Your point was
the Tory Party is likely to send them to the back of the queue.
That’s quite obviously not the case.
That’s quite obviously not the case.
I reckon it is very much the case. You obviously don't agree which is fair enough, but the list that you provided in no way proves that they didn't join the back of the queue. Only that they eventually got to the front.
Btw my comments are not directed at all public school/Oxbridge professionals who have joined the Labour Party, just the obvious careerists such as Tony Blair. I have no doubt Tam Dalyell who was Eton and Cambridge educated, for example, was motivated primarily by strong conviction rather than career.
i reckon if Truss is in the final 2 and it went to the Tory member vote, i reckon they’d pick Truss
I agree, Truss is definitely still in with a reasonable chance
I hope they pick Truss as she is gives the Tories a better chance of losing.
I hope they pick Truss as she is gives the Tories a better chance of losing.
And burn the UK to the ground en-route to doing so. No matter who wins, I'll repeat my earlier point, I'm terrified. (As much as anything due in large part to the abject lack of proper opposition from any quarter)
If Liz Truss wins it won't be easy but I am sure that Keir Starmer will prove that he is more pro-business and low taxation than her. And of course more patriotic.
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.
Some background to the status of “QC”.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/november-2020/silk-but-no-silken-tongue/
Over the past 20 years, successive governments have found it increasingly difficult to find lawyers in parliament who are suitable to serve as one of the UK government’s three law officers — attorney general, solicitor general and advocate general for Scotland. Labour used to send QCs to the House of Lords and appoint them when an attorney general was needed: thus Lord Williams of Mostyn (1999-2001), Lord Goldsmith (2001-2007) and Baroness Scotland of Asthal (2007-2010). Another option was to pick a junior lawyer in the Commons and make that person a QC on appointment: for example, Harriet Harman MP (solicitor general 2001-2005); Mike O’Brien (solicitor general 2005-2007). Strikingly, O’Brien does not use his rank and practises as a junior barrister.
And burn the UK to the ground en-route to doing so. No matter who wins, I’ll repeat my earlier point, I’m terrified.
Still the same Tory party just another rustless leader without the joviality and get Brexit done Johnson appeal. The burning to the ground will not be any different, we have had 12 years of that.
Gobsmackingly barefaced liar even by Tory standards. Still, she has nice hair.
https://twitter.com/haggis_uk/status/1548599777285361665?s=21&t=nX2_R-qofeAe5AQ_bGQUqg
Misleading? She's definitely been in the NAAFI.
Why did they have another tv debate
when the votes over the next 3 days are just mps?
Why do they show football matches on Telly when you can’t affect the result 🙂
It's a softening up tactic to break the countries spirit.
All five are utterly hideous . you might not like Starmer but his description as a circus is bang on
Why do they show football matches on Telly when you can’t affect the result
I have no interest in football, but I appreciate some people do and get enjoyment from it.
As much as I like to see Tories at each other’s throats, ultimately we’re the ones to suffer for at least 2 more years.
The next 3 rounds are for mps & they’ve done hustings. They could have left this to the last 2. What new has come out over the 2 debates so far?
I missed it. Can anyone provide a brief summary? How was Penny’s hair? 😍
Can anyone provide a brief summary?
It's all someone else's fault x 5.
What Thatcher outfit was Liz wearing?
Since Thatch Tories have always gone for great hair, Penney's got it.
William Hague?
Gobsmackingly barefaced liar even by Tory standards
She was right though when she referred back to it being like the remain campaign in 2016.
They used facts she and the rest of the leavers used lies.
ultimately we’re the ones to suffer for at least 2 more years.
You have answered your own question - public interest in the Tory leadership contest is driven by the fact that whoever the winner is they will automatically become UK Prime Minister.
And I think it is fair to assume that there is public interest in the contest. Just clicking on a thread titled "So…who’s going to be our next PM?" suggests an interest, even among those who claim none.
Tom T seems very worried about the next election....
Kemi playing the ERG card... looking like its only a pair...
Liz struggling to read and talk at the same time....
Penny forgot to fetch her actual polices..
Rishi was well Rishi...
Kemi
I quite liked Kemi due to her cool glasses. She seems to have binned them off though recently. A grave mistake, I fear this may cost her.
FB-ATB
Full Member
Why did they have another tv debate
when the votes over the next 3 days are just mps?
It's called taking control of the narrative.
Not sure they took control of the narrative....
Yeah it's a process. Tory overload on the tele and a fresh new face to into the next election with. This is basically the start of their next election campaign that'll last the next 2 years.
Why did they have another tv debate
I suspect to give those tories who haven't yet tuned their TV since 1981 when the great Thatcher was in power a chance to see it as they don't have that liberal and depraved Channel 4 with their red triangle and all that.
