Why do all my Labour friends have big grins on their gobs?
One Labour MP has apparently asked if they need to declare this as a gift.
I think Labour MPs who want a very-right wing Tory leader just aren't thinking things through (or they are fairly right wing anyway and don't see the possible threats to their safety by a further drift to the right).
(I will also add, for the record, that I don’t consider that reign of Queen Elizabeth the first is evidence the Tudors weren’t sexist - nor is the Hanoverian dynasty evidence that the British population of that time weren’t xenophobic.)
Why do all my Labour friends have big grins on their gobs?
One Labour MP has apparently asked if they need to declare this as a gift.
I think Labour MPs who want a very-right wing Tory leader just aren't thinking things through (or they are fairly right wing anyway and don't see the possible threats to their safety by a further drift to the right).
Two things. Firstly whichever right wing
nutjob
ends up as Tory leader,* that does not necessarily mean they will affect the Overton Window. Second, and more importantly, the reason for celebration in Labour is not because they are right wing but because they are both thoroughly unimpressive.
AFZ
*I am very happy to justify this description as accurate for both of them.
Jenrick is particularly deserving of contempt for ordering a mural of Disney Characters to be painted over in a detention centre for asylum-seeking children. We are talking about children who will have seen unbelievable horrors that no one should have to face. Who have nothing, who are being kept locked up for daring to hope they might find some kind of life in this country. And Jenrick felt that something that might possibly provide some crumb of light for children in a very dark place was unacceptable and so spent taxpayers money to have it painted over.
Badenoch thinks she became working class when she did a part-time job in McDonalds. And that's one of the saner of her comments.
Please don’t use mental health slurs as insults. RJ may be an unpleasant invdidual, but it’s unlikely to be b3cause of his mental health.
Doublethink, Admin
Fair enough. I meant it in a very different way. I don't know what language to use for people whose rhetoric and behaviour is clearly not rational nor connected with reality when they do not have a mental disorder.
I'm sure you know that I meant no offence but I should avoid saying it anyway.
Why do all my Labour friends have big grins on their gobs?
One Labour MP has apparently asked if they need to declare this as a gift.
I think Labour MPs who want a very-right wing Tory leader just aren't thinking things through (or they are fairly right wing anyway and don't see the possible threats to their safety by a further drift to the right).
Two things. Firstly whichever right wing
nutjob
ends up as Tory leader,* that does not necessarily mean they will affect the Overton Window. Second, and more importantly, the reason for celebration in Labour is not because they are right wing but because they are both thoroughly unimpressive.
Right, because I definitely see the right wing press in the UK will decide that the leader of the Tory Party has breached the cordon sanitaire and won't follow where they lead.
Second, and more importantly, the reason for celebration in Labour is not because they are right wing but because they are both thoroughly unimpressive.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Given those choices I'd prefer the one that was less likely to legitimise racist language. The reason racism was in decline in most surveys is that there was a very concerted attempt to de-legitimise it across multiple spheres, and it actually matters if one of the major parties is led by someone who thinks his predecessor wasn't 'really British' and that you should be arrested if you say 'Allahu Akbar'.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Given those choices I'd prefer the one that was less likely to legitimise racist language. The reason racism was in decline in most surveys is that there was a very concerted attempt to de-legitimise it across multiple spheres, and it actually matters if one of the major parties is led by someone who thinks his predecessor wasn't 'really British' and that you should be arrested if you say 'Allahu Akbar'.
I agree with that up to a point.
However, I think the advantages of facing a culture warrior who wants to play populist games who can be ignored over a culture warrior who wants to play populist games but who has to be engaged with, outweigh that. If Labour are sensible, whichever of the two is the Tory leader, they will base their strategy on ignoring them. All they need to do is govern well.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
Any Cleverly supporters who leant their vote are going to be kicking themselves. 3 votes in it.
