Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
I think about this often. I'm not sure whether some people think that price is worth paying to reduce american hegemony, or if they disagree with the premise.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
Once you are in Korea you can claim asylum.
If you want to get somewhere specific, then you like 8 billion other people may desire to get somewhere specific and for that you can apply for a visa.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
It strikes me as one of those situations where the precise details of complaint are not necessarily as significant as even the initial speaker sincerely thinks. By which I mean that a lot of people have the sense that many so called asylum seekers are not genuine - and I think that is fair given there has sometimes been reluctance to presume migrant instead of asylum seeker, so the latter is overused - and so might lean on the 'first safe country' argument even if at its core that is not the main complaint.
Some people are openly supportive of essentially open borders for all, but there are others who unintentionally argue that if suggesting any kind of restriction (be it first safe country or just limits) is unreasonable, and I don't think the latter is the case.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
Once you are in Korea you can claim asylum.
If you want to get somewhere specific, then you like 8 billion other people may desire to get somewhere specific and for that you can apply for a visa.
I mean I could do that but
1. On a factual basis the fact that I keep moving doesn't mean the reason why fled wasn't to escape the pogrom
2. On a legal basis I have no requirement to do that. Sometimes the second country I go to will have a legal right to send me back to the first country I passed through but that doesn't mean I'm doing anything illegal
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's
The only thing I can think of that explains support for Boris returning to politics is sheer desperation.
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
I don't think we can argue with that. I would be very disappointed if Akrotiri is used. US bombers can fly from Israel.
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
Don't make the mistake of fighting the last war.
Iraq did not have WMDs, Iran is seeking not just WMDs but nuclear weapons. Iran was breaching its obligations and had 60% enriched uranium which serves no civilian purposes AFAIK, it is for military purposes.
Bibi has been saying Iran has had nukes since 1993. He may not be wrong now, but he has been for the last 32 years.
This is Bibi keeping himself out of jail and a little bit of fun for Trump.
You're so blinded by your dislike for Bibi that you can't see the facts staring you in the face.
Iran has been caught with a dangerous amount of uranium that is being weaponised.
Iran did not get there overnight. They've been working on this for years. Those saying Iran needed to be dealt with during that time were right all along.
The can had been kicked but we are running out of road.
This has nothing to do with Bibi.
Israel has a dangerous amount of uranium and clearly cannot be trusted.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
It strikes me as one of those situations where the precise details of complaint are not necessarily as significant as even the initial speaker sincerely thinks. By which I mean that a lot of people have the sense that many so called asylum seekers are not genuine - and I think that is fair given there has sometimes been reluctance to presume migrant instead of asylum seeker, so the latter is overused - and so might lean on the 'first safe country' argument even if at its core that is not the main complaint.
Some people are openly supportive of essentially open borders for all, but there are others who unintentionally argue that if suggesting any kind of restriction (be it first safe country or just limits) is unreasonable, and I don't think the latter is the case.
A first safe country restriction would be an extremely stupid policy because most refugees go to the closest country so the places bordering the crisis end up having a hard time coping with the numbers. It's helpful if some people move further, especially to other countries where they have friends or relatives who can support them.
But in any case it's not the law. Refugees can claim asylum anywhere. Not claiming asylum in the first safe country they get to doesn't make them illegal immigrants either by law or by common sense. It's just made-up bullshit.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
It strikes me as one of those situations where the precise details of complaint are not necessarily as significant as even the initial speaker sincerely thinks. By which I mean that a lot of people have the sense that many so called asylum seekers are not genuine - and I think that is fair given there has sometimes been reluctance to presume migrant instead of asylum seeker, so the latter is overused - and so might lean on the 'first safe country' argument even if at its core that is not the main complaint.
Some people are openly supportive of essentially open borders for all, but there are others who unintentionally argue that if suggesting any kind of restriction (be it first safe country or just limits) is unreasonable, and I don't think the latter is the case.
A first case country restriction would be an extremely stupid policy because most refugees go to the closest country so they end up having a hard time coping with the numbers, so it's helpful if some people move further, especially to other countries where they have friends or relatives who can support them.
But in any case it's not the law. Refugees can claim asylum anywhere. Not claiming asylum in the first safe country they get to doesn't make them illegal immigrants either by law or by common sense. It's just made-up bullshit.
The safe and humane way to move people on from the country closest to the scene is to have a safe and organised method of moving people, not a Darwinian free for all survival of the fittest of whomever can pay people smugglers.
Anyone who enters the country without permission to do so is breaking the law.
Those who are fleeing a safe country lack permission.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
I don't think we can argue with that. I would be very disappointed if Akrotiri is used. US bombers can fly from Israel.
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
Don't make the mistake of fighting the last war.
Iraq did not have WMDs, Iran is seeking not just WMDs but nuclear weapons. Iran was breaching its obligations and had 60% enriched uranium which serves no civilian purposes AFAIK, it is for military purposes.
Bibi has been saying Iran has had nukes since 1993. He may not be wrong now, but he has been for the last 32 years.
This is Bibi keeping himself out of jail and a little bit of fun for Trump.
You're so blinded by your dislike for Bibi that you can't see the facts staring you in the face.
Iran has been caught with a dangerous amount of uranium that is being weaponised.
Iran did not get there overnight. They've been working on this for years. Those saying Iran needed to be dealt with during that time were right all along.
The can had been kicked but we are running out of road.
This has nothing to do with Bibi.
