Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Jesus fuck. A health secretary who apparently knows the square root of fuck all about the dangers of breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria. No doubt when she says "has handed out her own supplies", she means "the pills that I didn't take for the full course because I was feeling so much better," and when she says "people who were feeling unwell", she no doubt means, "people who weren't given them by a doctor because they were suffering from viruses, not bacteriological infections."

I'd like to hope there is someone competent and powerful in her purview who will stop her making ridiculous decisions based on uninformed and idiotic beliefs, but that didn't seem to happen for the Treasury, so I guess the UK is due to become Superbugs Central.

Puja

Seriously, someone should tell Coffey that the government has science advisors and perhaps science decisions should be run past them first. We've never allowed pharmacists to sell antibiotics before . . . maybe there's a reason for that? But then, anything that makes us more like the USA has to be good, eh? No doubt this has nothing to do with lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Hilarious U-turns from the Mail and Telegraph:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... -liz-truss

Imagine what a state we'd be in if a Telegraph journalist had been PM!

[Which Tyler]

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think there are just too many Tories who fancy being PM for this to be a coronation (and so avoid the members having a say), eg Sunak, Mordaunt, Johnson, Hunt, Wallace, Badenoch.

Especially since after 2024 the options for being a Tory PM will be very limited.

(Hopefully the options for a Tory MP will also be considerably reduced )

[Which Tyler]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... f89f552eb3

Nadine Dorries Says Any Tory MP Plot To Oust Liz Truss Would 'Overturn Democracy'
Former culture secretary blasts "absurdly called grandee" male MPs.

Nadine Dorries - who has previously called for two Tory prime ministers to resign - has accused MPs plotting to oust Liz Truss of trying to “overturn democracy”.
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

[Puja]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... f89f552eb3

Nadine Dorries Says Any Tory MP Plot To Oust Liz Truss Would 'Overturn Democracy'
Former culture secretary blasts "absurdly called grandee" male MPs.

Nadine Dorries - who has previously called for two Tory prime ministers to resign - has accused MPs plotting to oust Liz Truss of trying to “overturn democracy”.
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

I mean, she's overwrought and ridiculous, but she does accidentally have something of a point. She's called for two Tory PMs to resign, for them then to be replaced by their constitutional process - the fact that their process is terrible and so is our electoral and governing system is beside the point; it's the rules that have been agreed upon up to this point. To be planning to circumvent them to get rid of her and then circumvent them to implant a candidate to be crowned is fairly shitty behaviour.

It's not the worst of the problems with this whole situation, but it is definitely a problem.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... f89f552eb3

Nadine Dorries Says Any Tory MP Plot To Oust Liz Truss Would 'Overturn Democracy'
Former culture secretary blasts "absurdly called grandee" male MPs.

Nadine Dorries - who has previously called for two Tory prime ministers to resign - has accused MPs plotting to oust Liz Truss of trying to “overturn democracy”.
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

I mean, she's overwrought and ridiculous, but she does accidentally have something of a point. She's called for two Tory PMs to resign, for them then to be replaced by their constitutional process - the fact that their process is terrible and so is our electoral and governing system is beside the point; it's the rules that have been agreed upon up to this point. To be planning to circumvent them to get rid of her and then circumvent them to implant a candidate to be crowned is fairly shitty behaviour.

It's not the worst of the problems with this whole situation, but it is definitely a problem.

Puja

Agreed, replacing a leader mid-term isn't ideal but isn't the worst problem with our system - FPTP is.

Agreed also, not a word leaves Dorries' lips that isn't self-serving bullshit.

I'm a bit torn on the issue (although that may just be Stockholm Syndrome). Under the current rules each party can choose its leader in whatever manner it likes, and if that means changing its own rules, I guess I don't feel it's desperately underhand behavior (in the grand scheme).

Suppose we changed the system so that any mid-term change in PM forces a GE (or maybe, more subtly, a referendum for whether there should be a GE). An unpopular ruling party (or even one that has simply lost some popularity) would be extremely reluctant to replace its leader. With those rules it's unlikely that Johnson (or Thatcher?) would have been deposed.

Actually now that I think about it this might actually be a good thing in the long term - it would prevent some of the shape-shifting that allows the Tories to cling to power

Okay then, this is another one for the written constitution we will never see - if the ruling party changes its leader, and so the PM, then there should be a (legally binding) referendum on whether there should be an immediate GE.