Badendoch polling very well with Conservative home members
Her culture war front & centre stance making her v popular with the membership want
I watched the debate and thought it came across as a bunch of children squabbling with each other. All about winning, and who's the bestest. A fascinating insight into how broken the Tory Party is. Really makes you wonder how we got here, so many great minds in the world and yet we have this childish behavior running it.
Why did they have another tv debate
One reason might be data collection. MPs want to keep their jobs, and through public debates and polls they can accurately gauge who is going to get the most support from the public.
I don't think that Tory MPs can instruct Channel 4 or ITV to stage televised leadership debates. These decisions tend to be based on what the TV channels feel their viewers want to watch.
Tugendhat slipped in a reference to his time in the military, but maybe you missed it.
Truss went on and on about "delivery" - maybe she thinks Australian farmers have a vote, as they're the only one she's delivered for. Unless you count the big laugh she delivered for Sergei Lavrov when she didn't know where is in Russia and where is in Ukraine.
Unless you count the big laugh she delivered for Sergei Lavrov when she didn’t know where is in Russia and where is in Ukraine.
I struggle to believe she even knows where she is more than about 10% of the time.
I'm struggling to find any interest in the leadership contest personally.
It's always bad with the Tories no matter what shape it comes in. It's going to take years to repair the damage they've done - and they still haven't finished.
Although is this a new era of Leaders not lasting very long?
The party of law and order, and economic competence should really really fall apart by now.
If this is a MCU I feel we're not even at Infinity War yet.
Final debate cancelled as both sunak and truss have said they don't want to participate.
Replace with cardboard cut-outs or blocks of ice...
Third TV debate cancelled as Truss and Sunak have cried off!
Oh no... are we to be deprived of another bout of fantasy economics for a selection of half-wits?
I haven't actually watched any of the debates as unless you're a Tory party member I imagine it'll just wind you up seeing which idiot a bunch of very comfortably-off, senile old racists from Surrey will decide to foist on the rest of us.
Final debate cancelled as both sunak and truss have said they don’t want to participate.
They've realised (or more likely, someone in their campaign team has realised) that they have much more to lose than to gain by being on there. Often happens to the front runners.
They’ve realised (or more likely, someone in their campaign team has realised) that they have much more to lose than to gain by being on there
Guardian has a piece suggesting is partly due to them realising its a tad damaging for the party having them all shred each other. Providing lots of ammo to the opposition parties come election time.
Approx odds - Truss 3/1, Mordaunt 2/1, Sunak evens
realising its a tad damaging for the party having them all shred each other.
Yeah after setting out their stalls, which appear to be offering nothing really beyond tax cuts, there isn't much left to do other than to attack each other. Which had obvious appeal for me.
which idiot a bunch of very comfortably-off, senile old racists from Surrey will decide to foist on the rest of us.
For the third time in 6 years. You'd think we'd be used to these mid-term PM changes by now, and know the rules so well that BBC wouldn't need to remind us so often. 😀
Can the rest of us have a veto button?
Or we could select an amusing vegetable as it would make more sense.
It's the curse of first past the post politics.
It's the thought of the half wit bigot party lumbering on until its time to elect more of the same that depresses me.
Or we could select an amusing vegetable as it would make more sense.
As long as it's strong and stable..
Just a thought, but I'd hope that someone at Labour HQ would be costing these fantasy tax cuts and either be shouting that the Tories intend to bankrupt the country or detailing the cuts to services needed to fund them.
Maybe a bit much to hope that Labour might actually be able to profit from this...................
Maybe a bit much to hope that Labour might actually be able to profit from this……………….
Labour are very much exploiting this to project themselves as the party of fiscal prudence whilst the Tories are the spendthrift party.
At least it was making that case to senior German politicians and business leaders over the weekend:
Yeah after setting out their stalls, which appear to be offering nothing really beyond tax cuts,
Couldn't be more indicative economically why no ideas from all parties.
Thatcher set a rollercoaster in motion with the momentum of the state to strip.
Rollercoaster is crawling back to the station, and despite trying to take the brakes of even more - it's slowing to a crawl because the momentum has been used up.
In other news.
Good to see Johnson cant make the cobra meetings but did have time for a joyride in a typhoon at the weekend.
Just a thought, but I’d hope that someone at Labour HQ would be costing these fantasy tax cuts and either be shouting that the Tories intend to bankrupt the country or detailing the cuts to services needed to fund them.
Maybe a bit much to hope that Labour might actually be able to profit from this……………….
Although I feel your pain, it's not possible to bankrupt the country.
Some of the Tories know this in secret but keep the charade going of lack of money while chucking tax cuts out.
Labour can't deal with this unfortunately because they lack the balls to tell the truth that the country desperately needing spending rather than tax cuts. And are tracking the fiscal responsibility path so would now look like hypocrites.