So one of the interesting things about this vote is that the Tugendhat supporters apparently transferred mostly to Badenoch and Jenrick, and not Cleverly. Which I find a little surprising. I was expecting Cleverly to pick up the majority of Tugendhat voters.
[on Sep. 10th] I think those two [Badenoch and Jenrick] will go to the membership and Jenrick will win, as long as there are no skeletons in his cupboard that emerge over the next few weeks.
The Turquoise crystal ball strikes again. Do not underestimate the Turquoise crystal ball. The Turquoise prediction in January 2016 was that Trump would win in November 2016. Sorry about that. But there is no denying the power of the Turquoise. Turquoise says Jenrick.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
Any Cleverly supporters who leant their vote are going to be kicking themselves. 3 votes in it.
So one of the interesting things about this vote is that the Tugendhat supporters apparently transferred mostly to Badenoch and Jenrick, and not Cleverly. Which I find a little surprising. I was expecting Cleverly to pick up the majority of Tugendhat voters.
Yes. This is why I thought Badenoch was in trouble. I thought that the Tugendhat supporters would all go to Cleverly... I was completely wrong.
I have to admit that I'm not unhappy that Cleverly is out. I have made my feelings about the remaining two quite clear, But, I think that James Cleverly is not so very different from them, if you look at the stuff he says. He is deeply disingenuous in interviews and his Twitter feed is appalling. I will concede that he is better than the other two but nowhere near as 'centre' and 'sensible' as he is portrayed. I don't think even the sycophantic media will be able to dress up whichever of the other two win.
It's being widely reported on Social Media and now on Channel 4 News that Cleverly was still the most popular but several MPs were trying to play games with the choice of who would be the other candidate to put to the members. Some form of a lack of coordination or an inability to count or both has resulted in an outcome that even the Tory MPs did not want...
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
Any Cleverly supporters who leant their vote are going to be kicking themselves. 3 votes in it.
So one of the interesting things about this vote is that the Tugendhat supporters apparently transferred mostly to Badenoch and Jenrick, and not Cleverly. Which I find a little surprising. I was expecting Cleverly to pick up the majority of Tugendhat voters.
Yes. This is why I thought Badenoch was in trouble. I thought that the Tugendhat supporters would all go to Cleverly... I was completely wrong.
I have to admit that I'm not unhappy that Cleverly is out. I have made my feelings about the remaining two quite clear, But, I think that James Cleverly is not so very different from them, if you look at the stuff he says. He is deeply disingenuous in interviews and his Twitter feed is appalling. I will concede that he is better than the other two but nowhere near as 'centre' and 'sensible' as he is portrayed. I don't think even the sycophantic media will be able to dress up whichever of the other two win.
AFZ
Be interesting to see whether Michael Howard would put his ethnicity as White British….
It's being widely reported on Social Media and now on Channel 4 News that Cleverly was still the most popular but several MPs were trying to play games with the choice of who would be the other candidate to put to the members.
I have to admit that I'm not unhappy that Cleverly is out. I have made my feelings about the remaining two quite clear, But, I think that James Cleverly is not so very different from them, if you look at the stuff he says. He is deeply disingenuous in interviews and his Twitter feed is appalling. I will concede that he is better than the other two but nowhere near as 'centre' and 'sensible' as he is portrayed.
Of course, he's a another Tory circa 2025, but I do think openly endorsing enthno-nationalism is a significant difference and frankly liberals who don't see the danger in that haven't absorbed the lessons of thinking Trump would be the weaker candidate in 2016.
I don't think even the sycophantic media will be able to dress up whichever of the other two win.
As above, at this point one has to hope Badenoch gets it, if only because she seems likely to be less competent of the two at party management.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
Any Cleverly supporters who leant their vote are going to be kicking themselves. 3 votes in it.
So one of the interesting things about this vote is that the Tugendhat supporters apparently transferred mostly to Badenoch and Jenrick, and not Cleverly. Which I find a little surprising. I was expecting Cleverly to pick up the majority of Tugendhat voters.
