UK Budget day, but honestly, I can't find myself interested.
Chancellor Reeves has already let us know what is coming. Big taxes to fill the black hole. Big borrowing to boost our growth. Big changes in the fiscal rules to give herself more flexibility.
Business is less than happy, considering the rise in employers NI contributions plus the rise in the national minimum wage a double whammy. The City is looking very nervously at the gilt markets, as if in anticipation of another 'Truss event'. (Nb. This must be a concern for Reeves, not just in terms of what she is doing, but that such market fallout from a budget can occur at all. Truss's disastrous budget brought down her government within weeks; it must have shaken all potential Chancellor's of the future, to see just how badly things can go wrong if they make a misjudgement.) And basically, we are all going to be poorer. (Tell me something I didn't know.)
It's (as always) sunlit uplands round the corner, if we'll just soak up a bit of pain first. Then we'll never have had it so good.
No dear; You'll never have had it so good. And slimy Wes Streeting. And Slippery Kier Stamer. You lot will retire from politics with your futures assured, the 'Kercching!' of your personal tills ringing out even as you sleep. For the rest of us it will be shit. We'll get poorer while a new lot of barrel scrapers look for ways to wring the last dregs of the nation's wealth into their bank balances. Let's just for once be honest about it.
-----0-----
Last night I watched the 1984 war drama film Threads which (I'd guess for pretty obvious reasons) has been put up by the co producers, the BBC, on their i-player site in the last week or two.
A brutally realistic depiction of the lead up to and aftermath of a nuclear war, seen through the eyes of two families living in Sheffield (where a close by Nato base has recieved a direct hit), the uncompromising presentation of the initial devastation and subsequent social collapse is unrelenting and painful to watch.
One striking aspect of the drama, presented as a docu-drama with occasional over narration by an emotionless BBC style presenter, was just how rapidly the planning of the state fell apart, in terms of provision of emergency services to the surviving population. What should have been the lifeline thrown to the panicked and broken remains of the society, rapidly descended into those with the power (and guns) effectively taking what little food and rations for themselves, under the justification that 'they were the ones who needed it to rebuild the system'. They were of course, just looking after themselves because they could.
I don't need to go into the horror of this production here - if you want to see it, it's on the BBC i-player and also (I think) available free on YouTube. It's a grim nightmare with no happy ending, that was made as accurately as possible as things would likely be, given the state of preparations of the day. There is no reason to believe that things would be any better today were the worst to happen. But the question for me is why the BBC has chosen to screen it now (other than the obvious, that we're closer to the event happening than we probably ever have been before, with the possible exception of the Cuban missile crisis). Or perhaps I should ask, what is it that the BBC hopes to achieve by this screening on its 'on demand' service?
My hope would be that they hope that some of our decision makers take the trouble to watch it. It would certainly focus their minds on exactly the risks they take with every little incremental provocation and escalation they endorse. This would seem to me to be the spirit in which it should be shown. If it's simply there to frighten people, then it's poorly done. People don't deserve to be terrorised by their state broadcasting service just for viewing figures or sensationalist impact. It's not fair (and they did enough of it during the covid scandal). There has to be a positive value to be gained from such a screening other than just its misery-porn one.
I'm very worried that we have a generation of MPs who aren't old enough to remember the effects of nuclear weapons usage, for whom the words are just ephemeral, with no substance. They should be made to see the dramatic docu-drama as an absolute prerequisite of stepping into the House and voting on any issues that are relevant to our current dangers. As to our government, they should also be obliged to sit and watch it as part of their introductory briefing to their roles. All of them.
God help us if our leaderships don't realise where their decisions could take us; I mean really realise.
What Do You Think Today?
Moderators: Orlion, balon!, aliantha
- peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11853
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 9 times
What Do You Think Today?
Song of the year. Judy Raindrop. Everyone is a cunt except me.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
- peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11853
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 9 times
What Do You Think Today?
Tax more. Borrow more. Spend more. That's the general summing up.
