New Tory Leader

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

 

24 minutes ago, king canary said:

Exactly that.

Starmer needed to nail his colours to the mast that they aren't going to try and reverse Brexit and then leave it at that for now.

Stay on the economy and out of the culture war mud.

Starmer has done exactly that. He has explicitly ruled out rejoining either the EU or the single market. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/04/starmer-ends-labour-silence-on-brexit-as-he-rules-out-rejoining-single-market

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-62034754

The ultra-rejoiners are going a bit spare about it. 

https://sussexbylines.co.uk/message-to-starmer-think-again-about-rejoining-the-eu/

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

As a Labour (Blair/ Starmer) member I'm mildly amused at the current situation. I was terrified of Wallace and Tugendhat but Wallace wants a different job and the Tories won't vote for Tugendhat. We can beat all the others.

It seems extraordinary that 200,000 people with an average age of 70 are going to decide the way forward but that's the system at the moment and this is the best possible reason to change it.

I hear the nonsense that suggests we vote for a local MP but the reality is that we vote for a party or a leader. This is the best example I have seen for a written constitution. We really shouldn't be saddled with a leader we didn't vote for. If there is a change of leader there should be a rule that says there is a General Election 

[Nuff Said 5,248]

As if Bad Enoch wasn’t Bad Enough, the other remaining candidates have committed to net zero emissions by 2050 (which is nowhere near enough) but she thinks the target is arbitrary. Has she seen the weather forecast?

[king canary 7,705]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Starmer has done exactly that. He has explicitly ruled out rejoining either the EU or the single market. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/04/starmer-ends-labour-silence-on-brexit-as-he-rules-out-rejoining-single-market

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-62034754

The ultra-rejoiners are going a bit spare about it. 

https://sussexbylines.co.uk/message-to-starmer-think-again-about-rejoining-the-eu/

Yep, hence why I said 'needed to.'

[Badger 2,416]

Worth a minute of your time imo 😃

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yep, hence why I said 'needed to.'

Well done, although technically 'needed to' doesn't make explicit that he had actually done it; 'Starmer needed to do it,but hadn't ruled it out' is as logical a way of extending your statement as 'Starmer needed to do it, and has explicitly ruled it out', so your snarkiness in response to my supportive comment wasn't really necessary or justified.  

Edited July 15, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,245]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Worth a minute of your time imo 😃

 

 

I can't believe he said that about Hobnobs. 😡

[Herman 9,863]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Well done, although technically 'needed to' doesn't make explicit that he had actually done it; 'Starmer needed to do it,but hadn't done ruled it out' is as logical a way of extending your statement as 'Starmer needed to do it, and has explicitly ruled it out', so your snarkiness in response to my supportive comment wasn't really necessary or justified.  

It's always necessary and justified.😉

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

It's always necessary and justified.😉

As are puerile interjections by yourself, apparently. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,863]

When did Truss transition into an old lady?

[sonyc 5,541]

7 minutes ago, Herman said:

When did Truss transition into an old lady?

It's the dozens of those choreographed portrait pictures she's been commissioning - it eventually shows through in what's underneath.

The Dorian Gray effect.

 

 

(That must be my most literary reference in a post reply ever and perhaps my most viciously satirical. Apologies for my immodesty please this once).

Edited July 15, 2022 by sonyc

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It's the dozens of those choreographed portrait pictures she's been commissioning - it eventually shows through in what's underneath.

The Dorian Gray effect.

 

 

(That must be my most literary reference in a post reply ever and perhaps my most viciously satirical. Apologies for my immodesty please this once).

I'm sure it was all about The Importance of Being Earnest. 😉

[1902 1,167]

I can't actually watch the debate, but it will be amusing if the majority of viewers come to the conclusion that they would take Tugendhat is in fact the best choice for the country. Then the parliamentary party drops him (as they almost certainly will).

It's not really a good look if the one person who can say that Johnson isn't honest isnt through to the next round, and the next best response is also from someone who probably won't make it.

[Mr Apples 1,335]

12 minutes ago, sonyc said:

That must be my most literary reference in a post reply ever and perhaps my most viciously satirical. Apologies for my immodesty please this once).