Yes. This is why I thought Badenoch was in trouble. I thought that the Tugendhat supporters would all go to Cleverly... I was completely wrong.
I have to admit that I'm not unhappy that Cleverly is out. I have made my feelings about the remaining two quite clear, But, I think that James Cleverly is not so very different from them, if you look at the stuff he says. He is deeply disingenuous in interviews and his Twitter feed is appalling. I will concede that he is better than the other two but nowhere near as 'centre' and 'sensible' as he is portrayed. I don't think even the sycophantic media will be able to dress up whichever of the other two win.
AFZ
Be interesting to see whether Michael Howard would put his ethnicity as White British….
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
Any Cleverly supporters who leant their vote are going to be kicking themselves. 3 votes in it.
So one of the interesting things about this vote is that the Tugendhat supporters apparently transferred mostly to Badenoch and Jenrick, and not Cleverly. Which I find a little surprising. I was expecting Cleverly to pick up the majority of Tugendhat voters.
Yes. This is why I thought Badenoch was in trouble. I thought that the Tugendhat supporters would all go to Cleverly... I was completely wrong.
I have to admit that I'm not unhappy that Cleverly is out. I have made my feelings about the remaining two quite clear, But, I think that James Cleverly is not so very different from them, if you look at the stuff he says. He is deeply disingenuous in interviews and his Twitter feed is appalling. I will concede that he is better than the other two but nowhere near as 'centre' and 'sensible' as he is portrayed. I don't think even the sycophantic media will be able to dress up whichever of the other two win.
AFZ
Be interesting to see whether Michael Howard would put his ethnicity as White British….
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
Any Cleverly supporters who leant their vote are going to be kicking themselves. 3 votes in it.
So one of the interesting things about this vote is that the Tugendhat supporters apparently transferred mostly to Badenoch and Jenrick, and not Cleverly. Which I find a little surprising. I was expecting Cleverly to pick up the majority of Tugendhat voters.
Yes. This is why I thought Badenoch was in trouble. I thought that the Tugendhat supporters would all go to Cleverly... I was completely wrong.
I have to admit that I'm not unhappy that Cleverly is out. I have made my feelings about the remaining two quite clear, But, I think that James Cleverly is not so very different from them, if you look at the stuff he says. He is deeply disingenuous in interviews and his Twitter feed is appalling. I will concede that he is better than the other two but nowhere near as 'centre' and 'sensible' as he is portrayed. I don't think even the sycophantic media will be able to dress up whichever of the other two win.
AFZ
Be interesting to see whether Michael Howard would put his ethnicity as White British….
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
Labour have never even had a female leader.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
And so on and so on.
AFZ
Tha fact remains that Labour have only ever elected white men as party leader
This could work out well for cleverly. He might now be better positioned to become the next party leader after whoever gets it this time when the party become really disillusioned. A bit like Boris after Teresa May.
This could work out well for cleverly. He might now be better positioned to become the next party leader after whoever gets it this time when the party become really disillusioned. A bit like Boris after Teresa May.
Except for one thing. When Mrs May lost she accepted it and retired gracefully to the back benches. Recent interviews with Mr Johnson make it clear as crystal that he still regards himself as the rightful leader of the CP and determined to regain the post, and power.
Mr Cleverly? I fear he's far too normal for the CP in its present form and will become yet another of the party's "what if" men.
Except for one thing. When Mrs May lost she accepted it and retired gracefully to the back benches. Recent interviews with Mr Johnson make it clear as crystal that he still regards himself as the rightful leader of the CP and determined to regain the post, and power.
Mr Cleverly? I fear he's far too normal for the CP in its present form and will become yet another of the party's "what if" men.
I differ only slightly from you here. I don't think he is that moderate or 'normal.' I think he successfully presents himself that way but to me, is a facade.