Classic Labour stuff from Chancellor Reeves in yesterday's budget - the first from a Labour Chancellor for fifteen years - but don't let people kid you that the Conservatives, had they remained in power, would have done any different. This country is so down on its arse, that tax rises were on the cards whoever won the last election, and borrowing to rebuild the shattered public services was an absolute guarantee as well, if a level of deprivation that would threaten to have people out on the streets was to be avoided.
So it's all going just to plan. The Tories are out of office so they can throw their hands up in cod-horror at Labour's 'extravagance'. The (changed, new or whatever you want to call it) Labour arm of the UniParty gets to do what it has to, nice-cop, nasty-cop style, and the show goes on. And all of that money - borrowed and raised in taxes - where do you think that (once it has been poured into, and filtered through, the public services) ends up? Why - back in the hands of the richest people in the country where it belongs. Who runs the outsourcing companies of the private financing initiatives? Who owns the companies that bet the huge building and repair contracts on hospitals and schools. Even the increased monies of the minimum wage and the increased pay to public sector workers filters upwards through their mortgage payments, rent payments and the products they buy, essential or otherwise, back, ultimately, into the pockets of a few extremely rich and powerful individuals. What goes around comes around, and what we saw yesterday was just the second act in a play where all the players, pre-election and post, were acting from the same script. And each one knows that what they've done is to just give the plate another spin to keep it going just a fraction longer, before it comes crashing down.
But that's all they needed to do. Because in so doing they maintain the facade, however more briefly for, that we have a future as a wealthy nation, that we are not totally and completely and irreversibly screwed. That, contrary to the song, the only way is down. And needless to say while they spin the plate, a goodly portion of the dregs that remain stuck to it spin off into their pockets, for them to enjoy elsewhere when the pantomime is over.
More money for the one percenters, more money for their facilitators in Westminster, down the tubes for the plebs. That's a better summing up, I'd say.
-----0-----
Worth noting that (if what I heard on a YouTube discussion yesterday is correct) that nearing ome million of Israel's Jewish population has upped sticks and left Israel since the current situation began on October 7th of last year.
I've tried to verify this figure but could only get as far as a report in the Israeli Times (sorry if I've got that name wrong - memory issues and all that) reporting that 550,000 had left in the first 6 months of the conflict. On this basis, and given what has transpired since the six month point, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give the figure some credence.
Of a total Jewish population of nearing 8 million, this is no small percentage. Of course we can't say how many will return once the conflict is resolved, but it is something of an irony that Israel was supposedly created in the first place as a safe-haven for the Jewish people, so badly persecuted over the centuries in Europe, culminating in the atrocity of the Holocaust, but now finds itself hemorrhaging people as a result of the dangers they face within their own homeland.
And I'm afraid that it'll likely only get worse.
Many IDF soldiers have been on active duty in Gaza for a year without a break, and now with the crisis extending to include southern Lebanon it doesn't look as if they are going to get much respite. The type of hostilities they are involved in in both places are not those which they are made up to deal with. The usual modus operandi of the Israeli forces is massive air and rocketry bombardment, followed by short mopping up operations. Not grueling hands on contact with an intractable enemy. The threat of mobilisation into the armed forces will see many choose the option of leaving Israel before this happens.
Yet others will suddenly find that their homes are under threat, that their safe enclave is safe no more. They will understand that Netenyahu, far from dealing with the threats against them, has instead led them into a dark place that they would be better off away from. The 60 plus thousand people driven from their homes in the north are not being able to return to them; on the contrary, Hezbollah shows no sign of letting up on its bombardment and the IDF seems unable to stop them from continuing to fire their rockets. They will, in the face of this reality, begin to leave Israel, potentially for good. It was fine to be there when they ran the show - now not so good.
