Assuming Morduant gets it
she's going to the Tory old boys Thatcher v2 pin up gal that they spaff over
Liz Truss just staring into space and saying delivering delivering delivering
Is that a la Hannibal Lecter?
The more I hear about that Woke, and piece together what it means from reading between the lines of the foaming swivel-eyed loons, the more I think it's for me.
LOL! Reducing cost of living! (<- that's from Liz Truss) Ya, I want to see which govt in this world can achieve that at the moment. Consider themselves lucky they are heading in the direction of Sri Lanka.
I like Kemi Badenoch as I think she can do the PM job but I have a feeling it is not her time yet (need more experience).
I think Kemi Badenoch should be PM/deputy PM or at least give her more experience to prove herself. (Yes, she is young hence more experience needed especially the role of PM)
Penny Mordaunt is still the favourite, IMO, but she needs to be strong.
I think the Tories have already accepted they will loose the next election, its absolutely in their interest to chuck this whole shit show over the fence to Labour.
This economy needs a radical overhaul, no one had the bollocks to do it including Labour. The level of long term investment required dwarfs Covid and the Tories dont want a well paid, educated electorate. Labour need to become very radical/very quickly if they get into power... this will involves billons into education, housing infrastructure, renewables etc. However we have a problem which no one ever talks about... we dont have enough two legged assets... to grow an economy you need resource including humans... contrary to all the right wing brexit bollocks we need skilled immigration and those people need a long term future here not as migrant/visa workers.
I think the Tories have already accepted they will loose the next election, its absolutely in their interest to chuck this whole shit show over the fence to Labour.
Labour will just be as bad especially if they start banging on reducing cost of living, a unicorn dream, and green credential (carbon emission etc). Generally speaking Labour is only good when the world economy is doing well and there is some sense of world economy stability, but given that the current world economy is rather challenging I doubt having a Labour govt can do better if not worst.
Labour need to become very radical/very quickly if they get into power…
LOL! Radical? I seriously doubt they can think out of the box especially with their current leader.
we dont have enough two legged assets… to grow an economy you need resource including humans…
You have enough, more than enough, but a Labour govt just chain them harder to prevent them from flourishing.
contrary to all the right wing brexit bollocks we need skilled immigration and those people need a long term future here not as migrant/visa workers.
Yes we do but even now when that is very obvious to some the average voters will still be whining about too many immigrants
Yes we do but even now when that is very obvious to some the average voters will still be whining about too many immigrants
Essentially, you are implying or saying average voters have no talent? Is that the view of Labour supporters or Labour party?
If Kemi is so anti-woke what was she doing at the equalities ministry? As she’s for small government she’ll want to get rid of it?
This economy needs a radical overhaul, no one had the bollocks to do it including Labour. The level of long term investment required dwarfs Covid and the Tories dont want a well paid, educated electorate. Labour need to become very radical/very quickly if they get into power… this will involves billons into education, housing infrastructure, renewables etc. However we have a problem which no one ever talks about… we dont have enough two legged assets… to grow an economy you need resource including humans… contrary to all the right wing brexit bollocks we need skilled immigration and those people need a long term future here not as migrant/visa workers.
Yep, agree with all of this. I don't think any of it is remotely feasible in a 21st century democracy, would require many unpopular choices that would be guaranteed vote losers, anything that requires tax/investment or that doesn't see spectacular returns within 4 years will be doomed to fail. You could argue 'why Brexit' in that instance but it was easy to lie about the positives of Brexit whereas the right wing media have all the ammunition they already need against any sort of progressive measures involving higher taxes (commies!) more houses (house prices falling!) green energy (you'll run out of battery and freeze to death on the motorway!) immigration (immigants!) education (wokesters!) etc. etc. etc. Would require an incredibly charismatic leader and some sort of seismic shift in the electorate and media.
Frankly given how little (in the grand scheme of things) someone like Obama with a bit of charisma and the popular vote achieved, we're screwed.
Essentially, you are implying or saying average voters have no talent? Is that the view of Labour supporters or Labour party?
I am saying we need more people to do the jobs that need to be done. The average voters, and you by the look of it, don't understand that and still see immigration as a bad thing rather than as a critically required thing.
As for your second line of nonsense, you had better ask them as I am a Green supporter.