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
@Sarasa if you wanted to take the nuclear option with some of the unsavoury things you know about Jenrick, I'm sure there's a journalist at The Grauniad who would be interested in talking to you
This might mean helping Kemi Badenoch to the leadership of the Conservative Party, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view. Alternatively you could wait until after the leadership election
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
I think I'd rather him in charge of the Tory party.
Meanwhile, as we wait for that to happen, I'm with those who don't see a further Conservative lurch to the right as being good for anybody - not a 'gift' for Labour or anyone else for that matter.
It's not good for the country and not good for the Conservative Party itself.
The last thing any of us need is more populism.
Oh, and @Telford the Lib Dem leader you had in mind was Jo Swinson. Yes, we've pretty much forgotten her too ... poor dab.
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
Why would you support somebody just because of where they’re from?
I think I'd rather him in charge of the Tory party.
Meanwhile, as we wait for that to happen, I'm with those who don't see a further Conservative lurch to the right as being good for anybody - not a 'gift' for Labour or anyone else for that matter.
It's not good for the country and not good for the Conservative Party itself.
The last thing any of us need is more populism.
Oh, and @Telford the Lib Dem leader you had in mind was Jo Swinson. Yes, we've pretty much forgotten her too ... poor dab.
I think the lurch to the right is indeed a bad thing but I think it inevitable whichever of the original candidates win. As I've said Cleverly's not actually that much better than the alternatives. He just doesn't say the quiet part out loud like some of his colleagues.
I worry about Cleverly's faux-centerism with a degress of competence far more than Badenoch's unpopular brand of chaotic populism.
It's being widely reported on Social Media and now on Channel 4 News that Cleverly was still the most popular but several MPs were trying to play games with the choice of who would be the other candidate to put to the members. Some form of a lack of coordination or an inability to count or both has resulted in an outcome that even the Tory MPs did not want...
There were 20 Tugendhat supporters in play. Cleverly's vote went down by 2, and the 22 votes split 12 to Badenoch and 10 to Jenrick.
Even though the modern Conservative Party is notorious for being unable to organize a piss-up in a brewery, I don't think this "widely reported" story is credible given these numbers.
I suppose there's an outside chance that there just happened to be two equal-sized groups of Cleverly supporters, and one group thought their man would do best against Jenrick, and the other thought he'd do best against Badenoch, and each group was unaware of the existence of the other group, but that seems to be stretching credulity to its extremes.
It's being widely reported on Social Media and now on Channel 4 News that Cleverly was still the most popular but several MPs were trying to play games with the choice of who would be the other candidate to put to the members. Some form of a lack of coordination or an inability to count or both has resulted in an outcome that even the Tory MPs did not want...
There were 20 Tugendhat supporters in play. Cleverly's vote went down by 2, and the 22 votes split 12 to Badenoch and 10 to Jenrick.
Even though the modern Conservative Party is notorious for being unable to organize a piss-up in a brewery, I don't think this "widely reported" story is credible given these numbers.
I suppose there's an outside chance that there just happened to be two equal-sized groups of Cleverly supporters, and one group thought their man would do best against Jenrick, and the other thought he'd do best against Badenoch, and each group was unaware of the existence of the other group, but that seems to be stretching credulity to its extremes.
There's a variation on the story that Cleverly's number in the previous round was inflated by Jenrick supporters wanting to get rid of Tugdenhat.
I think the lurch to the right is indeed a bad thing but I think it inevitable whichever of the original candidates win. As I've said Cleverly's not actually that much better than the alternatives. He just doesn't say the quiet part out loud like some of his colleagues.
The difference is that of a Sunak like figure vs a Farage like one, at a time when Labour strategists (Mattinson, McSweeney et al.) are aiming for cultural conservatives and when the leadership doesn't have good instincts when it comes to such issues (witness the weird outburst before the election about Bangladeshis)
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
Why would you support somebody just because of where they’re from?