(Given our long parliamentary terms, it might be an idea to have such referendums* after 3 and/or 4 years, to give the country the chance that it desperately wants right now.)


* referendums or referenda? Apparently referendums is the winner:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 56A1D4C78E

[Stom]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... f89f552eb3

I mean, she's overwrought and ridiculous, but she does accidentally have something of a point. She's called for two Tory PMs to resign, for them then to be replaced by their constitutional process - the fact that their process is terrible and so is our electoral and governing system is beside the point; it's the rules that have been agreed upon up to this point. To be planning to circumvent them to get rid of her and then circumvent them to implant a candidate to be crowned is fairly shitty behaviour.

It's not the worst of the problems with this whole situation, but it is definitely a problem.

Puja

Agreed, replacing a leader mid-term isn't ideal but isn't the worst problem with our system - FPTP is.

Agreed also, not a word leaves Dorries' lips that isn't self-serving bullshit.

I'm a bit torn on the issue (although that may just be Stockholm Syndrome). Under the current rules each party can choose its leader in whatever manner it likes, and if that means changing its own rules, I guess I don't feel it's desperately underhand behavior (in the grand scheme).

Suppose we changed the system so that any mid-term change in PM forces a GE (or maybe, more subtly, a referendum for whether there should be a GE). An unpopular ruling party (or even one that has simply lost some popularity) would be extremely reluctant to replace its leader. With those rules it's unlikely that Johnson (or Thatcher?) would have been deposed.

Actually now that I think about it this might actually be a good thing in the long term - it would prevent some of the shape-shifting that allows the Tories to cling to power

Okay then, this is another one for the written constitution we will never see - if the ruling party changes its leader, and so the PM, then there should be a (legally binding) referendum on whether there should be an immediate GE.

(Given our long parliamentary terms, it might be an idea to have such referendums* after 3 and/or 4 years, to give the country the chance that it desperately wants right now.)


* referendums or referenda? Apparently referendums is the winner:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 56A1D4C78E

That would be another shift toward a presidential system, though, and that's something we should be looking to avoid. IMO.

[Which Tyler]

Well, it would appear to be all our fault:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... tish-coup/

I resent what’s been done to Liz Truss and regret this 'very British coup'. Any Tory who welcomes it is a fool

Deviate from orthodoxy, and you’ll be crushed by the Remainer, ‘expert’-driven establishment

I'm not quite sure how it's remainers' fault that Truss is an idiot - didn't the tory party purge itself of all remainers in 2019? And the current crisis is 100% tory.

[Sandydragon]

Well, it would appear to be all our fault:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... tish-coup/

I resent what’s been done to Liz Truss and regret this 'very British coup'. Any Tory who welcomes it is a fool

Deviate from orthodoxy, and you’ll be crushed by the Remainer, ‘expert’-driven establishment

I'm not quite sure how it's remainers' fault that Truss is an idiot - didn't the tory party purge itself of all remainers in 2019? And the current crisis is 100% tory.

The Telegraph stopped dealing in reality some time ago. It's our fault entirely for not believing in Brexit hard enough.

[Sandydragon]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... f89f552eb3

I mean, she's overwrought and ridiculous, but she does accidentally have something of a point. She's called for two Tory PMs to resign, for them then to be replaced by their constitutional process - the fact that their process is terrible and so is our electoral and governing system is beside the point; it's the rules that have been agreed upon up to this point. To be planning to circumvent them to get rid of her and then circumvent them to implant a candidate to be crowned is fairly shitty behaviour.

It's not the worst of the problems with this whole situation, but it is definitely a problem.

Puja

Agreed, replacing a leader mid-term isn't ideal but isn't the worst problem with our system - FPTP is.

Agreed also, not a word leaves Dorries' lips that isn't self-serving bullshit.

I'm a bit torn on the issue (although that may just be Stockholm Syndrome). Under the current rules each party can choose its leader in whatever manner it likes, and if that means changing its own rules, I guess I don't feel it's desperately underhand behavior (in the grand scheme).

Suppose we changed the system so that any mid-term change in PM forces a GE (or maybe, more subtly, a referendum for whether there should be a GE). An unpopular ruling party (or even one that has simply lost some popularity) would be extremely reluctant to replace its leader. With those rules it's unlikely that Johnson (or Thatcher?) would have been deposed.