Piers Morgan (all you need to know really) coined the idea of ‘woke’
You're giving that useless **** far too much credit here. It's a term that was used by (American) black people for decades, usually with reference to avoiding racism and state-enabled violence. Here's Erykah Badu using it in a tweet from 10 years ago -
https://twitter.com/fatbellybella/status/233215131876724736
Yes, Woke is a good thing to be (unless you are racist or don't care about being socially aware). It has been twisted into somehow being a negative thing.
If they accept that they will lose the next GE, then they head their worst leader to be next PM then, so the better one can lead the party after they lose?
They posted this interview with Penny Mordaunt’s constituents earlier today. It’s full of face palms moments…
Yvonne was brilliant lol
If Kemi is so anti-woke what was she doing at the equalities ministry? As she’s for small government she’ll want to get rid of it?
You've answered your own question there. It's not unusual for a government (usually Tory) to appointment a minister who hates their own brief, because the government hates that brief too. For example putting a climate change denier in charge of the environment, that sort of thing
I agree we are screwed... at least for the next 25 years... i doubt i will see a positive change in my lifetime.
I think the Tories have already accepted they will loose the next election,
I don't think that's the case at all. They'll be looking at the polls, trying to work out how they aren't further behind in the polls, then look at who they are up against and breathe a sigh of relief.
You’re giving that useless **** far too much credit here. It’s a term that was used by (American) black people for decades, usually with reference to avoiding racism and state-enabled violence. Here’s Erykah Badu using it in a tweet from 10 years ago –
Yeah, I realised this almost immediately after I posted as I went searching for the very article I thought I'd read about Piers Morgan. He might have coined (or re-invigorated) the use of the word 'snowflake' rather than 'woke' perhaps.
I do like the various definitions of 'woke' that appear on Google, all very succinct and very hard to argue as a bad thing in any (reasonable) light!
"aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"
They’ll be looking at the polls, trying to work out how they aren’t further behind in the polls, then look at who they are up against and breathe a sigh of relief.
Yup. A Techne poll out today gives Labour a 9% lead, that's down from Labour's 12% lead last Friday.
So the Tories are clawing back support despite no one knowing who the Tory leader will be in a few weeks times.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Tories to assume that once they have a new leader the Labour poll lead could very likely disappear.
After all Labour's lead has always been based on the unpopularity of the Tories rather than the popularity of Labour.
A new leader could change that for the Tories unless Labour starts convincing voters that it is policies that is the issue not who leads the Tories. Without offering any significantly different policies Labour are going to struggle with that. Although let's be fair Labour aren't really offering any policies at all. Their entire strategy has been based on attacking Johnson's integrity.
13th
That why we need an independent Scotland
Folk will follow that path hete
Labours issue is that Blair turned them into a party obsessed with following the public mood via focus groups. The idea of leading the public got thrown out.
Bevan and co led the public mood. This lot follow it and leave leadership to the right wing tory press
Even Wilson led the public mood
Ultimately it’s an amazingly effective tool
Of course it is. It's exactly the same tool that screaming "project fear!" was during the brexit discussions, It's the manipulative empowering the cretins.
It seeks to ridicule an opponent without requiring a shred of further argument or evidence and it's effective because it's simply too ****ing braindead to argue against. Who knew that History Today would prove to be so prescient.
After all Labour’s lead has always been based on the unpopularity of the Tories rather than the popularity of Labour.
I think they looked at what happened in the US and thought not being Boris was going to be enough. Biden didn't offer the electorate anything but being "not Trump". Now it is just business as usual, corporate welfare while working people struggle, Bidens approval rating is a historic low and the 15 million people who hadn't voted in previous elections have already been lost.
The tories and reps really don't need to make such efforts to steal elections, when labour and the dems are willing to cast aside millions of voters to appease the corporate paymasters. The disenfranchised are massively outweigh the numbers of mythical swing voters, but earning those votes requires upsetting the status quo.
I'm no economist (trust me) but considering that those facing the cost of living crisis for the most part pay little or no tax, surely giving those who aren't struggling a tax break means that they will spend more and cause inflation to rise even higher, thus hitting the poor even harder?