Spending or tax cuts are two sides of the same coin - just that spending tends to benefit the less well off.
Either can be done currently. No party tells the truth and have got themselves in a mess about the direction of public money.
Labour are very much exploiting this to project themselves as the party of fiscal prudence whilst the Tories are the spendthrift party.
Its difficult to see how anyone other than Rishi can claim any kind of sensible fiscal policy when the rest of them are just having a competition to see who can promise the biggest uncosted, unfunded tax cuts despite it being completely nonsensical fantasy economics.
The blue-rinses might buy it, I don't think the electorate will.
Its just Magic Money Tree stuff
If the Labour Party were promising a fraction of this economic incontinence they'd be getting crucified by the press
seeing which idiot a bunch of very comfortably-off, senile old racists from Surrey will decide to foist on the rest of us.
It’s pretty depressing isn’t it. Have old people always been selfish pricks, or is this a new thing
I could almost give the previous generation a bit of leeway given their sacrifices, but todays pensioners* have have given nothing to this country and are in the process of royally shafting it
* obviously that’s a bit of a generalization
Because you are of a certain age does not mean you vote or think in a particular way. I am old but a lot more open minded than a lot of the car obsessed knobs posting on here. I have never voted tory or for brexit.
I worked in a university and have a low impact life style.
Don't generalise about the old. It's a n age not a state of mind.
Please think before you look for the next easy target to blame.
tpbiker - suggest you get the facts straight before posting idiotic generalisations.
Tory party membership is c200k of which 44% are 65 or over.
That means your sweeping generalisation is ignorant and uninformed as it rests on how approx 88,000 tory members will vote.
Why not spend time talking with older people to gain a better understanding?
To be fair it was binners who claimed that the next Tory leader will be chosen by senile old racists from Surrey.
tpbiker supportive comment did at least include the caveat :
* obviously that’s a bit of a generalization
It was massively more than '...a bit of a generalisation, but let's not allow the facts to get in the way.
Because you are of a certain age does not mean you vote or think in a particular way.
No, of course not....
Never understand the above...
Class ****ing traitors
its pretty simple, people are on the whole selfish* and younger people are on the whole poorer than older people. The tories are better if you're richer, and labour are better if you're poorer.
*this isn't always intentional, but if you're poor you're more likely to see the impact of funding for some housing project, and if you're rich you're more likely to feel the squeeze of increased tax on high earners. The rich fail to empathise with those who are too poor to afford housing, as they don't know any of them, and the poor fail to empathise with people who pay a 61% marginal tax rate, because they don't know any of them either. So you vote for the people who best represent you and those around you, which lines up pretty nicely with wealth, which lines up nicely with age.
If only it were that simple. Working class tory voters consistently returning them to power after being brainwashed by non dom tax dodging media barons? Kinda suggests that people will quite willingly vote against their own interests if they believe they are getting one over on the 'other'.
Piss poor education leads to gullible voters
Its difficult to see how anyone other than Rishi can claim any kind of sensible fiscal policy when the rest of them are just having a competition to see who can promise the biggest uncosted, unfunded tax cuts despite it being completely nonsensical fantasy economics.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1548731303801094146?t=8o6iXxxtFKf4CbSPhWp_QA&s=19
This is the trouble with "pay-for" economics.
Everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky thinks we need revenue to spend our own currency.
It's saddled the debate a mess of taxation politics that are as authentic as the Brexit argument.
If someone talks taxation these days up or down, or unfunded or fiscal prudence - it is simply being used to cause the electorate to concentrate on the fantasy of lack-of-money to deprive us of things so we argue over the crumbs.
All political parties should be sent back for economics classes.
Government spending drives taxation. It's that easy to grasp. And taxation makes us need the government's currency.
But it pays for nothing.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1548028638255144961?t=EDu6KiVA6WHDu1w084Ublw&s=19
The Tories have built their entire philosophy out of fiscal lies.
"There is no such thing as the public money... only taxpayers money."
Thatcher 1983.
Too much spending from the magic money tree does create inflation. You cannot print money indefinitely or you end up with hyper inflation
Kerley's Graph although it's tagged as YouGov is a article that originally appeared in The Times. Doesn't Murdock own The Times? Do you trust Murdock?
Too much spending from the magic money tree does create inflation. You cannot print money indefinitely or you end up with hyper
Yes I know this very well.
1)But nearly all historical cases of hyperinflation are led by lack of supply not too much money.
2)inflation sat at 2% and lower in this country for years until Covid supply issues. Despite over £800 billion of q/e.
3) Taxation controls inflation caused through too much money issuance through deleting £££.
4) when you say printing money what do you mean? Do you mean Q/E or regular government spending?