On this occasions it's because I am happy with both candidates. I don't get an actual vote though.
As for lurching to the right, candidates will say what they think party members want to hear. Ask Sir Keir if you don't believe me.
A lot of Labour Party members don't like what Starmer's saying. You've only got to read these forums to see that.
That doesn't let Labour off the hook of course. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think @Telford is making the point that Starmer lied out of his arse to get elected Labour leader. The suggestion is that the candidates (most likely Jenrick of the two) is feigning a lurch to the right to appeal to party members. It's not a bad strategy given these are the same members who installed Truss, but I'm not convinced either Jenrick or Badenoch is both able and willing to perform the same sort of abrupt about-face as Starmer. Jenrick (nicknamed "generic" for his ideological *ahem* flexibility) is more likely to try it than Badenoch who appears to be a genuine headbanger.
A lot of Labour Party members don't like what Starmer's saying. You've only got to read these forums to see that.
That doesn't let Labour off the hook of course. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think @Telford is making the point that Starmer lied out of his arse to get elected Labour leader. The suggestion is that the candidates (most likely Jenrick of the two) is feigning a lurch to the right to appeal to party members. It's not a bad strategy given these are the same members who installed Truss, but I'm not convinced either Jenrick or Badenoch is both able and willing to perform the same sort of abrupt about-face as Starmer. Jenrick (nicknamed "generic" for his ideological *ahem* flexibility) is more likely to try it than Badenoch who appears to be a genuine headbanger.
Yes. By Gove. I think you have it.
Johnson is a serial liar but he's a clumsy liar. Starmer is a calculated Liar. I reckon that Jenrick is just a normal conservative.
Comments
I think Labour MPs who want a very-right wing Tory leader just aren't thinking things through (or they are fairly right wing anyway and don't see the possible threats to their safety by a further drift to the right).
Two things. Firstly whichever right wing
AFZ
*I am very happy to justify this description as accurate for both of them.
Jenrick is particularly deserving of contempt for ordering a mural of Disney Characters to be painted over in a detention centre for asylum-seeking children. We are talking about children who will have seen unbelievable horrors that no one should have to face. Who have nothing, who are being kept locked up for daring to hope they might find some kind of life in this country. And Jenrick felt that something that might possibly provide some crumb of light for children in a very dark place was unacceptable and so spent taxpayers money to have it painted over.
Badenoch thinks she became working class when she did a part-time job in McDonalds. And that's one of the saner of her comments.
(ETA Hidden text slur, DT)
Indeed. The Shovels Are The Answer approach continues.
Doublethink, Admin
Fair enough. I meant it in a very different way. I don't know what language to use for people whose rhetoric and behaviour is clearly not rational nor connected with reality when they do not have a mental disorder.
I'm sure you know that I meant no offence but I should avoid saying it anyway.
My apologies.
Right, because I definitely see the right wing press in the UK will decide that the leader of the Tory Party has breached the cordon sanitaire and won't follow where they lead.
It really doesn't do any good for Labour to win against a terrible opponent- and this isn't some political point about a robust opposition - though that's true too, but a couple of sullen mandates from a disgruntled electorate stores up problems for the future.
Sort of.
I do believe a good and effective opposition is good for democracy. Vital, maybe. However, no one who stood for leader of the Tory party has any interest in that. Even the so-called moderates wanted to just throw mud. With the support of our ridiculous media, I expect nothing else. So tell me, which would you prefer as a Labour MP? A ridiculous mud-throwing, opposition with a leader no one takes seriously or a ridiculous mud-throwing opposition with a leader who has the vaneer of respectability?
Moreover, I would posit that one of those scenarios also makes good governance more likely compared to the other.
AFZ
From the BBC.
Any Cleverly supporters who leant their vote are going to be kicking themselves. 3 votes in it.