There's a phrase we associate with the American war of independence: 'No taxation without representation'
It also works the other way as well, "No representation without taxation." One of the major ways in which wages have been surpressed is by lowering tax thresholds, (though not consumptive taxes, which always hit the poor hardest).
This creates a divided society, where the affluent see themselves as 1st class citizens because they pay more tax, whilst they look upon the low paid, who pay little income tax and see them as 2nd class citizens, even though the poor are working every hour that God sends to both try and make ends meet and keep the country running.
Who knew that History Today would prove to be so prescient.
I very much enjoyed this reference
Liz off to a dreadful start. Maybot 2.0
Current Labour would struggle to win a ‘who’s got the knobbliest knees’ competition! 😀
I suspect under Corbyn they'd have won that easily. I've never seen his knees but instinctively I know they're knobbly
20 seconds is all I could stomach.
Truss just said she'd take from pensions to build business by having variable tax regions.
Is Truss capable of speaking without continually doing the whole "hands emphasising and punctating every single point" thing? My word it's annoying.
variable tax regions
Another race to the bottom, as regions compete against each other to offer business tax cuts, great for the shareholders though.
Truss just said
She's fighting Putin. That was the 20 seconds. Sociopath
None of them came out of that looking good IMO. Multiple contrasting statements from each of them and they all found it very hard to not drop to slagging each other off.
I don't care which of them wins the title of PM, they're all completely useless.
I was hoping that after tonight's debate that I might discover why Mordaunt is apparently the Tory membership's runaway favourite candidate, however I'm none the wiser - she came across as both boring and uninspiring imo. She has never had much media coverage so I wonder if tonight's performance will have a negative impact on her appeal among Tory activists.
I was surprised that Truss preformed better than I had expected, I can understand why she has reasonable level of support among Tory MPs now - she has a script and appears to stick rigidly to it.
The most cringe inducing performance imo came from Badenoch - why ffs would you trust someone to sort out the country who on TV claims that she wasn't able to sort out her own cracked tooth??
If I was a floating voter with no idealogical committment I think I would have been most impressed with Sunak. Although only about 10 audience members said that the debate had made them more likely to vote Tory. I certainly wasn't impressed with Sunak's Tory priorities.
What an exhibition of mediocrity.
It's simple, the typical Tory member is old, white and male. If they play snog, marry, avoid Penny wins
So what was Boris Johnson's appeal?
Snog I presume, as I can't imagine it was marry.
Dammit, I'm a Penny fanboi but she's not done well there.
Rishi's 'I trust all of these people' was a smooooothe move.
I am impressed that Dr Andrew Gunn can remember what Margaret Thatcher was wearing in an election broadcast in 1979. Especially as judging from his photo he's only about 15 years old.
ernie - thatcher was well known for wearing pussy-bows; andrew gunn's age is irrelevant - he was clearly referring to truss's attempt to make a subliminal connection with thatcher.
An ubsubtle appeal to the pale, male and stale who comprise the vast majority of tory party members.
thatcher was well known for wearing pussy-bows
I had no idea. I didn't even know they were called "pussy-bows".
I need to pay more attention.
I'm still impressed that someone who looks so young was able to quickly identify a 1979 photo though.
I’m just glad that Suella Braverman is out, after reading about various quotes from her, which tended to indicate that she’d be our version of a female Trump. Not sure how true that actually is, because I’d never heard of her before this whole thing kicked off, but she appears to be an unpleasant piece of work.
but she appears to be an unpleasant piece of work.
They are all unpleasant pieces of work (they are going for leader of current tory party after all) they just try to hide it.
None of them believe in a fairer society and none of them actually gives a shit about anyone but themselves and their mates.
Tax cuts but only for business and top earners in the hope they will pay more overall if the %is lower.
Tax cuts but only for business and top earners
‘Twas ever thus.
Tom Tugendhat came across well last night. He was my pick from the outset. Rishi Sunak also came across well.
Tugendhat came across as honest and different. Sunak as details orientated. Two things we could really do with in Government leadership at the moment.
Agree, Tugendhat would be my pick but once in power it will be more tories gotta tory
Agree, Tugendhat would be my pick but once in power it will be more tories gotta tory
Pretty much. But given that TT would be the pick to suit the country you know full well that he isn't going to appeal to the tory membership whose sense of social responsibility ends about where their skin does.