Actually now that I think about it this might actually be a good thing in the long term - it would prevent some of the shape-shifting that allows the Tories to cling to power

Okay then, this is another one for the written constitution we will never see - if the ruling party changes its leader, and so the PM, then there should be a (legally binding) referendum on whether there should be an immediate GE.

(Given our long parliamentary terms, it might be an idea to have such referendums* after 3 and/or 4 years, to give the country the chance that it desperately wants right now.)


* referendums or referenda? Apparently referendums is the winner:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 56A1D4C78E

Not sure, we elect governments, not presidents. The key for me is adherence to the manifesto on which that party was elected.

However, forcing a GE if there was to be a change of PM would enforce party discipline. Knifing Boris in the back is one thing when its 2-3 years to a GE, but what if that meant an immediate election? Can't see that happening.

[Puja]

I mean, she's overwrought and ridiculous, but she does accidentally have something of a point. She's called for two Tory PMs to resign, for them then to be replaced by their constitutional process - the fact that their process is terrible and so is our electoral and governing system is beside the point; it's the rules that have been agreed upon up to this point. To be planning to circumvent them to get rid of her and then circumvent them to implant a candidate to be crowned is fairly shitty behaviour.

It's not the worst of the problems with this whole situation, but it is definitely a problem.

Puja

Agreed, replacing a leader mid-term isn't ideal but isn't the worst problem with our system - FPTP is.

Agreed also, not a word leaves Dorries' lips that isn't self-serving bullshit.

I'm a bit torn on the issue (although that may just be Stockholm Syndrome). Under the current rules each party can choose its leader in whatever manner it likes, and if that means changing its own rules, I guess I don't feel it's desperately underhand behavior (in the grand scheme).

Suppose we changed the system so that any mid-term change in PM forces a GE (or maybe, more subtly, a referendum for whether there should be a GE). An unpopular ruling party (or even one that has simply lost some popularity) would be extremely reluctant to replace its leader. With those rules it's unlikely that Johnson (or Thatcher?) would have been deposed.

Actually now that I think about it this might actually be a good thing in the long term - it would prevent some of the shape-shifting that allows the Tories to cling to power

Okay then, this is another one for the written constitution we will never see - if the ruling party changes its leader, and so the PM, then there should be a (legally binding) referendum on whether there should be an immediate GE.

(Given our long parliamentary terms, it might be an idea to have such referendums* after 3 and/or 4 years, to give the country the chance that it desperately wants right now.)


* referendums or referenda? Apparently referendums is the winner:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 56A1D4C78E

Not sure, we elect governments, not presidents. The key for me is adherence to the manifesto on which that party was elected.

However, forcing a GE if there was to be a change of PM would enforce party discipline. Knifing Boris in the back is one thing when its 2-3 years to a GE, but what if that meant an immediate election? Can't see that happening.

Our system may elect governments, not president, but that's not how the average man on the electorate casts their vote, nor really how it's advertised. The cult of personality around leaders has been increasing since the mid-00s, fuelled by nonsense like televised leaders' debates and interviews. Very few people vote for the Local MP that best represents their area anymore - the majority vote for Johnson or Corbyn (or against them, more likely, given the shittiness of FPtP) and *their manifesto* and *their charisma*.

It either needs a full-on re-education of the voting public (and getting the parties to stop selling themselves as "Vote for the PM"), or we need to change the way we do things and accept that people want to vote for a leader instead of choosing representatives who then vote for a leader.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

[Stom]

Agreed, replacing a leader mid-term isn't ideal but isn't the worst problem with our system - FPTP is.

Agreed also, not a word leaves Dorries' lips that isn't self-serving bullshit.

I'm a bit torn on the issue (although that may just be Stockholm Syndrome). Under the current rules each party can choose its leader in whatever manner it likes, and if that means changing its own rules, I guess I don't feel it's desperately underhand behavior (in the grand scheme).

Suppose we changed the system so that any mid-term change in PM forces a GE (or maybe, more subtly, a referendum for whether there should be a GE). An unpopular ruling party (or even one that has simply lost some popularity) would be extremely reluctant to replace its leader. With those rules it's unlikely that Johnson (or Thatcher?) would have been deposed.

Actually now that I think about it this might actually be a good thing in the long term - it would prevent some of the shape-shifting that allows the Tories to cling to power

Okay then, this is another one for the written constitution we will never see - if the ruling party changes its leader, and so the PM, then there should be a (legally binding) referendum on whether there should be an immediate GE.