He has nothing to declare except his genius. 🧐🤣

Love it, sonyc! 🤩

Apples

[sonyc 5,541]

7 minutes ago, Mr Apples said:

He has nothing to declare except his genius. 🧐🤣

Love it, sonyc! 🤩

Apples

Edited July 15, 2022 by sonyc
The second part of that quote most honestly applies to me. That reply Mr A was very witty👏👏

[Surfer 1,547]

Well hopefully that "debate" was the end of Liz Truss. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 14/07/2022 at 12:15, keelansgrandad said:

And they completely miss the point that without the so called woke culture, its unlikely that as a black woman she would ever have got one vote to be leader.

That's a very odd claim. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 14/07/2022 at 13:46, BigFish said:

Sure it is your opinion RTB but it is based on a regular Tory lie rather than actual facts. There will be no deal on a referendum, Stramer has said as much and it will be in the manifesto.

Fair enough, BF, we can wait a couple of years and see whether this particular politician suffers a bout of amnesia or not.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 14/07/2022 at 15:28, horsefly said:

I'm not surprised you get embarrassed about defining what a woman is given your record of misogyny. But for the rest of us it really isn't difficult in the slightest to distinguish between the concepts of biological sex and social gender. The simple subtlety of thought involved really doesn't present any difficulty for those with the capacity to think without prejudice.

I have no embarrassment in recognising that a woman is an adult human female and has been defined thus for the past few thousand years without difficulty. It is only you and your like-minded friends who,  by manipulating language, have attempted to create confusion. The great thing about science is that it reveals truthful facts, so that we no longer have to rely upon conjecture. That you introduce prejudice as a concept in defining a woman is proof that you have abandoned science. I find that as pitiful as it is dangerous.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 14/07/2022 at 16:03, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly this, RTB is right in that Blair made dalliances towards Murdoch first, but Murdoch was very happy to reciprocate for the reason highlighted in bold.

It shows that Blair knew who the kingmaker was in terms of public opinion. And that was an unelected Australian media mogul.

he knew Blair was a neoliberal who wasn't going to tax him correctly

Blair was hardly going to win the 1997 election by standing as a neoliberal. If you can remember back to that time, the Tories were an exhausted bunch riven by internal divisions over policies, particularly Europe, who as a group had come to the end of their natural life, and it was Blair offering fresh ideas that made him appealing to the electorate. this was the driver for Blair's success at the general election and people like Murdoch rode along on his coat tails. I wonder how many Labour supporters on this forum believe that it was Murdoch's support for Blair that made them vote for Labour in 1997, because this is the basis of HorseFly's claim?

[1902 1,167]

4 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I have no embarrassment in recognising that a woman is an adult human female and has been defined thus for the past few thousand years without difficulty. It is only you and your like-minded friends who,  by manipulating language, have attempted to create confusion. The great thing about science is that it reveals truthful facts, so that we no longer have to rely upon conjecture. That you introduce prejudice as a concept in defining a woman is proof that you have abandoned science. I find that as pitiful as it is dangerous.

I'm sorry but that's not actually accurate. What was or what wasn't a gender may seem very obvious to you, a product of a (presumably)  UK based upbringing sometime within the last 90 years, but to claim that's been the universal view through 1000s of years of human history is simply not the case. 

Take for example of the Hijra in the subcontinent, who have been an accepted part of society for at least 900 years. 

Gender is cultural, and that's been a flexible thing in many human societies.

[horsefly 4,326]

5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I have no embarrassment in recognising that a woman is an adult human female and has been defined thus for the past few thousand years without difficulty. It is only you and your like-minded friends who,  by manipulating language, have attempted to create confusion. The great thing about science is that it reveals truthful facts, so that we no longer have to rely upon conjecture. That you introduce prejudice as a concept in defining a woman is proof that you have abandoned science. I find that as pitiful as it is dangerous.

What an absolute pile of tosh!

Firstly, you betray your lack of grasp of "science" by using the gross pleonasm "truthful facts". All facts are truths, the words "truth" and "fact" are interchangeable not combinable; there is no category of facts that are false (You have been in the thrall of Trump for too long). To even think it makes sense to formulate a sentence that says, "The great thing about science is that it reveals truthful facts, so that we no longer have to rely upon conjecture", shows an appalling grasp of how scientific theory works. Einstein remains the influence that he is precisely because he made many conjectures about things he couldn't prove, but have been subsequently discovered because of advances in technology and method (gravitational waves being a recent example). Please feel free to repeat your sentence in front of scientists and ask them if their theories are "conjecture" free, but if you do it's best you prepare yourself to be laughed out of the room. Scientific progression fundamentally depends upon the formulation of conjectures which require the rigours of experiment, theory, and evidence to test them.