Given those choices I'd prefer the one that was less likely to legitimise racist language. The reason racism was in decline in most surveys is that there was a very concerted attempt to de-legitimise it across multiple spheres, and it actually matters if one of the major parties is led by someone who thinks his predecessor wasn't 'really British' and that you should be arrested if you say 'Allahu Akbar'.
In my opinion, People who previously voted Conservative looked at the polls and realised that they could not win. They voted Reform as a protest rather than go to Labour who finished with less than 34%.
They have now had a chance to look at a Labour Government and I suspect that they are not impressed.
My guess is that Reform voters will gradually return to voting Conservative and they will be joined by a lot of those who voted LibDem.
In my opinion, any of the last 4 candidates would be good enough. Kemi has an excellent chance to become Conservative party leader. Only in the Conservatives can a black female hope to be elected leader.
Your guess.
You could be right but the evidence I linked to above strongly suggests otherwise.
That is quite a stretch. Care to offer any evidence?
I agree with that up to a point.
However, I think the advantages of facing a culture warrior who wants to play populist games who can be ignored over a culture warrior who wants to play populist games but who has to be engaged with, outweigh that. If Labour are sensible, whichever of the two is the Tory leader, they will base their strategy on ignoring them. All they need to do is govern well.
The LibDems had a female leader I have forgotten her name,
Every party never had a female leader right up to the point where it did. It's not predictive in itself.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
And so on and so on.
AFZ
So one of the interesting things about this vote is that the Tugendhat supporters apparently transferred mostly to Badenoch and Jenrick, and not Cleverly. Which I find a little surprising. I was expecting Cleverly to pick up the majority of Tugendhat voters.
The Turquoise crystal ball strikes again. Do not underestimate the Turquoise crystal ball. The Turquoise prediction in January 2016 was that Trump would win in November 2016. Sorry about that. But there is no denying the power of the Turquoise. Turquoise says Jenrick.
Indeed. It is also a classic example of extrapolation from insufficient data.
Since 1988, The Conservative Party has had 10 different leaders, Labour 7 and the LibDems 8. Why 1988? Because that's the year the LibDems were formed and so gives us a comparable data set. But note here, we are talking about 25 individuals in total. Twenty five.
The UK is about 82% White and roughly 51% female.
So let's begin with the Tories:
Total number of leaders: 10
Expected number to be female (in order to be representative): 5
Expected number to be non-white: 2.
As you know, they have had three female leaders and 1 non-white in that time.
LibDems:
Total number of leaders: 8
Expected number to be female: 4 (actually 1)
Expected number to be non-white (actually 0)
Labour:
Total number of leaders: 7
Expected number to be female: 3-4 (actually 0)*
Expected number to be non-white: 1 (actually 0)
*I have deliberately not counted the three occasions when Labour had a female interim leader.
The numbers are just too small to draw any reasonable conclusion. If you care to do a statistical analysis on these numbers, you won't get a significant result. There is insufficient data to say that there is a significant difference between the parties in terms of the chances of electing a female leader. What if there was a significant difference? Is that really predictive of future behaviour? Well maybe as we are talking about attitudes and unconscious bias. These change over time but they often remain stable for prolonged periods so we probably can say that a group that would not elect a female leader 5 years ago, probably won't today. But only maybe.
However, your claim was much stronger than that. You stated that only the Conservative Party would elect a black woman. That's a much stronger claim as it puts the probability at zero. There is simply no evidence for that. We could begin to study the question by asking, how many black women have stood for leader of any of the major parties? Of course, that might just reflect bias at a different level: i.e. black women not getting the opportunity to progress as an MP to be a viable candidate...
Yes. This is why I thought Badenoch was in trouble. I thought that the Tugendhat supporters would all go to Cleverly... I was completely wrong.
I have to admit that I'm not unhappy that Cleverly is out. I have made my feelings about the remaining two quite clear, But, I think that James Cleverly is not so very different from them, if you look at the stuff he says. He is deeply disingenuous in interviews and his Twitter feed is appalling. I will concede that he is better than the other two but nowhere near as 'centre' and 'sensible' as he is portrayed. I don't think even the sycophantic media will be able to dress up whichever of the other two win.