And this, if the conflict is allowed to continue, will quite possibly be Israel's undoing. The Jewish population there has in almost all cases, connections within other countries which they can fall back on, and if the circumstances get too bad they will simply leave for better opportunities elsewhere. And thus could the Zionist project simply wither away by attrition of the population until it is simply unviable. This is a real risk, and one that the leadership must be painfully aware of. That much vaunted biblical connection is big - but not so big. In a secular world of modernity, the taking up of life threatening burdens for religious reasons when good alternative strategies offer themselves.......well, need I say more. The modern generations, Jewish or otherwise, are not like the old ones that existed when the original Zionist settlers first moved to Palestine. The cause of Jewish statehood might seem less important to them than their own survival.
Thus has the Israeli policy of refusal to engage with the Palestinian problem other than to try and crush it been a dubious one. It has led them to a place where, rather than having a solid neighbour that it could (for all their differences) built up ties with and made a collective future, it is threatening their very existence altogether. A sad situation for a people who deserve better.
And I finish with one salient question that I heard posed somewhere during the week. At what point, given that we assert the right of the Israeli people to have a state within the lands that they have occupied for the last hundred years, do we deny the Palestinians the same right on the lands that they have occupied for a thousand?
Classic Labour stuff from Chancellor Reeves in yesterday's budget - the first from a Labour Chancellor for fifteen years - but don't let people kid you that the Conservatives, had they remained in power, would have done any different. This country is so down on its arse, that tax rises were on the cards whoever won the last election, and borrowing to rebuild the shattered public services was an absolute guarantee as well, if a level of deprivation that would threaten to have people out on the streets was to be avoided.
So it's all going just to plan. The Tories are out of office so they can throw their hands up in cod-horror at Labour's 'extravagance'. The (changed, new or whatever you want to call it) Labour arm of the UniParty gets to do what it has to, nice-cop, nasty-cop style, and the show goes on. And all of that money - borrowed and raised in taxes - where do you think that (once it has been poured into, and filtered through, the public services) ends up? Why - back in the hands of the richest people in the country where it belongs. Who runs the outsourcing companies of the private financing initiatives? Who owns the companies that bet the huge building and repair contracts on hospitals and schools. Even the increased monies of the minimum wage and the increased pay to public sector workers filters upwards through their mortgage payments, rent payments and the products they buy, essential or otherwise, back, ultimately, into the pockets of a few extremely rich and powerful individuals. What goes around comes around, and what we saw yesterday was just the second act in a play where all the players, pre-election and post, were acting from the same script. And each one knows that what they've done is to just give the plate another spin to keep it going just a fraction longer, before it comes crashing down.
But that's all they needed to do. Because in so doing they maintain the facade, however more briefly for, that we have a future as a wealthy nation, that we are not totally and completely and irreversibly screwed. That, contrary to the song, the only way is down. And needless to say while they spin the plate, a goodly portion of the dregs that remain stuck to it spin off into their pockets, for them to enjoy elsewhere when the pantomime is over.
More money for the one percenters, more money for their facilitators in Westminster, down the tubes for the plebs. That's a better summing up, I'd say.
-----0-----
Worth noting that (if what I heard on a YouTube discussion yesterday is correct) that nearing ome million of Israel's Jewish population has upped sticks and left Israel since the current situation began on October 7th of last year.
I've tried to verify this figure but could only get as far as a report in the Israeli Times (sorry if I've got that name wrong - memory issues and all that) reporting that 550,000 had left in the first 6 months of the conflict. On this basis, and given what has transpired since the six month point, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give the figure some credence.
Of a total Jewish population of nearing 8 million, this is no small percentage. Of course we can't say how many will return once the conflict is resolved, but it is something of an irony that Israel was supposedly created in the first place as a safe-haven for the Jewish people, so badly persecuted over the centuries in Europe, culminating in the atrocity of the Holocaust, but now finds itself hemorrhaging people as a result of the dangers they face within their own homeland.
And I'm afraid that it'll likely only get worse.
Many IDF soldiers have been on active duty in Gaza for a year without a break, and now with the crisis extending to include southern Lebanon it doesn't look as if they are going to get much respite. The type of hostilities they are involved in in both places are not those which they are made up to deal with. The usual modus operandi of the Israeli forces is massive air and rocketry bombardment, followed by short mopping up operations. Not grueling hands on contact with an intractable enemy. The threat of mobilisation into the armed forces will see many choose the option of leaving Israel before this happens.