Secondly, it is only ignorant people like you that are unable to distinguish between scientific concepts and social concepts (the difference between sex and gender in this case). It is one of the most fundamental conceptual  distinctions required to make human life intelligible. It really is not difficult to recognise that some people belonging to a particular biological sex category (genetically xx or xy) socially identify themselves with the opposite of their (scientific) biological determination. Indeed the whole trans issue only makes sense because such a phenomenon is possible. If you find it impossible to free yourself from personal prejudice concerning sex and gender try something less controversial such as the concept of a "thief". No such concept arises in a purely scientific taxonomy because from the scientific perspective no such property exists in the natural world. "Theft" only makes sense from the perspective of the social superstructure within which human beings interact according to moral principles. Does theft exist as a part of the natural order in which only scientific concepts apply? "No", says the scientist. Does theft exist as part of the social order in which moral concepts apply? "Yes", says the scientist aggrieved that his pipette has been stolen by a colleague. 

The only person to have abandoned science here is YOU. Your crass understanding of science, and your inability to distinguish between scientific and social concepts, shows you don't have a clue about the nature and limits of either of those realms. Such ignorance is indeed "pitiful" and "dangerous", so I suggest you do something urgently with regard to disabusing yourself of your appalling grasp of these issues.

Edited July 16, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,326]

4 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

he knew Blair was a neoliberal who wasn't going to tax him correctly

Blair was hardly going to win the 1997 election by standing as a neoliberal. If you can remember back to that time, the Tories were an exhausted bunch riven by internal divisions over policies, particularly Europe, who as a group had come to the end of their natural life, and it was Blair offering fresh ideas that made him appealing to the electorate. this was the driver for Blair's success at the general election and people like Murdoch rode along on his coat tails. I wonder how many Labour supporters on this forum believe that it was Murdoch's support for Blair that made them vote for Labour in 1997, because this is the basis of HorseFly's claim?

Yet again you display yourself to be an utter buffoon. I said nothing remotely of the sort. You know that full well, so it is clear yet again that your failure to provide coherent arguments is replaced as usual by your persistent resort to lies.

[Daz Sparks 1,204]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

The only person to have abandoned science here is YOU. Your crass understanding of science, and your inability to distinguish between scientific and social concepts, shows you don't have a clue about the nature and limits of either of those realms. Such ignorance is indeed "pitiful" and "dangerous", so I suggest you do something urgently with regard to disabusing yourself of your appalling grasp of these issues.

I could have quoted the whole post, it is very well written, I would urge anyone to read and digest it as it explains very well the subject matter. However, the last passage, which I have quoted, is particularly interesting, as it sums up perfectly the ignorance of some individuals that post here and a sizeable number of people in the wider community. 

Thanks Horsefly.

[Daz Sparks 1,204]

Back to the thread title, am I to understand that the Tory MPs are quite likely to "tactically" vote to ensure that the national party finishes up with Sunak and Truss as the final two?

[Herman 9,863]

12 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

Back to the thread title, am I to understand that the Tory MPs are quite likely to "tactically" vote to ensure that the national party finishes up with Sunak and Truss as the final two?

The Mail has nailed Truss to their mast so it does have a feeling that it is rigged in these two's favour. It would be suicidal for the tory party imo, which isn't a bad thing.

[horsefly 4,326]

11 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

Back to the thread title, am I to understand that the Tory MPs are quite likely to "tactically" vote to ensure that the national party finishes up with Sunak and Truss as the final two?

That's my reading. Sunak is almost certainly toast if Mordaunt makes it through to the members vote. Likewise for Truss if she makes it through with Mordaunt. The best opportunity for both Sunak and Truss is for them to fight each other in the runoff. So expect lots of skulduggery as the supporters of both those two try to engineer the votes to exclude Mordaunt from the final vote. It may even come to Sunak lending some votes to Truss to ensure she ends up being his competitor.

[Herman 9,863]

Talking of Truss, this is rather amusing. (Look at the two laughing by the door at the end.)

 

[Daz Sparks 1,204]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

Talking of Truss, this is rather amusing. (Look at the two laughing by the door at the end.)

 

That is f**king hilarious!

She is as thick as Boris is corrupt.

[KiwiScot 1,491]

That debate brought one thing home. They are all politicans full of waffle and with of lack of substance and as PM uninspiring. Apart from that Sunak came across as the most capable. Mordaunt not so impressive and Truss I think any ability must be a behind the scenes measured out kind of ability as a quick thinking front of house creative she is not.