In reality the rest of us are just hypothesising about how much lube each candidate would put on the rusty scaffold pole before it gets shoved up our collective backsides.
Maybe if the mps think that TT is a winner they will reform around him to have him up against Badenoch in the final 2 but that seems very high risk.
They are all unpleasant pieces of work (they are going for leader of current tory party after all) they just try to hide it.
You could argue that they're flaunting it because they know that's what Tory grassroots members want. Sure, there's a fine line where they're trying hard not to antagonise the wider public, but when the excrement collides with the air-moving machine, the MPs and the membership are what matters.
They'll be furious when they find out who's left the country in the terrible state it's in.
They’ll be furious when they find out who’s left the country in the terrible state it’s in.
That was Corbyn wasn't it?
I found that I was constantly distracted by Sunak's hugely impressive ears. I couldn't stop focusing on them. Both their size and their ability to so keenly face forward filled me with wonderment. Proper ears which no doubt do an excellent job.
Useful in hot weather too I would have thought.
none of them actually gives a shit about anyone but themselves and their mates.
It's worse than that, they don't think anyone else should give a shit about anyone else.
I’m a Penny fanbo
Curious why. Does she have some appealing policies? Or is it just because she's a woman?
Curious why. Does she have some appealing policies? Or is it just because she’s a woman?
Nope, it's because out of all the candidates, I fancy her the most. And she has nice hair. I don't actually know who she is.
Lets face it. I wouldn't actually vote for any of them so may as well have some fun with it. Ernie likes Rishi because of his impressive ears for example. Which is entirely valid.
Ernie likes Rishi
Well if the aim of the exercise was to choose the person with most impressive ears Sunak would definitely be my man.
However I did point out that I found Sunak's ears to be a distraction.
Based on the somewhat different criteria of who is the candidate most likely to shaft working people the least Tagnut Hatstand would be my choice.
He appears to be the least right-wing of the candidates although he does have imo a worrying obsession about running the country as you would a military operation. To add to my concern he has a fairly relaxed attitude concerning "the good guys" committing war crimes.
He won't win the leadership contest mind.
The Tories are not in control of anything. A continuation of failed slimly thought out ideas. Throwing a die on taxation. This failed and false idea of small state.
Why on earth dumbo Starmer is following their lead I will never know. All it does is doom us to Tory snakes and ladders.
Somebody needs to stand up and properly press the reset button.
TT would be any sane persons choice. But he’s a Lib Dem. Liz was a Lib Dem and her flexible principles and meaty communication skills will see her fade. Bad-enough is a nut job, lacking core appeal. So it’s Rishi vs Penny. Penny will walk it with the core party members. Like Boris - Once she’s on the ballot.
Yesterday she made it onto Dead Ringers. I recommend a listen. I’m not normally a huge fan, but it worked for me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00194cj
Why on earth dumbo Starmer is following their lead I will never know.
It's really not that difficult to understand - Starmer feels that the Tories have won the arguments.
And to be fair they have - whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant in the context of winning the argument.
There was an attempt recently to challenge the Tory narrative, and there was indeed initially some success with the Tories being forced to abandon the austerity argument.
But that radical alternative agenda ended being challenged not only by the Tories and their tabloid backers but also by the PLP itself.
The general consensus now is that the Tories have got everything largely right and the only question which remains to be answered is who is the most honest and trustworthy?
Some say it is the man who has broken every single one of the 10 pledges he made to become leader. Personally I can't really tell the difference.
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Likewise, raising tax on business just results in less investment / business growth so more of the same.
Tax cuts for business means more profit and increased dividends; companies could, of course, hire more and increase staff pay - but they don't.
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
cheddarchallenged
Full MemberTax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Or, y'know, send William Shatner into space
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Sorry; I lol’d. naivety in the extreme.
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Hire what people? It is claimed that UK unemployment is currently at its lowest level for almost 50 years. There are apparently more job vacancies than they are people available to fill them.
Job creation doesn't seem to be a necessary priority right now. But the cost of living crises and low wages clearly are.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that tax cuts for businesses as being suggested by the Tory leadership candidates are a great way to increase wages?
Is that the new Tory strategy - to support higher wages to tackle the cost of living crises?
If so the Tory candidates should surely be queuing up to publicly express their support for the RMT? They don't seem to be doing that.