Yet others will suddenly find that their homes are under threat, that their safe enclave is safe no more. They will understand that Netenyahu, far from dealing with the threats against them, has instead led them into a dark place that they would be better off away from. The 60 plus thousand people driven from their homes in the north are not being able to return to them; on the contrary, Hezbollah shows no sign of letting up on its bombardment and the IDF seems unable to stop them from continuing to fire their rockets. They will, in the face of this reality, begin to leave Israel, potentially for good. It was fine to be there when they ran the show - now not so good.
And this, if the conflict is allowed to continue, will quite possibly be Israel's undoing. The Jewish population there has in almost all cases, connections within other countries which they can fall back on, and if the circumstances get too bad they will simply leave for better opportunities elsewhere. And thus could the Zionist project simply wither away by attrition of the population until it is simply unviable. This is a real risk, and one that the leadership must be painfully aware of. That much vaunted biblical connection is big - but not so big. In a secular world of modernity, the taking up of life threatening burdens for religious reasons when good alternative strategies offer themselves.......well, need I say more. The modern generations, Jewish or otherwise, are not like the old ones that existed when the original Zionist settlers first moved to Palestine. The cause of Jewish statehood might seem less important to them than their own survival.
Thus has the Israeli policy of refusal to engage with the Palestinian problem other than to try and crush it been a dubious one. It has led them to a place where, rather than having a solid neighbour that it could (for all their differences) built up ties with and made a collective future, it is threatening their very existence altogether. A sad situation for a people who deserve better.
And I finish with one salient question that I heard posed somewhere during the week. At what point, given that we assert the right of the Israeli people to have a state within the lands that they have occupied for the last hundred years, do we deny the Palestinians the same right on the lands that they have occupied for a thousand?
Song of the year. Judy Raindrop. Everyone is a cunt except me.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
- peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11853
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 9 times
What Do You Think Today?
It seems that the fallout from Chancellor Rachel Reeves' budget is kicking in as UK markets react to her big tax, borrow and spend program.
After a nervous few days, yesterday UK borrowing costs rose to almost Liz Truss mini-budget levels and share prices fell. Ten year borrowing settled at 4.43 percent having earlier reached a high of 4.5 (cf the Truss peak of4.65).
This caused Reeves to take to the airwaves in an attempt to settle things down. She held an interview on Bloomberg in which she stressed that financial stability was going to be the order of the day in her Chancellorship, with the emphasis on growth. (She avoided saying, Growth, Growth, Growth," which I suppose was a blessing of sorts, because if she had we'd have known it was bollocks.)
Unfortunately the Office for Budgetary Responsibility didn't agree with her. The forecasts for growth are lukewarm at best, with most seeing the economy limping along at pretty much where it currently is. More alarmingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that if she were to avoid another bout of austerity in public services, she would be forced to raise yet a further 9 billion pounds at least, at a later point in the parliamentary term. The markets absolutely didn't like the idea of money being borrowed to be poured into public service pay increases, and reacted by dumping UK assets by the truck-load. Consequently share prices, gilts and the value of the pound tanked, much as they had following the Truss mini-budget debacle. It wasn't quite as bad as that - some commentators were at pains to say that the same levels of turbulence in the markets as following Truss and Kwarteng's outing were not expected, but still it was a sticky sort of day, and one that will not have left the Chancellor feeling relaxed.
All very well standing on the steps of Number 11 with the old red 'box' held out and looking like a cat who'd got the cream: different when the markets react to the plate-spinning act you are attempting to pull off by booing from the stalls and unloading tickets for your next shows. Not so nice at all.