(Given our long parliamentary terms, it might be an idea to have such referendums* after 3 and/or 4 years, to give the country the chance that it desperately wants right now.)


* referendums or referenda? Apparently referendums is the winner:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 56A1D4C78E

Not sure, we elect governments, not presidents. The key for me is adherence to the manifesto on which that party was elected.

However, forcing a GE if there was to be a change of PM would enforce party discipline. Knifing Boris in the back is one thing when its 2-3 years to a GE, but what if that meant an immediate election? Can't see that happening.

Our system may elect governments, not president, but that's not how the average man on the electorate casts their vote, nor really how it's advertised. The cult of personality around leaders has been increasing since the mid-00s, fuelled by nonsense like televised leaders' debates and interviews. Very few people vote for the Local MP that best represents their area anymore - the majority vote for Johnson or Corbyn (or against them, more likely, given the shittiness of FPtP) and *their manifesto* and *their charisma*.

It either needs a full-on re-education of the voting public (and getting the parties to stop selling themselves as "Vote for the PM"), or we need to change the way we do things and accept that people want to vote for a leader instead of choosing representatives who then vote for a leader.

Puja

I'd suggest the rot set in long before the naughties...

Like most bad things in politics, it can be traced back to Thatcher.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Latest poll as at 16th Oct has the biggest gap: 56% Lab - 20% Cons

[Which Tyler]

Do we think that Kwasi is just severely constipated?




He just couldn't budge it.

[Puja]

Latest poll as at 16th Oct has the biggest gap: 56% Lab - 20% Cons

If that poll played out in real life, the Conservatives would likely lose so many seats that they'd no longer actually be the opposition. The SNP would!

It'd never actually happen like that, but it would almost be worth all this despair and pain just to have it happen.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Agreed, replacing a leader mid-term isn't ideal but isn't the worst problem with our system - FPTP is.

Agreed also, not a word leaves Dorries' lips that isn't self-serving bullshit.

I'm a bit torn on the issue (although that may just be Stockholm Syndrome). Under the current rules each party can choose its leader in whatever manner it likes, and if that means changing its own rules, I guess I don't feel it's desperately underhand behavior (in the grand scheme).

Suppose we changed the system so that any mid-term change in PM forces a GE (or maybe, more subtly, a referendum for whether there should be a GE). An unpopular ruling party (or even one that has simply lost some popularity) would be extremely reluctant to replace its leader. With those rules it's unlikely that Johnson (or Thatcher?) would have been deposed.

Actually now that I think about it this might actually be a good thing in the long term - it would prevent some of the shape-shifting that allows the Tories to cling to power

Okay then, this is another one for the written constitution we will never see - if the ruling party changes its leader, and so the PM, then there should be a (legally binding) referendum on whether there should be an immediate GE.

(Given our long parliamentary terms, it might be an idea to have such referendums* after 3 and/or 4 years, to give the country the chance that it desperately wants right now.)


* referendums or referenda? Apparently referendums is the winner:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 56A1D4C78E

Not sure, we elect governments, not presidents. The key for me is adherence to the manifesto on which that party was elected.

However, forcing a GE if there was to be a change of PM would enforce party discipline. Knifing Boris in the back is one thing when its 2-3 years to a GE, but what if that meant an immediate election? Can't see that happening.

Our system may elect governments, not president, but that's not how the average man on the electorate casts their vote, nor really how it's advertised. The cult of personality around leaders has been increasing since the mid-00s, fuelled by nonsense like televised leaders' debates and interviews. Very few people vote for the Local MP that best represents their area anymore - the majority vote for Johnson or Corbyn (or against them, more likely, given the shittiness of FPtP) and *their manifesto* and *their charisma*.

It either needs a full-on re-education of the voting public (and getting the parties to stop selling themselves as "Vote for the PM"), or we need to change the way we do things and accept that people want to vote for a leader instead of choosing representatives who then vote for a leader.

Puja

I agree with you, that’s the perception. But it’s not how the constitution works so I’d suggest caution is making the PM more presidential as they remain a MP like all the others. And if removing Johnson had meant a GE then he would still be there. With no cabinet.

[Stom]

Latest poll as at 16th Oct has the biggest gap: 56% Lab - 20% Cons

If that poll played out in real life, the Conservatives would likely lose so many seats that they'd no longer actually be the opposition. The SNP would!

It'd never actually happen like that, but it would almost be worth all this despair and pain just to have it happen.

Puja

Which is why it’s so important to keep Truss there! As soon as Rishi is PM, the polls will creep back toward parity.

Obviously speaking as someone not living in the UK

[Puja]

Latest poll as at 16th Oct has the biggest gap: 56% Lab - 20% Cons

If that poll played out in real life, the Conservatives would likely lose so many seats that they'd no longer actually be the opposition. The SNP would!

It'd never actually happen like that, but it would almost be worth all this despair and pain just to have it happen.

Puja

Which is why it’s so important to keep Truss there! As soon as Rishi is PM, the polls will creep back toward parity.

Obviously speaking as someone not living in the UK

Two and a bit years is an awfully long time not to have a functioning government though...

Puja

[Banquo]

If that poll played out in real life, the Conservatives would likely lose so many seats that they'd no longer actually be the opposition. The SNP would!

It'd never actually happen like that, but it would almost be worth all this despair and pain just to have it happen.

Puja

Which is why it’s so important to keep Truss there! As soon as Rishi is PM, the polls will creep back toward parity.

Obviously speaking as someone not living in the UK

Two and a bit years is an awfully long time not to have a functioning government though...

Puja

well yes. I'd rather have someone in charge with some interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence, not entirely driven by an outdated (and populist to blue rinsers) ideology.

I did like Keir Starmer's line- The Lady's not for turning....up

[Stom]

Which is why it’s so important to keep Truss there! As soon as Rishi is PM, the polls will creep back toward parity.

Obviously speaking as someone not living in the UK

Two and a bit years is an awfully long time not to have a functioning government though...

Puja

well yes. I'd rather have someone in charge with some interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence, not entirely driven by an outdated (and populist to blue rinsers) ideology.

I did like Keir Starmer's line- The Lady's not for turning....up

I think 2.5 years is a price worth paying to kill off the Tory party for a generation.

But hey, that’s just me.

[Puja]

Two and a bit years is an awfully long time not to have a functioning government though...

Puja

well yes. I'd rather have someone in charge with some interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence, not entirely driven by an outdated (and populist to blue rinsers) ideology.

I did like Keir Starmer's line- The Lady's not for turning....up

I think 2.5 years is a price worth paying to kill off the Tory party for a generation.

But hey, that’s just me.

If I was sure that'd happen, then yeah, possibly (although cold comfort to the people who'd die over that period). However, the longer this economic cockknockery goes on, the worse the state of the country will be and I'm concerned about Labour getting a massive majority with no resources to actually do much, except turn things slightly around across two parliaments before they get booted out by a resurgent Tories because people are angry about tough choices and being responsible and are seduced by "Britain's Great, let's start acting like it" bullshit again. Not least because Labour will once again fail to do electoral reform once they get power, especially in the unlikely event of them actually getting a ridiculous 400 MP majority.

Puja

[Banquo]

Two and a bit years is an awfully long time not to have a functioning government though...

Puja

well yes. I'd rather have someone in charge with some interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence, not entirely driven by an outdated (and populist to blue rinsers) ideology.

I did like Keir Starmer's line- The Lady's not for turning....up

I think 2.5 years is a price worth paying to kill off the Tory party for a generation.

But hey, that’s just me.

Not as it currently is here tbh. I don't think they can revive in 2.5 years, even if competent.

[Puja]

well yes. I'd rather have someone in charge with some interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence, not entirely driven by an outdated (and populist to blue rinsers) ideology.

I did like Keir Starmer's line- The Lady's not for turning....up

I think 2.5 years is a price worth paying to kill off the Tory party for a generation.

But hey, that’s just me.

Not as it currently is here tbh. I don't think they can revive in 2.5 years, even if competent.

That feels optimistic to me. I think the current polling is a lot of Conservative voters "lending their votes" to Starmer (who is really as blue as a Labour leader is likely to get) over the current debacle. It's not a rejection of these kind of policies or the party as a whole, just a reflection of the mess and the wave of public opinion drawing in more people who are swept up in doing what everyone else is, which is hating Truss.

It's all incredibly fragile and, if the Tory party can give them some reason, a fig leaf of respectability to make it socially acceptable to support them again such as a "sensible" leader and a "reboot of policy", I think all their core voters will come rushing back. Sunak's the danger - he's got a reputation for economic competence that is enhanced by him accurately and openly predicting what Truss's policies would do to the economy and he'll allow them to do a complete reset and get away with it scot-free.

Puja