AFZ
It couldn't happen to a nicer party.
Be interesting to see whether Michael Howard would put his ethnicity as White British….
Ahem.
Of course, he's a another Tory circa 2025, but I do think openly endorsing enthno-nationalism is a significant difference and frankly liberals who don't see the danger in that haven't absorbed the lessons of thinking Trump would be the weaker candidate in 2016.
As above, at this point one has to hope Badenoch gets it, if only because she seems likely to be less competent of the two at party management.
Or Ed Miliband, presumably.
Indeed
Both good points.
Tha fact remains that Labour have only ever elected white men as party leader
Good point.
Mr Cleverly? I fear he's far too normal for the CP in its present form and will become yet another of the party's "what if" men.
I differ only slightly from you here. I don't think he is that moderate or 'normal.' I think he successfully presents himself that way but to me, is a facade.
YMMV, of course.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
This might mean helping Kemi Badenoch to the leadership of the Conservative Party, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view. Alternatively you could wait until after the leadership election
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
Jenrick was educated? Who would have guessed?
Well, Noddy Holder ...
I think I'd rather him in charge of the Tory party.
Meanwhile, as we wait for that to happen, I'm with those who don't see a further Conservative lurch to the right as being good for anybody - not a 'gift' for Labour or anyone else for that matter.
It's not good for the country and not good for the Conservative Party itself.
The last thing any of us need is more populism.
Oh, and @Telford the Lib Dem leader you had in mind was Jo Swinson. Yes, we've pretty much forgotten her too ... poor dab.
Why would you support somebody just because of where they’re from?
I think the lurch to the right is indeed a bad thing but I think it inevitable whichever of the original candidates win. As I've said Cleverly's not actually that much better than the alternatives. He just doesn't say the quiet part out loud like some of his colleagues.
I worry about Cleverly's faux-centerism with a degress of competence far more than Badenoch's unpopular brand of chaotic populism.
YMMV, of course.
AFZ
There were 20 Tugendhat supporters in play. Cleverly's vote went down by 2, and the 22 votes split 12 to Badenoch and 10 to Jenrick.
Even though the modern Conservative Party is notorious for being unable to organize a piss-up in a brewery, I don't think this "widely reported" story is credible given these numbers.
I suppose there's an outside chance that there just happened to be two equal-sized groups of Cleverly supporters, and one group thought their man would do best against Jenrick, and the other thought he'd do best against Badenoch, and each group was unaware of the existence of the other group, but that seems to be stretching credulity to its extremes.
There's a variation on the story that Cleverly's number in the previous round was inflated by Jenrick supporters wanting to get rid of Tugdenhat.
It's all very messy.
The difference is that of a Sunak like figure vs a Farage like one, at a time when Labour strategists (Mattinson, McSweeney et al.) are aiming for cultural conservatives and when the leadership doesn't have good instincts when it comes to such issues (witness the weird outburst before the election about Bangladeshis)
As for lurching to the right, candidates will say what they think party members want to hear. Ask Sir Keir if you don't believe me.
That doesn't let Labour off the hook of course. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think @Telford is making the point that Starmer lied out of his arse to get elected Labour leader. The suggestion is that the candidates (most likely Jenrick of the two) is feigning a lurch to the right to appeal to party members. It's not a bad strategy given these are the same members who installed Truss, but I'm not convinced either Jenrick or Badenoch is both able and willing to perform the same sort of abrupt about-face as Starmer. Jenrick (nicknamed "generic" for his ideological *ahem* flexibility) is more likely to try it than Badenoch who appears to be a genuine headbanger.
Yes. By Gove. I think you have it.
Johnson is a serial liar but he's a clumsy liar. Starmer is a calculated Liar. I reckon that Jenrick is just a normal conservative.