But potentially the bigger threat to the Stamer and Reeves show is the farmers reaction to the increase in inheritance tax that the latter announced in her budget. This impacts them big-time, because of course the value of land being what it is, the handing on of a farm from one generation to the next represents a major inheritance. The tax incurred would likely cause most of the beneficiaries to have sell of at least a portion of the land, if not the whole farm, to meet the death duties. This has understandably caused outrage amongst the farming community and they are reacting in their usual vigorous style. Threats of 'strike' action are grumbling around, prompting nervousness about the food security of the nation were such action to be taken. Not a situation that the Labour leadership will want to find itself in, and this will be a big behind-the-scenes conversation in cabinet. It's low key at the moment, but I'll have a punt; watch it grow in the days ahead. Reeves might even be forced to make some adjustments to her inheritance tax changes to accommodate for this vital sector of the economy.
After a nervous few days, yesterday UK borrowing costs rose to almost Liz Truss mini-budget levels and share prices fell. Ten year borrowing settled at 4.43 percent having earlier reached a high of 4.5 (cf the Truss peak of4.65).
This caused Reeves to take to the airwaves in an attempt to settle things down. She held an interview on Bloomberg in which she stressed that financial stability was going to be the order of the day in her Chancellorship, with the emphasis on growth. (She avoided saying, Growth, Growth, Growth," which I suppose was a blessing of sorts, because if she had we'd have known it was bollocks.)
Unfortunately the Office for Budgetary Responsibility didn't agree with her. The forecasts for growth are lukewarm at best, with most seeing the economy limping along at pretty much where it currently is. More alarmingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that if she were to avoid another bout of austerity in public services, she would be forced to raise yet a further 9 billion pounds at least, at a later point in the parliamentary term. The markets absolutely didn't like the idea of money being borrowed to be poured into public service pay increases, and reacted by dumping UK assets by the truck-load. Consequently share prices, gilts and the value of the pound tanked, much as they had following the Truss mini-budget debacle. It wasn't quite as bad as that - some commentators were at pains to say that the same levels of turbulence in the markets as following Truss and Kwarteng's outing were not expected, but still it was a sticky sort of day, and one that will not have left the Chancellor feeling relaxed.
All very well standing on the steps of Number 11 with the old red 'box' held out and looking like a cat who'd got the cream: different when the markets react to the plate-spinning act you are attempting to pull off by booing from the stalls and unloading tickets for your next shows. Not so nice at all.
But potentially the bigger threat to the Stamer and Reeves show is the farmers reaction to the increase in inheritance tax that the latter announced in her budget. This impacts them big-time, because of course the value of land being what it is, the handing on of a farm from one generation to the next represents a major inheritance. The tax incurred would likely cause most of the beneficiaries to have sell of at least a portion of the land, if not the whole farm, to meet the death duties. This has understandably caused outrage amongst the farming community and they are reacting in their usual vigorous style. Threats of 'strike' action are grumbling around, prompting nervousness about the food security of the nation were such action to be taken. Not a situation that the Labour leadership will want to find itself in, and this will be a big behind-the-scenes conversation in cabinet. It's low key at the moment, but I'll have a punt; watch it grow in the days ahead. Reeves might even be forced to make some adjustments to her inheritance tax changes to accommodate for this vital sector of the economy.
Song of the year. Judy Raindrop. Everyone is a cunt except me.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
- peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11853
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 9 times
What Do You Think Today?
This morning I post in shame.
I post as a coward, a weak insipid fool, who has no place to even consider himself amongst the ranks of those who would speak out against injustices in his society, as a right thinking and honourable citizen of a free democracy.
Because I've just deleted a lengthy post considering the situation of the recent, oddly belated, revelations about the Southport killer, and the discoveries made in his accommodation subsequent to his attack.
I deleted the post out of fear: because of the almost unspoken threat contained in the police spokesperson's commentary, where he requested people not to speculate on the revelations, and their relationship to the killings. Because, where my post had taken me in it's potential critique of the state we live in, had suddenly seemed to involve a level of risk that I was not prepared to take. Because I didn't want anything I had posted, to suddenly come home with a knock on my door, like that which happened to some people who made ill judged comments on the internet following the initial attack.