Israel has a dangerous amount of uranium and clearly cannot be trusted.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
HY is so confused that he hasn’t decided whether he wants Farage defeated or propelled to number ten.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
I appreciate this is favourability, so not tied to the likelihood of it happening - but it feels to me that any Next Leader betting/polling/punditry extolling a Johnson comeback massively underplays the impact of not being a current MP (as TSE mentions).
Unless the Tories change their rules to take a flyer on an outsider and then find them a safe seat (a la Carney), it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that Johnson would faff around to find a backbench seat he had no interest in representing, winning a by-election (seeing off the threat of humiliation by Reform or a Lib Dem), AND then go on to win a leadership election which would be hypothetical at the point he committed to the process.
Even if he wasn't bone idle and poorly organised, it'd be a big ask.
(Same with Burnham for Labour, btw - not at all idle, but the optics of hanging on to the mayoralty while he worked his way down that same road, or the gamble of not doing so, weaken that possibility to homeopathic dilutions too IMO)
HS2 is an utter disaster, but scrapping it now is simply making it a monument to the failure to execute an enormous project and leave it as a permanent scar across whole parts of England
It needs to be finished even if it takes to the late 2030s (Birmingham to Euston)
It also seems Farage and Reform have misjudged the public's mood on the 2 child benefit cap by supporting it's abolition
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
It would be hilarious if he stood in a 'safe' seat and lost, which is a real possibility
Listen to the media show today. Bezos who is having his wedding in Venice and has booked every hotel room there says it will be good for Venice and will help put it on the map!
Americans have completely lost their marbles. The less the UK has to do with them the better.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
It would be hilarious if he stood in a 'safe' seat and lost, which is a real possibility
I know I would enjoy the aftermath
Unlikely, if he increased the Tory voteshare by 4% from the GE as his favourability suggests he would likely increase its majority
If we're not getting involved in Iran then our core goal should be to ensure that we don't end up with a load of the current regime attempting to claim asylum.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
It strikes me as one of those situations where the precise details of complaint are not necessarily as significant as even the initial speaker sincerely thinks. By which I mean that a lot of people have the sense that many so called asylum seekers are not genuine - and I think that is fair given there has sometimes been reluctance to presume migrant instead of asylum seeker, so the latter is overused - and so might lean on the 'first safe country' argument even if at its core that is not the main complaint.
Some people are openly supportive of essentially open borders for all, but there are others who unintentionally argue that if suggesting any kind of restriction (be it first safe country or just limits) is unreasonable, and I don't think the latter is the case.
A first case country restriction would be an extremely stupid policy because most refugees go to the closest country so they end up having a hard time coping with the numbers, so it's helpful if some people move further, especially to other countries where they have friends or relatives who can support them.
But in any case it's not the law. Refugees can claim asylum anywhere. Not claiming asylum in the first safe country they get to doesn't make them illegal immigrants either by law or by common sense. It's just made-up bullshit.
The safe and humane way to move people on from the country closest to the scene is to have a safe and organised method of moving people, not a Darwinian free for all survival of the fittest of whomever can pay people smugglers.
I agree, but the UK does not have such a system. Rightly or wrongly, it blocks regular routes to make it hard to exercise the right to claim asylum there. We're in a dumb situation where countries have promised people the right to asylum but also in practice go out of their way to make it hard to do that. There may be a way get to a more rational system but it's not a trivial problem to solve because if one country starts ripping up the long-standing existing treaty commitments other countries will also potentially do the same, including countries close to wars that currently are taking most of the refugees.
Where I came in was that people were claiming people who claimed asylum after passing through another safe country were illegal immigrants. They're not, and people should stop saying this.
Anyone who enters the country without permission to do so is breaking the law.
Those who are fleeing a safe country lack permission.
Googling this up this doesn't seem to be true? As far as I can tell if you're genuinely seeking asylum you can legally arrive by an irregular route, provided you identify yourself to the authorities when you arrive.
No one will shed a tear if the Iranian regime falls . Unfortunately if it doesn’t fall life will be even worse for Iranians .
I have zero time for any country which treats women in such a despicable way , the same can also be said of countries like Saudi Arabia .
On your first point - why do you think an alternative will be worse - just empirical evidence that things in the Middle East never get better? On your second - well, yes, but why do left wingers always need to find some subgroup which is harmed before they will allow that a regime or a policy is terrible? The Islamicofascists are a nightmare for almost everyone. Yes, bad for women, but surely opposition isn't dependent on just that?
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Not entirely, Stride is on the Cameroon Sunakite wing of the party so unlikely to have excessive negatives for a Tory. As a fiscal conservative he might win back a few who voted for Rishi, have since gone Reform but are concerned by some of Farage's spending pledges.
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
It would be hilarious if he stood in a 'safe' seat and lost, which is a real possibility
I know I would enjoy the aftermath
Unlikely, if he increased the Tory voteshare by 4% from the GE as his favourability suggests he would likely increase its majority
Unless he increased the Tory share, but at the same time propelled those who hate him more than Vanilla Tory Esq to vote more tactically for the LibDem (or whoever's considered best-placed to beat him). Keir Starmer himself would vote LibDem in that circumstance!
HS2 is an utter disaster, but scrapping it now is simply making it a monument to the failure to execute an enormous project and leave it as a permanent scar across whole parts of England
It needs to be finished even if it takes to the late 2030s (Birmingham to Euston)
It also seems Farage and Reform have misjudged the public's mood on the 2 child benefit cap by supporting it's abolition
That's wrong on both counts. It remains a highly viable infrastructure project with a much better return than spending cash on *gestures widely*, but you should never proceed with a project based on sunk cost fallacy.
