Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

I suspect the damage to Osborne over the recent cuts won't be as critical or long-lasting as expected. A bit of public penitence, a sense that lessons have been learned, etc and he'll continue as he was. The government's economic credibility is too heavily tied up in him as a Chancellor to make any significant changes.

This has always been the problem on the horizon, though - there's only so long you can blame Labour profligacy for cuts and the more you sell the idea of the strength of the British economy, the harder it is to portray cuts as anything other than ideological. I think he has probably confused a public willingness to accept reduced welfare and local government spending as a perceived necessity with an active appetite for them.

I don't even think the public has that. It wants an end to the welfare fraud and benefit scrounging and "never working in your life" it has been told are endemic, but it doesn't want the cases it's sympathetic to being cut.

The Tories want the latter and think the public are the same. That's what has started to unravel, I think.

Also, perpetual austerity (which is what the govt pretty much wants), sends the impression that things just aren't getting that much better. That's going to wear on voters sooner or later, not to mention the fact that they'll start asking why. They're already doing so.

I suspect the damage to Osborne over the recent cuts won't be as critical or long-lasting as expected. A bit of public penitence, a sense that lessons have been learned, etc and he'll continue as he was

It is now very unlikely that he'll be the next leader of the Conservative Party or PM. That's a big fall from where he was last autumn. Nothing I can see about the Tories suggests they're in the mood for a continuity candidate right now.

cool if the public are starting to catch on 50 months before next general election

xp, that was

They aren't exactly well stocked with alternatives. Johnson has staked his credibility on Brexit, the up-and-coming Patel / Raab axis is actively evil and there's a lot of dead wood in the cabinet / back benches.

Osborne is so central to their relationship with the city anything that shifts him out is a risk.

the up-and-coming Patel / Raab axis

Don't fancy the UK becoming Singapore? Well, tough.

Weird the Sun standing alone with an "NHS scroungers" story this morning. Are they sympathetic to Osborne? Murdoch sure isn't - cf the Times

Johnson will survive an "In" vote; it's exactly the sort of thing he can shrug off with a "well, we tried our best and now we 47% will battle to make Europe work for us we will never uh uh er surrender"

Johnson has staked his credibility on Brexit, the up-and-coming Patel / Raab axis is actively evil and there's a lot of dead wood in the cabinet / back benches.

Struggling to see why any of these issues would prevent the Tories from voting them in, especially if there's a concerted anti-Osborne movement. There'll be an anti-Boris movement as well obviously, which does increase the likelihood of someone really toxic like Dominic Raab somehow winning. The big winner over the last week or so is probably Theresa May though.

Tory party has definitely been hugely helped by Cameronnosborne staying tight for a whole decade. Things might start coming apart quite quickly if they start sniping like Blairnbrown.

I just hope Corbynnmcdonnell don't go the same way after several years in downing street :-/

Think no pro-remain candidate will win the tory leadership, *especially* if the vote is to stay.

It is now very unlikely that he'll be the next leader of the Conservative Party or PM. That's a big fall from where he was last autumn Wednesday.

Govt not going to oppose rebel amendments to the Budget, this'll get fun

David Davis now getting his money's worth.

He said Osborne had no chance of replacing David Cameron as party leader in the near future. Asked if Osborne’s chances of becoming prime minister were finished, he replied:
Not ever. If the leadership election were to be in the next six months, I think he would be sunk without trace.
He also said it might make sense to move Osborne to another post.

Very, very few people go straight from being chancellor to being prime minister, and when they do, it’s not always a success. Gordon Brown was the last one.
He said that James Callaghan did other jobs after leaving the Treasury (home secretary and foreign secretary) and that he was “given the circumstances, a very successful prime minister”.

No 10 now saying it has "complete confidence" in Osborne. popcorn.gif

Ah, we are at the Football Manager stage, right?

p.s. What's a "successful" Prime Minister?

Not James Callaghan surely?

I mean, Winter of Discontent/Unburied Corpses/Binbags in Leicester Square/ Sned in the Army and Make Prince Philip Head of State blah blah blah

You don't get a "successful" Prime Minister.

People might look back after twenty years and say "ah, he wasn't so bad"

Callaghan did a reasonable job of keeping a minority government going through very tough economic times but I suspect Tories are likely to look fondly on him because he led directly to 11 years of Thatcher.

Its just funny to contemplate a demotion for Osborne - never work, he is absolutely central to these shits at the Treasury.

Fucker must be in a bunker somewhere.

Cameron has cancelled his statement today; Osborne due to speak tomorrow.

Conflicting reports, no 10 has said its going ahead.

John McDonnell has tabled an urgent question in the Commons today, to be answered by David 'Short Straw' Gauke. I assume Osborne is in a darkened room somewhere, knees pulled up to his chin, rocking back and forth and saying."Mummy daddy" over and over again.

Or higher than Goering

https://taliasworld.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/lloyd-bridges-on-glue.jpg

Now seems like a good time for the most prominent proponent of free schools outside the government to start talking about eugenics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/toadmeister/status/699336901820551170

what in the everloving fuck

even for toby young that's a whole new level of clueless cuntery

It's okay it's only "progressive"

Surely Toby understands that any rational eugenics scheme would be aiming to remove his genes from the pool

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/13/article-2002963-02AB563800000578-811_233x386.jpg

And it’s probable that in the next few years genetic research scientists will produce even more evidence that important aspects of people’s personalities—including those that determine whether they succeed or fail—are linked to their genes, with the relevant variants being physically identified.

tbf the sooner we find and eradicate the genetic soup which led to the formation of toby young the better

beaten to it by stevie

http://buzz.bournemouth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TY_EB-med-res.jpeg http://nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/spengler21.jpg

coincidence? I think not

I propose a new question for all IQ tests: "do you believe in IQ as a useful measure of anything?", positive response leads to score docked by 50 points.

#notallmensa

#yesallmensa

Mensa Rights Activism

^ Joe Dolce discovers reddit

George Osborne's Budget is in "absolute chaos" and should be withdrawn, shadow chancellor John McDonnell says.

Mr McDonnell was asking an urgent question about changes to the Budget including the decision to shelve disability benefit cuts.

Gauke wants to be next chancellor so so bad

TS: Ken Clarke, "Gimmicky budgets will lead to ruin" vs David Bowie, "Idiot love will spark the fusion"

Classic Osborne actually - letting this Gauke nobody take the heat while he comes up with monopoly money (which he has done in the past, and I'm sure that is what he is getting his civil servants to do now)

David Gauke says the government will set out its plans in the Autumn Statement.

... which is in November. Unbelievable.

Labour should stop asking this nobody questions until Gideon turns up. Complete waste of time.

I know it's not the burning issue of the moment, but if I can go back to that Toby Young piece:

cognitive ability and other characteristics that lead to success, such as conscientiousness, impulse control and a willingness to defer gratification, are between 40 per cent and 80 per cent heritable.[5]

That footnote leads not to a citation of a scientific paper, but this helpful little explanation:

[5] This means that between 40% and 80% of the variation in these characteristics in any given population can be accounted for by genetic differences in that population.

Sadly, no. Accent, for example, is highly heritable (also, like IQ, correlated with race, class, education, and largely fixed after adolescence). Does it have a genetic component? Nope.

(and that is really the crux of his argument)

Hey Gauke dude. what the fuck is wrong with you?