How has this happened. It wasn't an intemporate post. No incitement to hatred or towards public disorder. It was simply a reasoned assessment of where this new information had led us, and in what way it cast a perhaps different judgment of that which the state had come to, in respect of some people's internet commentary. And yet I was afraid to post it because it was in contravention of that policeman's request not to speculate. And my fear that that request was not actually a request, but a warning.
I hang my head in shame, for myself, my country, and what we have become. My cravenness, its authoritarian illiberality. We deserve each other.
I post as a coward, a weak insipid fool, who has no place to even consider himself amongst the ranks of those who would speak out against injustices in his society, as a right thinking and honourable citizen of a free democracy.
Because I've just deleted a lengthy post considering the situation of the recent, oddly belated, revelations about the Southport killer, and the discoveries made in his accommodation subsequent to his attack.
I deleted the post out of fear: because of the almost unspoken threat contained in the police spokesperson's commentary, where he requested people not to speculate on the revelations, and their relationship to the killings. Because, where my post had taken me in it's potential critique of the state we live in, had suddenly seemed to involve a level of risk that I was not prepared to take. Because I didn't want anything I had posted, to suddenly come home with a knock on my door, like that which happened to some people who made ill judged comments on the internet following the initial attack.
How has this happened. It wasn't an intemporate post. No incitement to hatred or towards public disorder. It was simply a reasoned assessment of where this new information had led us, and in what way it cast a perhaps different judgment of that which the state had come to, in respect of some people's internet commentary. And yet I was afraid to post it because it was in contravention of that policeman's request not to speculate. And my fear that that request was not actually a request, but a warning.
I hang my head in shame, for myself, my country, and what we have become. My cravenness, its authoritarian illiberality. We deserve each other.
Song of the year. Judy Raindrop. Everyone is a cunt except me.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
- peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11853
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 9 times
What Do You Think Today?
Well I was wrong. Hands up, got me in the spotlight wrong.
Kemi Badenoch has been announced as winner of the Tory leadership contest, when I hadn't given her a cat in hell's chance of clearing the last hurdle - the vote by the Party membership who had previously chosen Liz Truss over Richi Sunak (by a margin that if I say so myself, I was able to predict with an eerie level of accuracy).
I'd assumed that they would never vote for an African-English woman over a white English man in a month of Sundays. In fairness many didn't because the turnout was low to the point of dismissive of both candidates. I think only around half of the membership actually returned a vote for either candidate - hardly a ringing endorsement of the choice they had before them.
And in fairness you can hardly blame them.
Robert Jenrick (the white male candidate, if you don't know him) is so mired in scandal that he makes Boris Johnson look clean. What with sitting down with ex porn-barrons and agreeing to pass building applications that the local councils have recommended were rejected (before said barrons have made hefty donations to the party or some such), wiping the smiles off the face of children by wiping murals of Mickey Mouse off walls of immigrant reception centers, and generally being a smarmy backstabbing bustard (predictive text blip, but I like it), he's not exactly the ideal choice. But there he was. He was certainly right wing enough (any middle ground Tories had been sifted out very early in the lacklustre contest). The party membership would have liked that. But then so was Kemi Badenoch.
And speaking of Badenoch, what can you say. Black and female (lot's of crowing this morning about another glass ceiling broken by the Tories I expect, given that Labour has only ever been led by white males). Certainly a right winger. But abrasive in the extreme and given to making comments that will rub up the country's electorate at large in big ways (comments of disparagement against autistic people and suggesting that maternity pay is too high, to name just two that have come out during her campaign). Unless she learns to tone it down she'll certainly stir up a hornet's nest or two before it's all over.
But let's look at it from the perspective of the 1922 Committee, the guys who actually call the shots within the Conservative Party. They know that elections are not won from the extremes of the political spectrum, but from the centre ground. Stamer just proved that (with a little help from the lying media and the establishment status quo preservers). The right wing of the Conservative Party might be well represented in its membership, but in the country as a whole not so much. In fairness you've got Farage doing pretty well in the vote share, and also polling quite well, but he's a one-trick pony albeit that like the hedgehog, it's a good one. The anti-immigration ticket that is his schtick is high on people's agendas and he, if no-one else, will be rubbing his hands together at the idea of facing off with Kemi Badenoch for the right wing vote of the country. It's all his Christmas's rolled into one - unless she's maybe canny enough to get him into the party, where I have little doubt he'd ideally like to be. From inside the Tory Party, it would be but a small step for him to the Party leadership, though Badenoch would clearly have other ideas (keep your enemies close, style of thing).