5) We don't print money. We issue currency every time the government spends. It's normal. It's the every day stuff of a modern fiat economy with a central bank.
6) can you give me a solid example that hasn't had supply side constraints and/or baulked economy that gave rise to hyperinflation?
7) And finally no one says that you can print money indefinitely. You have to have the resources and labour to take up the cash.
8) There's too many rumours doing the rounds of magic money tree myths currently which are misappropriations of government spending. The fact that growth is slumping should tell you there ain't too much money about.
tjagain
Full MemberToo much spending from the magic money tree does create inflation. You cannot print money indefinitely or you end up with hyper inflation
Yesss. But, we've been printing huge amounts for a decade now and we haven't seen the impacts that critics always predict. We're pretty confident it should happen in theory, but we have no idea when and it's become absolutely clear that everyone who declared it to be absolutely a bad idea bitd was wrong. So using it, with caution and checks in place, is pretty much the only sensible thing to do.
Of course, lots of people are trying to blame the current inflation on printing money, but most know it's not true.
It won't be TT.
printing money also has significant impact on the value of the currency compared to other currencies. Yes inflation is only spiking this year, but if the GBP was worth 20% more (like it was 3 years ago) then the total costs on imported goods (from bikes to petrol) would be significantly reduced
suggest you get the facts straight before posting idiotic generalisations.
Well firstly I acknowledged it was a generalization
However fact is the majority of over 70 year olds vote Tory, just like the majority voted for brexit
And given I hold the opinion that anyone who voted for either is a selfish ignorant prick, it stands to reason the majority of over 70s fall into that category
Not all though… hence why I said ‘generalization’..
printing money also has significant impact on the value of the currency compared to other currencies. Yes inflation is only spiking this year, but if the GBP was worth 20% more (like it was 3 years ago) then the total costs on imported goods (from bikes to petrol) would be significantly reduced
No it doesn't because the £££ is not pegged against anything. You don't dilute a currency just by issuing more of it providing there is stuff to purchase. A myth. And further not all money enters the market immediately. So government spending with money creation targets a project. The resources take up the slack of the new money.
Of course fiat currencies move based on supply and demand. But that's more about global trade than individual monetary operations.
Some world currencies are pegged against the dollar and governments borrow in a foreign currency. This definitely can create havoc.
Also inflation is not unique to the UK.
It would.good of people stopoed using the term printing money. It is being used interchangeably to describe:
A) Q/E buying bonds back with new money issued by the BOE since 2008
B) Regular new money creation which happens every time the government spends. For the last 40+ years.
Printing money has just become a catch all for specific money creation operations and doesn't explain what is happening accurately in different cases.
(The dollar being the reserve currency does have other complex attributes though.)
When the government / BOE replaced income with furlough. It was at 80% which was very clearly less than normal income levels. That's less money in circulation.
Tomorrow's vote could be interesting, will Sunak and Mordaunt risk asking some of their backers to vote for Badenoch, to try and eliminate Truss?
Seems to be a vibe that if Badenoch goes tomorrow, most of her voters will switch to Truss. Which then means Sunak Vs Truss to the members, which is probably Sunak's fiercest rival as far as members vote goes.
Can't they put Johnson on gardening leave. He's just going to be dmob happy for the next 3 months.
"Why not spend time talking with older people to gain a better understanding?"
Why not come to Surrey?
You'll realise he's right!
will Sunak and Mordaunt risk asking some of their backers to vote for Badenoch, to try and eliminate Truss?
I can think of one reason that Sunak might want the last 2 to be him and Badenoch. And one way to help that happen will be for some of his voters to back her.
The elder will vote conservative because they remember what it was like under Labour.
Should they ever get in again the graph will repeat itself as the young get older.
The young will eventually pay for the Labour magic money tree, while the elder may benefit but won’t have to pay the price.
because they remember what it was like under Labour.
Well they reckon that the unemployment and inflation rates today are the same as they were nearly fifty years ago ..... so that will be when the UK had a Labour government then.
Only now inequality is obviously far far worse than it was back then, and of course there weren't any food banks 50 years ago. But perhaps you don't remember?
Can’t they put Johnson on gardening leave. He’s just going to be dmob happy for the next 3 months
He’s got what he always wanted. He gets to be PM, without any of the responsibilities associated with that whatsoever. Just a massive jolly.
Let’s be honest , he’s not been far off it from the last 3 years. He’s done precious little other than the odd press conference, dressed in hi viz announcing 40 new hospitals, a nuclear reactor a week, a ladder to the moon, British air for British air-breathers
His taxpayer-funded official photographers are going to be pretty bloody busy during the upcoming extended episode of Jim’ll’ Fix It
His delusional ramblings this afternoon were the work of a man utterly detached from reality
He’s going to make Trumps final exit look dignified