Turn it into the world's most advanced cycle route if you're worried about the scar. You'll get massive returns just from the health benefits, for very little additional cost.
I quite like Boris, but his time has come and gone, and let's face it, he f*cked up being PM. Also, no one will forgive him for the Boriswave
Soz Boz
Mayor of London he should go for.
Boris has been there done that and he wouidn't be bothered to do it again having done it for 8 years, post Brexit London wouldn't elect him anyway. Even when Boris won a UK majority in 2019 he still lost London to Labour.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
It would be hilarious if he stood in a 'safe' seat and lost, which is a real possibility
I know I would enjoy the aftermath
Unlikely, if he increased the Tory voteshare by 4% from the GE as his favourability suggests he would likely increase its majority
Unless he increased the Tory share, but at the same time propelled those who hate him more than Vanilla Tory Esq to vote more tactically for the LibDem (or whoever's considered best-placed to beat him). Keir Starmer himself would vote LibDem in that circumstance!
If the Tories held the seat even with the massive anti Tory voting last year Boris would easily hold such a seat with an increased majority, likely squeezing the Reform vote there too
HS2 is an utter disaster, but scrapping it now is simply making it a monument to the failure to execute an enormous project and leave it as a permanent scar across whole parts of England
It needs to be finished even if it takes to the late 2030s (Birmingham to Euston)
It also seems Farage and Reform have misjudged the public's mood on the 2 child benefit cap by supporting it's abolition
That's wrong on both counts. It remains a highly viable infrastructure project with a much better return than spending cash on *gestures widely*, but you should never proceed with a project based on sunk cost fallacy.
Turn it into the world's most advanced cycle route if you're worried about the scar. You'll get massive returns just from the health benefits, for very little additional cost.
Or even better, scrap the railway and build a motorway on the 'scar' instead. Far better return on investment and far more versatile.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
One in four conceptions is aborted?!
A quick google indicates that it might well be in the ballpark; 200k abortions per year, and ~800k conceptions.
An interesting question is *why* there are so many abortions.
I posted the previous link for context of the case @Leon highlighted from X. I have also posted a link here if other cases. I have not posted my views on any of this because I do not feel qualified, particularly because I am a man and appreciate it is heart rendering stuff and appalling for the women and unborn babies involved.
I think those pontificating should bear in mind the mental pain the women involved go through in these circumstances. It is far to easy to condemn from our keyboards particularly if we are men.
Donald Trump says "I may do it, I may not do it", when asked about whether the US will join Israeli strikes on Iran
I actually have some sympathy with Starmer when having to try and deal with this kind of thing.
President Trump has been against military adventures his whole career. He frustrated Neocon attempts to bomb Iran in his first presidency, and ousted John Bolton for being too hawkish.
Added to this, much of MAGA and indeed mainstream Republicans are isolationist. Trump risks fracturing his own base before the midterms.
Trump's problem now is that Bibi as well as the neocons want to lure in American might. Trump so far has stopped at issuing an ultimatum, or at least implying Israel had a de facto ultimatum on Iran.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
I quite like Boris, but his time has come and gone, and let's face it, he f*cked up being PM. Also, no one will forgive him for the Boriswave
Soz Boz
Mayor of London he should go for.
Boris has been there done that and he wouidn't be bothered to do it again having done it for 8 years, post Brexit London wouldn't elect him anyway. Even when Boris won a UK majority in 2019 he still lost London to Labour.
Cleverly might go for London Mayor though
I know your thoughts on this and you know mine. James Cleverly would be fine, but not a slither of hope in rolling the Reform vote into his. Boris is the only Tory who has got a chance (and it's not a done deal, just a chance) of uniting Reform, Tories, and genuine floating (and perhaps even non) voters. Whether that would put him over the line I don't know, but it would be more than any other Tory would get.
I appreciate this is favourability, so not tied to the likelihood of it happening - but it feels to me that any Next Leader betting/polling/punditry extolling a Johnson comeback massively underplays the impact of not being a current MP (as TSE mentions).
Unless the Tories change their rules to take a flyer on an outsider and then find them a safe seat (a la Carney), it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that Johnson would faff around to find a backbench seat he had no interest in representing, winning a by-election (seeing off the threat of humiliation by Reform or a Lib Dem), AND then go on to win a leadership election which would be hypothetical at the point he committed to the process.
Even if he wasn't bone idle and poorly organised, it'd be a big ask.
(Same with Burnham for Labour, btw - not at all idle, but the optics of hanging on to the mayoralty while he worked his way down that same road, or the gamble of not doing so, weaken that possibility to homeopathic dilutions too IMO)
Boris ducked fighting a by-election when effectively thrown out last time round. What's changed?
Donald Trump says "I may do it, I may not do it", when asked about whether the US will join Israeli strikes on Iran
I actually have some sympathy with Starmer when having to try and deal with this kind of thing.
President Trump has been against military adventures his whole career. He frustrated Neocon attempts to bomb Iran in his first presidency, and ousted John Bolton for being too hawkish.
Added to this, much of MAGA and indeed mainstream Republicans are isolationist. Trump risks fracturing his own base before the midterms.
Trump's problem now is that Bibi as well as the neocons want to lure in American might. Trump so far has stopped at issuing an ultimatum, or at least implying Israel had a de facto ultimatum on Iran.
Trump probably won't get involved, because TACO, but if he does then his base are so devoted they'll go along with it and trust his judgment.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
It strikes me as one of those situations where the precise details of complaint are not necessarily as significant as even the initial speaker sincerely thinks. By which I mean that a lot of people have the sense that many so called asylum seekers are not genuine - and I think that is fair given there has sometimes been reluctance to presume migrant instead of asylum seeker, so the latter is overused - and so might lean on the 'first safe country' argument even if at its core that is not the main complaint.
Some people are openly supportive of essentially open borders for all, but there are others who unintentionally argue that if suggesting any kind of restriction (be it first safe country or just limits) is unreasonable, and I don't think the latter is the case.
Almost all are economic immigrants pretending and looking to see where they can get the largest amount of free largesse, UK is the Forest Gump of countries for sending them taxis and giving them bountiful largesse. Is it any wonder they will fork out thousands to hit the jackpot.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
There are documented cases of women carrying to full term and being unaware of it. So there must be a vast number of women who miscarry in the 2nd or 3rd month while being unaware. Such miscarriages are excluded from the figures.
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
I don't think we can argue with that. I would be very disappointed if Akrotiri is used. US bombers can fly from Israel.
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
Don't make the mistake of fighting the last war.
Iraq did not have WMDs, Iran is seeking not just WMDs but nuclear weapons. Iran was breaching its obligations and had 60% enriched uranium which serves no civilian purposes AFAIK, it is for military purposes.
Bibi has been saying Iran has had nukes since 1993. He may not be wrong now, but he has been for the last 32 years.
This is Bibi keeping himself out of jail and a little bit of fun for Trump.
You're so blinded by your dislike for Bibi that you can't see the facts staring you in the face.
Iran has been caught with a dangerous amount of uranium that is being weaponised.
Iran did not get there overnight. They've been working on this for years. Those saying Iran needed to be dealt with during that time were right all along.
The can had been kicked but we are running out of road.
This has nothing to do with Bibi.
Israel has a dangerous amount of uranium and clearly cannot be trusted.
And hasn't signed the NPT (along with India and Pakistan!).
Donald Trump says "I may do it, I may not do it", when asked about whether the US will join Israeli strikes on Iran
I actually have some sympathy with Starmer when having to try and deal with this kind of thing.
President Trump has been against military adventures his whole career. He frustrated Neocon attempts to bomb Iran in his first presidency, and ousted John Bolton for being too hawkish.
Added to this, much of MAGA and indeed mainstream Republicans are isolationist. Trump risks fracturing his own base before the midterms.
Trump's problem now is that Bibi as well as the neocons want to lure in American might. Trump so far has stopped at issuing an ultimatum, or at least implying Israel had a de facto ultimatum on Iran.
Trump probably won't get involved, because TACO, but if he does then his base are so devoted they'll go along with it and trust his judgment.
Since his first term the fbi arrested an alleged Iranian agent attempting to assassinate him. And he was also separately shot.
On the substance of it, in 2016-2020 Iran had far fewer centrifuges and far less fissile material. And it had a fearsome regional terror network it could fight back with.
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
I don't think we can argue with that. I would be very disappointed if Akrotiri is used. US bombers can fly from Israel.
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
Don't make the mistake of fighting the last war.
Iraq did not have WMDs, Iran is seeking not just WMDs but nuclear weapons. Iran was breaching its obligations and had 60% enriched uranium which serves no civilian purposes AFAIK, it is for military purposes.
Bibi has been saying Iran has had nukes since 1993. He may not be wrong now, but he has been for the last 32 years.
This is Bibi keeping himself out of jail and a little bit of fun for Trump.
Sure, but international observers are also saying it now.
Besides, Iraq *did* have WMD. We know that because they used them against the Kurds and Iran and we also know they were trying to develop nukes. What we didn't know in 2003 was whether they still had them because Saddam had done everything in his power to keep that question uncertain and provide no evidence either way.
BTW, I don't think this is remotely fun for Trump even now: he still doesn't like using force even if Netanyahu has convinced him that he needs to do it this time. It will get worse for Trump when the Regime doesn't fall like a pack of cards.
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
I don't think we can argue with that. I would be very disappointed if Akrotiri is used. US bombers can fly from Israel.
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
Don't make the mistake of fighting the last war.
Iraq did not have WMDs, Iran is seeking not just WMDs but nuclear weapons. Iran was breaching its obligations and had 60% enriched uranium which serves no civilian purposes AFAIK, it is for military purposes.
Bibi has been saying Iran has had nukes since 1993. He may not be wrong now, but he has been for the last 32 years.
This is Bibi keeping himself out of jail and a little bit of fun for Trump.
Sure, but international observers are also saying it now.
Besides, Iraq *did* have WMD. We know that because they used them against the Kurds and Iran and we also know they were trying to develop nukes. What we didn't know in 2003 was whether they still had them because Saddam had done everything in his power to keep that question uncertain and provide no evidence either way.
BTW, I don't think this is remotely fun for Trump even now: he still doesn't like using force even if Netanyahu has convinced him that he needs to do it this time. It will get worse for Trump when the Regime doesn't fall like a pack of cards.
Yes, Trump is going to find bombing Iran a bit Shi’ite.
Tim Marshall's latest book (I think it's called The Power of Geography) has an interesting section on the history of Persia/Iran. Basically the regime is insane, but the country is almost invulnerable militarily due its geography.
Fake news.
We conquered Iran during WWII.
The lesson is that we can achieve anything when we're on the same side as the Russians.
It’s hard to believe the Vanilla spambot checker thinks you’re likely to be a Russian troll.
Indeed.
Most of us don't think it merely 'likely.'
Really.
I’m always wary of such things especially as some brain donor here has made a similar accusation of me.
I was not being entirely serious. Apart from anything else, he can spell and punctuate.
However, William does seem to like a good troll. He reminds me a bit of contrarian or possibly Hyufd in that way, with the important difference that he doesn't seem to altogether believe what he says.
There's a big difference between a troll and a zealot.
HYUFD is the latter, he is a true believer in what he says and nobody and no evidence will convince him otherwise.
William I suspect is the former. Hard to tell sometimes though.
I little bit ironic that you are accuse others of being a zealot!
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Not entirely, Stride is on the Cameroon Sunakite wing of the party so unlikely to have excessive negatives for a Tory. As a fiscal conservative he might win back a few who voted for Rishi, have since gone Reform but are concerned by some of Farage's spending pledges.
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
If the PCP tried to vote in Stride in preference to Jenrick over the heads of the membership there would be an effing riot. The party would just leave the PCP en masse, and it would become another Change UK - a grouping of MPs with no grassroots and only their personalities and looks to recommend them. Even Tory MPs aren't that stupid - this idea of yours is wholly fanciful and I have no idea where you're getting it from.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
There are documented cases of women carrying to full term and being unaware of it. So there must be a vast number of women who miscarry in the 2nd or 3rd month while being unaware. Such miscarriages are excluded from the figures.
When I was concerned with these things (professionally) the amount of innocence apparently widespread was surprising.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The uk abortion rate per conception is not even particularly unusual. In Canada, it’s 33%. Incidentally the only other notable country to have decriminalised full term abortion. But it’s at around UK levels in France, Germany, the US etc…
Listen to the media show today. Bezos who is having his wedding in Venice and has booked every hotel room there says it will be good for Venice and will help put it on the map!
Americans have completely lost their marbles. The less the UK has to do with them the better.
I think that’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with Tucker. Need to wash my mouth out with soap
Listen to the media show today. Bezos who is having his wedding in Venice and has booked every hotel room there says it will be good for Venice and will help put it on the map!
Americans have completely lost their marbles. The less the UK has to do with them the better.
I think that’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with Tucker. Need to wash my mouth out with soap
At this moment in time my daughter and eldest granddaughter are on holiday in Venice
It ends with the summary: "Basically, the system operator got it very wrong in terms of voltage control."
It's also interesting that there were problems with the grid in the hours up to the outage.
System operator? Just one person making the decisions for the electricity supply for 55 million people. You'd think there would be a team so that if one person gets it wrong the others would take a different view.
Using the Swiss Cheese Model idea, *if* one person had that much responsibility and it led to this issue, then that's actually a systematic failure as well. And perhaps a more important causal factor than what the person did.
But in this case, I'd guess that 'system operator' would refer to the company or division that was responsible, not an individual person.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
It would be hilarious if he stood in a 'safe' seat and lost, which is a real possibility
I know I would enjoy the aftermath
Unlikely, if he increased the Tory voteshare by 4% from the GE as his favourability suggests he would likely increase its majority
Posting BS up here doesn’t make it more likely to be true. Just ask Leon.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Not entirely, Stride is on the Cameroon Sunakite wing of the party so unlikely to have excessive negatives for a Tory. As a fiscal conservative he might win back a few who voted for Rishi, have since gone Reform but are concerned by some of Farage's spending pledges.
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
If the PCP tried to vote in Stride in preference to Jenrick over the heads of the membership there would be an effing riot. The party would just leave the PCP en masse, and it would become another Change UK - a grouping of MPs with no grassroots and only their personalities and looks to recommend them. Even Tory MPs aren't that stupid - this idea of yours is wholly fanciful and I have no idea where you're getting it from.
There wouldn't, latest ConHome survey had Stride with a +34% rating with party members and of course party members rejected Jenrick for Kemi in the first place.
There is simply no poll evidence Jenrick can win back lots of Reform voters from Farage, Stride may at least hold those who voted for Rish last year and get the Tories back to the mid twenties. Far more Tory MPs hate Jenrick than hate Stride too.
It ends with the summary: "Basically, the system operator got it very wrong in terms of voltage control."
It's also interesting that there were problems with the grid in the hours up to the outage.
If it was cyber attack, would we ever be told it was? Can such things actually be publicly admitted?
As nuclear weapons were being created and developed, they were being tested. If people were creating and developing cyber weapons, such as to take down a nations power grid, how would they know they hold one, without testing?
Well, from the English summary of the report I've seen, there were precursors to this issue, and the reaction to those smaller issues led to the larger failure hours later. So I'd expect there to be lots of lovely data pointing at what happened at the various plants and sites.
The problem with testing cyber weapons before you use them in anger is that, if they are detected, countermeasures can often be quite easily implemented. A while back I posited that this is why Russia's cyberattacks have not been as fierce as I expected; they'd already been doing a lot of attacks over the last decade or so, and interested people were aware of the attack vectors and most had closed them.
I quite like Boris, but his time has come and gone, and let's face it, he f*cked up being PM. Also, no one will forgive him for the Boriswave
Soz Boz
Mayor of London he should go for.
Boris has been there done that and he wouidn't be bothered to do it again having done it for 8 years, post Brexit London wouldn't elect him anyway. Even when Boris won a UK majority in 2019 he still lost London to Labour.
Cleverly might go for London Mayor though
I know your thoughts on this and you know mine. James Cleverly would be fine, but not a slither of hope in rolling the Reform vote into his. Boris is the only Tory who has got a chance (and it's not a done deal, just a chance) of uniting Reform, Tories, and genuine floating (and perhaps even non) voters. Whether that would put him over the line I don't know, but it would be more than any other Tory would get.
There aren't many Reform voters in London, indeed it is the only UK region where the Conservatives and Labour still are the top 2 in polls there
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
I don't think we can argue with that. I would be very disappointed if Akrotiri is used. US bombers can fly from Israel.
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
Don't make the mistake of fighting the last war.
Iraq did not have WMDs, Iran is seeking not just WMDs but nuclear weapons. Iran was breaching its obligations and had 60% enriched uranium which serves no civilian purposes AFAIK, it is for military purposes.
Bibi has been saying Iran has had nukes since 1993. He may not be wrong now, but he has been for the last 32 years.
This is Bibi keeping himself out of jail and a little bit of fun for Trump.
Sure, but international observers are also saying it now.
Besides, Iraq *did* have WMD. We know that because they used them against the Kurds and Iran and we also know they were trying to develop nukes. What we didn't know in 2003 was whether they still had them because Saddam had done everything in his power to keep that question uncertain and provide no evidence either way.
BTW, I don't think this is remotely fun for Trump even now: he still doesn't like using force even if Netanyahu has convinced him that he needs to do it this time. It will get worse for Trump when the Regime doesn't fall like a pack of cards.
Yes, Trump is going to find bombing Iran a bit Shi’ite.
Tim Marshall's latest book (I think it's called The Power of Geography) has an interesting section on the history of Persia/Iran. Basically the regime is insane, but the country is almost invulnerable militarily due its geography.
Fake news.
We conquered Iran during WWII.
The lesson is that we can achieve anything when we're on the same side as the Russians.
It’s hard to believe the Vanilla spambot checker thinks you’re likely to be a Russian troll.
Indeed.
Most of us don't think it merely 'likely.'
Really.
I’m always wary of such things especially as some brain donor here has made a similar accusation of me.
I was not being entirely serious. Apart from anything else, he can spell and punctuate.
However, William does seem to like a good troll. He reminds me a bit of contrarian or possibly Hyufd in that way, with the important difference that he doesn't seem to altogether believe what he says.
There's a big difference between a troll and a zealot.
HYUFD is the latter, he is a true believer in what he says and nobody and no evidence will convince him otherwise.
William I suspect is the former. Hard to tell sometimes though.
I little bit ironic that you are accuse others of being a zealot!
It takes one to know one, I'm a true believer in everything I write.
Though its rare (as it is for us all) I have changed my mind here on a number of occasions.
Though I can be stubborn and argumentative, I wouldn't question that.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
What would you do with the 200,000 unwanted babies a year? Put them all in the care system?
Not one of you has mentioned today is the anniversary of The Battle of Waterloo.
The UK’s role has always been at the heart of Europe leading a massive European alliance.
No the UK's role has always been at the head of an ad-hoc and temporary coalition of the willing to fight a corrupt, incompetent, despotic and, above all, French European superstate.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Not entirely, Stride is on the Cameroon Sunakite wing of the party so unlikely to have excessive negatives for a Tory. As a fiscal conservative he might win back a few who voted for Rishi, have since gone Reform but are concerned by some of Farage's spending pledges.
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
If the PCP tried to vote in Stride in preference to Jenrick over the heads of the membership there would be an effing riot. The party would just leave the PCP en masse, and it would become another Change UK - a grouping of MPs with no grassroots and only their personalities and looks to recommend them. Even Tory MPs aren't that stupid - this idea of yours is wholly fanciful and I have no idea where you're getting it from.
There wouldn't, latest ConHome survey had Stride with a +34% rating with party members and of course party members rejected Jenrick for Kemi in the first place.
There is simply no poll evidence Jenrick can win back lots of Reform voters from Farage, Stride may at least hold those who voted for Rish last year and get the Tories back to the mid twenties. Far more Tory MPs hate Jenrick than hate Stride too.
I think this is a pretty shrewd analysis. If Kemi goes the Tories really need a "prime ministerial" candidate the party can unite behind. Could be Cleverly, could be Stride. Not Jenrick tho. It needs to be someone who, personally, contrasts with Farage and attracts the support of traditional Tories wary of populism. Rebuilding the Boris coalition is not an option.
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Not entirely, Stride is on the Cameroon Sunakite wing of the party so unlikely to have excessive negatives for a Tory. As a fiscal conservative he might win back a few who voted for Rishi, have since gone Reform but are concerned by some of Farage's spending pledges.
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
If the PCP tried to vote in Stride in preference to Jenrick over the heads of the membership there would be an effing riot. The party would just leave the PCP en masse, and it would become another Change UK - a grouping of MPs with no grassroots and only their personalities and looks to recommend them. Even Tory MPs aren't that stupid - this idea of yours is wholly fanciful and I have no idea where you're getting it from.
There wouldn't, latest ConHome survey had Stride with a +34% rating with party members and of course party members rejected Jenrick for Kemi in the first place.
There is simply no poll evidence Jenrick can win back lots of Reform voters from Farage, Stride may at least hold those who voted for Rish last year and get the Tories back to the mid twenties. Far more Tory MPs hate Jenrick than hate Stride too.
I think this is a pretty shrewd analysis. If Kemi goes the Tories really need a "prime ministerial" candidate the party can unite behind. Could be Cleverly, could be Stride. Not Jenrick tho. It needs to be someone who, personally, contrasts with Farage and attracts the support of traditional Tories wary of populism. Rebuilding the Boris coalition is not an option.
Agreed, without Boris certainly. The Tories should be aiming for fiscally conservative middle class voters wary of Reform populism but angry with Labour's tax rises
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The uk abortion rate per conception is not even particularly unusual. In Canada, it’s 33%. Incidentally the only other notable country to have decriminalised full term abortion. But it’s at around UK levels in France, Germany, the US etc…
It sounds remarkably high, but it's one of those stats that makes sense when you think about it:
Most women who are having sex do not want to conceive. So you've got contraception failure rate multiplied by a very large number. This is probably higher than we realise, because some women cannot utilise some forms of contraception
Only a very small number of women are trying to conceive. Of them, a proportion will be aborted for some medical issue.
Of those wanting a family, a significant proportion of that time is actually being pregnant, so there are relatively few conceptions for those women
Some are a result of sexual assault (which may be much higher within relationships/familys than is revealed in the stats, and not subject to a stable contraception regime)
I'm not sure how the stats work, but there has been a huge drop in teen mothers. I think that's primarily due to less sex and better education, but is abortion contributing too?
I was compared to David Cameron by somebody who knows him.
'Neither of you have ever been plagued by self doubt have you?'
Because of that over confidence from Dave we have Brexit, he thought after the 2014 Scottish referendum scraped a Union win he would easily win another referendum for Remain and put Farage back in his box too. He failed on both counts
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
I was compared to David Cameron by somebody who knows him.
'Neither of you have ever been plagued by self doubt have you?'
Because of that over confidence from Dave we have Brexit, he thought after the 2014 Scottish referendum scraped a Union win he would easily win another referendum for Remain and put Farage back in his box too. He failed on both counts
Yes, quite, that insouciant over-rating of his own expertise was actually the downfall of Cameron. He only just got away with Scottish indy, and - filled with undeserved self esteem - he then completely fucked the puppy on Brexit. He is a grand failure. I'm not sure why @TSE is keen to be compared to him on this metric
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
I think the words are looking for are "what an absolute c***!"
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
I thought he was an emigrant himself these days?
Yes, now lives in Mississippi. But like many emigrants (of all types) feels more invested in the politics of the Old Place
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Not entirely, Stride is on the Cameroon Sunakite wing of the party so unlikely to have excessive negatives for a Tory. As a fiscal conservative he might win back a few who voted for Rishi, have since gone Reform but are concerned by some of Farage's spending pledges.
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
If the PCP tried to vote in Stride in preference to Jenrick over the heads of the membership there would be an effing riot. The party would just leave the PCP en masse, and it would become another Change UK - a grouping of MPs with no grassroots and only their personalities and looks to recommend them. Even Tory MPs aren't that stupid - this idea of yours is wholly fanciful and I have no idea where you're getting it from.
There wouldn't, latest ConHome survey had Stride with a +34% rating with party members and of course party members rejected Jenrick for Kemi in the first place.
There is simply no poll evidence Jenrick can win back lots of Reform voters from Farage, Stride may at least hold those who voted for Rish last year and get the Tories back to the mid twenties. Far more Tory MPs hate Jenrick than hate Stride too.
I think this is a pretty shrewd analysis. If Kemi goes the Tories really need a "prime ministerial" candidate the party can unite behind. Could be Cleverly, could be Stride. Not Jenrick tho. It needs to be someone who, personally, contrasts with Farage and attracts the support of traditional Tories wary of populism. Rebuilding the Boris coalition is not an option.
Agreed, without Boris certainly. The Tories should be aiming for fiscally conservative middle class voters wary of Reform populism but angry with Labour's tax rises
I've been puzzled by the ScotCon party never focussing on the 'small c', slightly paternal, "let's not rock the boat" vote that's out there. The "You're running a small local business? Great!" line. It feels like a natural fit - and also a gap 'in the market'.
But instead they seem doomed at the next Holyrood election just chasing ghosts and shadows as they try and out-Reform, Reform.
Their new leader - who's name I can't even remember - seems hell bent on making their reputation even worse.
Not one of you has mentioned today is the anniversary of The Battle of Waterloo.
The UK’s role has always been at the heart of Europe leading a massive European alliance.
Against the French ...
But inside Europe
I did recall the day when I noted the date earlier, but frankly it was all such a long time ago. No one keeps Crecy Day, or Potiers Day, and they were far more truly English victories.
Comments
I'm just begging people to consider that a "multipolar" world order will see *more* of these kinds of wars not fewer
https://nitter.poast.org/tobiaschneider/status/1935297320960278623#m
If you want to get somewhere specific, then you like 8 billion other people may desire to get somewhere specific and for that you can apply for a visa.
Some people are openly supportive of essentially open borders for all, but there are others who unintentionally argue that if suggesting any kind of restriction (be it first safe country or just limits) is unreasonable, and I don't think the latter is the case.
1. On a factual basis the fact that I keep moving doesn't mean the reason why fled wasn't to escape the pogrom
2. On a legal basis I have no requirement to do that. Sometimes the second country I go to will have a legal right to send me back to the first country I passed through but that doesn't mean I'm doing anything illegal
Not one of you has mentioned today is the anniversary of The Battle of Waterloo.
The UK’s role has always been at the heart of Europe leading a massive European alliance.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
"This woman was jailed for 8 years in 2012 for aborting her healthy baby at 39 weeks so her husband would not find out it was the result of an affair.
Now perfectly legal."
https://x.com/LoftusSteve/status/1935367246861259128
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
But in any case it's not the law. Refugees can claim asylum anywhere. Not claiming asylum in the first safe country they get to doesn't make them illegal immigrants either by law or by common sense. It's just made-up bullshit.
Anyone who enters the country without permission to do so is breaking the law.