But this is just speculation on my part and concentrating on what we actually do (or rather don't) know, it was contained in the Sky News report of Badenoch's win last night that rumours were already in circulation that she would never actually get to fight an election. That there would be another leadership contest before the next election at which point another, more centrist - and perhaps more to the central Party's liking - would be elected. Could be. The Tories have changed leaders as fast as I change my underpants, and to about as little effect in recent years. For all their jumping from one horse to another, it's done them little good and the Labour Party has still trounced them at the polls. (Not that it matters to the establishment movers you understand: to them it's all the same who wins elections, Conservative or Labour, as long as whoever it is is following the approved script. What we are talking about here is the second tier of our governance - the one we get to see and vote on. And certainly it matters to them whether they win or loose. Making the jump up into the 'establishment' top tier, the unelected and unshiftable level of our society that call the shots, generation following generation - that requires you to win first the leadership of a party, then of the country. Then you stand a chance. So yes - parliamentary party members do engage in a very serious fight, with every desire to win....just not for the reasons you think they are doing it - for public service and all that nonsense {if you're still gullible enough to buy that}.)
So the question is, did Badenoch actually win? Or did the 1922 committee decide that if Jenrick won, then they'd be saddled with a right wing candidate, soiled with his past misdemeanours who the public would never buy in a general election, but who they'd never be able to shift before the next election. Against a black woman of minimal political achievement who manages to get everyone who meets her to dislike her and who also the public would never buy, but who they would (be able to shift, that is)? Do you see my drift? Remember - the results of these internal Party ballots are private inasmuch as there is no validation of the result, no verification by any external source that it is anything other than what the reporting committee says that it is.
Of course I make no suggestions that the 1922 Committee would be party to such shenanigans, but it makes you think.....
Because why would the same right wing electorate that chose mad Liz Truss over sensible Rishi Sunak, choose Kemi Badenoch over Robert Jenrick unless you assume that race has nothing to do with it? But which being, how do you explain the earlier election of Truss? There is inconsistency here,and I don't like inconsistency. It makes me suspicious. (Actually, I could just assume that it was Truss's Tufton Street proposals of massive tax cuts for the wealthy that the membership bought, rather than Sunak's 'Steady Eddie' approach, that won it for her, and that the membership are not a bunch of arrogant racist bastards, but come on - this is people who pay to be members of the Tory Party we are talking about here! )
Any way, I leave it to you to decide for yourself. I clearly don't know shit about it.
Kemi Badenoch has been announced as winner of the Tory leadership contest, when I hadn't given her a cat in hell's chance of clearing the last hurdle - the vote by the Party membership who had previously chosen Liz Truss over Richi Sunak (by a margin that if I say so myself, I was able to predict with an eerie level of accuracy).
I'd assumed that they would never vote for an African-English woman over a white English man in a month of Sundays. In fairness many didn't because the turnout was low to the point of dismissive of both candidates. I think only around half of the membership actually returned a vote for either candidate - hardly a ringing endorsement of the choice they had before them.
And in fairness you can hardly blame them.
Robert Jenrick (the white male candidate, if you don't know him) is so mired in scandal that he makes Boris Johnson look clean. What with sitting down with ex porn-barrons and agreeing to pass building applications that the local councils have recommended were rejected (before said barrons have made hefty donations to the party or some such), wiping the smiles off the face of children by wiping murals of Mickey Mouse off walls of immigrant reception centers, and generally being a smarmy backstabbing bustard (predictive text blip, but I like it), he's not exactly the ideal choice. But there he was. He was certainly right wing enough (any middle ground Tories had been sifted out very early in the lacklustre contest). The party membership would have liked that. But then so was Kemi Badenoch.