Why on earth dumbo Starmer is following their lead I will never know.
Because under blair the party started using focus gruops to gauge public opinion. Trouble is this left them following public opinion which is set by the rightwing press.
For the current plp to admit this is the wrong approach and they should be leading with inspirational ideas means admitting that the last 20 years of their careers have been wasted doing the wrong things.
It all goes back to blair and the myths around him
Blair was always a tory in the wrong party
Would you have him back if the polls said he’d lead Labour to government again? There always seems to be rumours of a return.
There was a rumour recently that he was setting up a new party with Ruth Davidson.
Blair was always a tory in the wrong party
Not really from his point of view I reckon. Lawyers such as Blair and Starmer who decide to turn their hands at politics are more likely to be successful if they join the Labour Party than if they join the Tory Party imo.
Today's Labour Party will bend over backwards to find a safe seat for a successful barrister to contest, in contrast the Tory Party is likely to send them to the back of the queue.
Then there's the huge competition among public school/Oxbridge educated politicians to be members of a Tory Cabinet, and compare that with the competition among politicians to be in a Labour Cabinet.
Just look at Alan Johnson, for example, a state educated orphan who lived in a council flat and was a postman, he did end up as Chancellor of the Exchequer but his only redeeming quality was that he is a staunch right-winger, otherwise a public school/Oxbridge professional wallah after the job of Chancellor would have pissed it.
Obviously things have changed in recent years since New Labour as lawyers and other middle-class professionals have tighten their grip on the Labour Party, so competition is now getting tighter. But when Blair carved out his political career many Labour politician were still of state educated manual worker background.
It certainly made sense for him to join a political party where being a successful lawyer gave him far more leverage than being in the Tory Party would have done.
And he never did find the big scissors.
Inheritance tax, or rather the low rates of inheritance tax are massively responsible for the economic problems we are facing.
We have seen property values double or Triple since the 2007 banking crisis whilst wages have stood still or gone backwards.
All this does is divide society even further, the prospect of getting on the property ladder is a pipe dream for most younger people. Increased property values also puts enormous pressure on the rental sector, making wages worth even less.
All this does is put all the assets in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Interestingly, the reason that Rishi Rich is so rich (via his wifes fortune) is because India doesn't have inheritance tax at all.
There is a difference between earned wealth and made wealth, unfortunately, many pensioners with a property worth a million think they have earned it, that they worked hard for it amd deserve it when in fact it has been gifted to them by the way in which the economy has been managed.
I would argue that this displacement of wealth has more to do with the cost of living (in a house) crisis than any other factor and is the single most significant factor with regards increasing the wealth gap, yet the issue is never addressed.
We know why...
To get back on topic...unless she is on the receiving end of a miracle, it won't be truss; we'll be spared 'liz for leader' and thank god for that.
To get back on topic…unless she is on the receiving end of a miracle, it won’t be truss; we’ll be spared ‘liz for leader’ and thank god for that.
Currently i think the risk is still real: i don't think PM did as well as expected in the first debate which increases risk Truss will gain votes and frankly, i reckon if Truss is in the final 2 and it went to the Tory member vote, i reckon they'd pick Truss
ERG would love an incredibly weak PM like Truss to try and control.
Today’s Labour Party will bend over backwards to find a safe seat for a successful barrister to contest, in contrast the Tory Party is likely to send them to the back of the queue.
But a quick google, before white wine took over, shows these tories, obviously the back of the queue is not a barrier to success?
Bob Neil mp
Suella Braverman QC mp
Jeremy Wright QC mp
Geoffrey Cox QC mp
Robert Buckland Qc mp
And that ^^ is of course precisely my point - being a QC gives you very little advantage when joining the Tories, a party bursting at the seams with public school/Oxbridge professionals, it does however give you significant advantages of you decide to join the Labour Party instead.
Tony Blair probably made a very wise career move when he decided to enter politics via the Labour Party. If he had chosen to do it via the Tory Party he quite likely would not have ended up Prime Minister.
Edit : And Starmer would similarly have made the correct decision to enter politics via the Labour Party - being the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service will have given him huge kudos in the LP. Although as I mentioned earlier that advantage has slowly been eroded as the Labour Party becomes more and more the party of the professional classes.