Those who are fleeing a safe country lack permission.
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
I have zero time for any country which treats women in such a despicable way , the same can also be said of countries like Saudi Arabia .
English officer: Brave French! You have done all that honour demands. His Grace the Duke of Wellington wishes to spare your life. Do you consent to surrender?
French soldier: Merde! La Garde Meurt Mais Ne Se Rend Pas! / Shit! The Guard dies: it does not surrender!
(The surrounding troops withdraw, revealing cannon pointed at the French. They fire...)
I appreciate this is favourability, so not tied to the likelihood of it happening - but it feels to me that any Next Leader betting/polling/punditry extolling a Johnson comeback massively underplays the impact of not being a current MP (as TSE mentions).
Unless the Tories change their rules to take a flyer on an outsider and then find them a safe seat (a la Carney), it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that Johnson would faff around to find a backbench seat he had no interest in representing, winning a by-election (seeing off the threat of humiliation by Reform or a Lib Dem), AND then go on to win a leadership election which would be hypothetical at the point he committed to the process.
Even if he wasn't bone idle and poorly organised, it'd be a big ask.
(Same with Burnham for Labour, btw - not at all idle, but the optics of hanging on to the mayoralty while he worked his way down that same road, or the gamble of not doing so, weaken that possibility to homeopathic dilutions too IMO)
It needs to be finished even if it takes to the late 2030s (Birmingham to Euston)
It also seems Farage and Reform have misjudged the public's mood on the 2 child benefit cap by supporting it's abolition
I know I would enjoy the aftermath
Listen to the media show today. Bezos who is having his wedding in Venice and has booked every hotel room there says it will be good for Venice and will help put it on the map!
Americans have completely lost their marbles. The less the UK has to do with them the better.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
How's your day going.
Where I came in was that people were claiming people who claimed asylum after passing through another safe country were illegal immigrants. They're not, and people should stop saying this. Googling this up this doesn't seem to be true? As far as I can tell if you're genuinely seeking asylum you can legally arrive by an irregular route, provided you identify yourself to the authorities when you arrive.
On your second - well, yes, but why do left wingers always need to find some subgroup which is harmed before they will allow that a regime or a policy is terrible? The Islamicofascists are a nightmare for almost everyone. Yes, bad for women, but surely opposition isn't dependent on just that?
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
Turn it into the world's most advanced cycle route if you're worried about the scar. You'll get massive returns just from the health benefits, for very little additional cost.
Cleverly might go for London Mayor though
An interesting question is *why* there are so many abortions.
I posted the previous link for context of the case @Leon highlighted from X. I have also posted a link here if other cases. I have not posted my views on any of this because I do not feel qualified, particularly because I am a man and appreciate it is heart rendering stuff and appalling for the women and unborn babies involved.
I think those pontificating should bear in mind the mental pain the women involved go through in these circumstances. It is far to easy to condemn from our keyboards particularly if we are men.
Added to this, much of MAGA and indeed mainstream Republicans are isolationist. Trump risks fracturing his own base before the midterms.
Trump's problem now is that Bibi as well as the neocons want to lure in American might. Trump so far has stopped at issuing an ultimatum, or at least implying Israel had a de facto ultimatum on Iran.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
So there must be a vast number of women who miscarry in the 2nd or 3rd month while being unaware. Such miscarriages are excluded from the figures.
On the substance of it, in 2016-2020 Iran had far fewer centrifuges and far less fissile material. And it had a fearsome regional terror network it could fight back with.
Things change innit
Or
"Fake News" in French
Kent v Gloucestershire T20 stopped due to the sun
But in this case, I'd guess that 'system operator' would refer to the company or division that was responsible, not an individual person.
There is simply no poll evidence Jenrick can win back lots of Reform voters from Farage, Stride may at least hold those who voted for Rish last year and get the Tories back to the mid twenties. Far more Tory MPs hate Jenrick than hate Stride too.
Jenrick's best chance of becoming leader is if both the Conservatives and Reform lose the next general election and the Tory leader and Farage resign so he has a chance of uniting the right as Conservative leader, probably against a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs and Greens
https://conservativehome.com/2025/05/16/our-survey-kemi-badenoch-falls-to-nil-point-rating-in-our-latest-shadow-cabinet-league-table/
The problem with testing cyber weapons before you use them in anger is that, if they are detected, countermeasures can often be quite easily implemented. A while back I posited that this is why Russia's cyberattacks have not been as fierce as I expected; they'd already been doing a lot of attacks over the last decade or so, and interested people were aware of the attack vectors and most had closed them.
IMV it certainly was not a cyberattack.
Though its rare (as it is for us all) I have changed my mind here on a number of occasions.
Though I can be stubborn and argumentative, I wouldn't question that.
https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/5357377-trump-rfk-lgbtq-youth-suicide-hotline-trevor-project/
They've been playing so embarrassingly badly in the T20 this season even Yorkshire would probably beat them.
I was compared to David Cameron by somebody who knows him.
'Neither of you have ever been plagued by self doubt have you?'
Douglas Carswell is literally calling for the mass deportation of UK Pakistanis
"Mass deportation of Pakistanis from Britain. I don’t care how long you’ve lived here. Out"
https://x.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1934690056972927353
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
But inside Europe
That line of argument would suggest that anything short of mass murder is acceptable in a democracy.
This is a deeply foolish tweet by him, at best
But instead they seem doomed at the next Holyrood election just chasing ghosts and shadows as they try and out-Reform, Reform.
Their new leader - who's name I can't even remember - seems hell bent on making their reputation even worse.