And speaking of Badenoch, what can you say. Black and female (lot's of crowing this morning about another glass ceiling broken by the Tories I expect, given that Labour has only ever been led by white males). Certainly a right winger. But abrasive in the extreme and given to making comments that will rub up the country's electorate at large in big ways (comments of disparagement against autistic people and suggesting that maternity pay is too high, to name just two that have come out during her campaign). Unless she learns to tone it down she'll certainly stir up a hornet's nest or two before it's all over.
But let's look at it from the perspective of the 1922 Committee, the guys who actually call the shots within the Conservative Party. They know that elections are not won from the extremes of the political spectrum, but from the centre ground. Stamer just proved that (with a little help from the lying media and the establishment status quo preservers). The right wing of the Conservative Party might be well represented in its membership, but in the country as a whole not so much. In fairness you've got Farage doing pretty well in the vote share, and also polling quite well, but he's a one-trick pony albeit that like the hedgehog, it's a good one. The anti-immigration ticket that is his schtick is high on people's agendas and he, if no-one else, will be rubbing his hands together at the idea of facing off with Kemi Badenoch for the right wing vote of the country. It's all his Christmas's rolled into one - unless she's maybe canny enough to get him into the party, where I have little doubt he'd ideally like to be. From inside the Tory Party, it would be but a small step for him to the Party leadership, though Badenoch would clearly have other ideas (keep your enemies close, style of thing).
But this is just speculation on my part and concentrating on what we actually do (or rather don't) know, it was contained in the Sky News report of Badenoch's win last night that rumours were already in circulation that she would never actually get to fight an election. That there would be another leadership contest before the next election at which point another, more centrist - and perhaps more to the central Party's liking - would be elected. Could be. The Tories have changed leaders as fast as I change my underpants, and to about as little effect in recent years. For all their jumping from one horse to another, it's done them little good and the Labour Party has still trounced them at the polls. (Not that it matters to the establishment movers you understand: to them it's all the same who wins elections, Conservative or Labour, as long as whoever it is is following the approved script. What we are talking about here is the second tier of our governance - the one we get to see and vote on. And certainly it matters to them whether they win or loose. Making the jump up into the 'establishment' top tier, the unelected and unshiftable level of our society that call the shots, generation following generation - that requires you to win first the leadership of a party, then of the country. Then you stand a chance. So yes - parliamentary party members do engage in a very serious fight, with every desire to win....just not for the reasons you think they are doing it - for public service and all that nonsense {if you're still gullible enough to buy that}.)
So the question is, did Badenoch actually win? Or did the 1922 committee decide that if Jenrick won, then they'd be saddled with a right wing candidate, soiled with his past misdemeanours who the public would never buy in a general election, but who they'd never be able to shift before the next election. Against a black woman of minimal political achievement who manages to get everyone who meets her to dislike her and who also the public would never buy, but who they would (be able to shift, that is)? Do you see my drift? Remember - the results of these internal Party ballots are private inasmuch as there is no validation of the result, no verification by any external source that it is anything other than what the reporting committee says that it is.
Of course I make no suggestions that the 1922 Committee would be party to such shenanigans, but it makes you think.....
Because why would the same right wing electorate that chose mad Liz Truss over sensible Rishi Sunak, choose Kemi Badenoch over Robert Jenrick unless you assume that race has nothing to do with it? But which being, how do you explain the earlier election of Truss? There is inconsistency here,and I don't like inconsistency. It makes me suspicious. (Actually, I could just assume that it was Truss's Tufton Street proposals of massive tax cuts for the wealthy that the membership bought, rather than Sunak's 'Steady Eddie' approach, that won it for her, and that the membership are not a bunch of arrogant racist bastards, but come on - this is people who pay to be members of the Tory Party we are talking about here! )
Any way, I leave it to you to decide for yourself. I clearly don't know shit about it.
Song of the year. Judy Raindrop. Everyone is a cunt except me.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard