decade.

    Meteor has done the basic captive carry tests this year.

    Spear 3 - which is still in development - is scheduled for full deployment on F35 in 2028, IIRC
    Making the best aircraft in the world is something we should simply do as a nation.

    We have the best engines, we have the best aero-dynamicists, and we used to have sprightly boffin engineers. I'm sure we can do so again.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,461
    edited April 16
    Omnium said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't realised just how useless the UK F35s were compared to their US counterparts.

    They can't use the UK's most capable air to air (Meteor) or air to surface (SPEAR) missiles, as Lockheed never integrated them into the airframe.
    And likely won't until the next decade.

    Meteor has done the basic captive carry tests this year.

    Spear 3 - which is still in development - is scheduled for full deployment on F35 in 2028, IIRC
    Making the best aircraft in the world is something we should simply do as a nation.

    We have the best engines, we have the best aero-dynamicists, and we used to have sprightly boffin engineers. I'm sure we can do so again.
    My way to incentivize would be to make engineering degrees free to the students taking them. "No debts for young engineeers!"
Sign In or Register to comment.