Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

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I'd rather have someone in charge with some interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence, not entirely driven by an outdated (and populist to blue rinsers) ideology.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

I thought Truss was the best result for the country in the medium-long term for this reason. Mind you, I thought she'd need a year or two to destroy the Tories. Unfortunately she's been far too effective and taken the economy down in a month

The damage has been done as far as the Tories go. Although no one can be written off for a generation the Tories are in a similar (yet worse) position than the mid-90s: too long in office to blame anyone but themselves for the current state of the country, tired (but not as tired as the electorate are of them) and seen as incompetent for having presided over economic catastrophe (this time entirely self-caused).

Based on the fallout from the Thatcher-Major years I think Labour are safe for the next GE and probably the one after that. Beyond that, I think memories (of those not interested in politics) will have faded enough to allow Mordaunt et al to ride a wave of Tory media bullshit to victory. By that point Starmer would be wise to enact PR*.

*Obviously there could be some miraculous occurrence which would see the Tories shrivel to third-party status, but with the power and money of the billionaire press backing them it's pretty unlikely. Also this would require a resurgence of the Libdems but despite the recent ApocaLiz, there is no sign of this.

[Banquo]

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

I agree with SOM's analysis. The flying boztruss has broken the tory vote for a long time.

[Puja]

I agree with SOM's analysis. The flying boztruss has broken the tory vote for a long time.

I do hope you're both right. I'm concerned that the situation is very different to 1997 in two major respects: the Labour party and the state of the UK. Starmer's Labour is thriving on being seen as a safe pair of hands right now, not because anyone's particularly excited about the way they're going to change Britain. They've got nothing that's heart-and-mind-winning along the lines of "Education, education, education," and I worry that leaves them vulnerable to the other side no longer being hoof-wanking bunglecunts.

In addition, New Labour delivered some real change which kept them popular. I'm not sure New New Labour will have the resources to do much of anything.

Still, let's travel hopefully and assume you're right. I think I'm just traumatised from watching them escape every consequence for the past 12 years.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The Conservatives managed to stay in power for 12 years without the resources to do much of anything. This may be because Labour’s ‘hoof-wanking bunglecunts’, whatever that means, lost* a string of elections against the Conservatives’ ’hoof-wanking bunglecunts’ but there’s always hope. Sadly, both parties have a huge amount of ‘hoof-wanking bunglecunts’ in them, I’m guessing as I’m not sure what it means, as being a broad church means that it is sadly fairly inevitable. Even more sadly, those hoof-wanking bunglecunts keep being elected as party leader**.

* I appreciate Corbyn won the 2017 election

**As above, I’m not sure what a ‘hoof-wanking bunglecunt’ is but I’m fairly certain Starmer isn’t one. Let’s hope the Conservatives next leader isn’t one too, as then we can have someone win on merit rather than due to the fact the oppo has a bigger ‘hoof-wanking bunglecunt’ as their leader.

[Puja]

As above, I’m not sure what a ‘hoof-wanking bunglecunt’ is...

It's an impolite way of calling someone a complete incompetent. I had assumed it would be obvious from context, but we all know what assumption causes.

Puja

[Puja]

8 minutes ling, but definitely worth a watch as an explainer of the influence that these libertarian thinktanks and their ridiculous fanaticism towards extreme free-marketism have had on the Conservative party. With luck, them trying and failing their stupid theories will mean fewer people will buy into it in future, although they'll probably just argue that they would have worked had they been tried harder.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

8 minutes ling, but definitely worth a watch as an explainer of the influence that these libertarian thinktanks and their ridiculous fanaticism towards extreme free-marketism have had on the Conservative party. With luck, them trying and failing their stupid theories will mean fewer people will buy into it in future, although they'll probably just argue that they would have worked had they been tried harder.

Puja

Excellent.

The extreme free market think tanks, and the whole neoliberal movement should take a hit from this. Almost like a Corbyn moment for them (except worse since Corbyn didn't crash the economy or anything real). Hopefully these bullshitting fronts for billionaires will have this hung around their necks every time they open their mouths in future.

[Mellsblue]

Corbyn didn’t crash the economy because he couldn’t get in to power. I dread to think how the markets would’ve reacted had he won an election.
My guess would be that the think tanks will believe their ideas were only rejected because of the economic weather when the announcements were made and the complete naivety of how they were introduced. Up to point, they would be right, imo.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I agree with SOM's analysis. The flying boztruss has broken the tory vote for a long time.

I do hope you're both right. I'm concerned that the situation is very different to 1997 in two major respects: the Labour party and the state of the UK. Starmer's Labour is thriving on being seen as a safe pair of hands right now, not because anyone's particularly excited about the way they're going to change Britain. They've got nothing that's heart-and-mind-winning along the lines of "Education, education, education," and I worry that leaves them vulnerable to the other side no longer being hoof-wanking bunglecunts.

In addition, New Labour delivered some real change which kept them popular. I'm not sure New New Labour will have the resources to do much of anything.

Still, let's travel hopefully and assume you're right. I think I'm just traumatised from watching them escape every consequence for the past 12 years.

Puja

Agreed the state for the economy is radically different to 1997, but it's more like 2010, and as with the Tories then they can blame everything on the previous government. It's not good but not a killer, politically.

As for Labour itself, I agree it's not as 'attractive' as New Labour in that Starmer is an average speaker, light years behind Blair, and not the most cunning political operator either. And even worse, 2022 Labour has Murdoch's press against it, whereas Blair had done a deal with that devil. As for ideas though, I disagree. New Labour was simply a brand, it's only 'idea' being the third way, ie Tory-lite. Starmer's Labour, despite the dumping of most of his pledges, is much more distinct from the Tories.

Altogether this gives me less confidence in 2022 Labour vs 1997 Labour, so the furthest prediction I would make is a likely 2030 victory.

[Mellsblue]

The Murdoch press devil had a readership of circa 1.64mil in 2020 according Wikipedia which isn’t a huge chunk of the electorate and as a reader of one of his papers I can tell you that they haven’t been complimentary of this govt or the previous one. I may just be brainwashed by Murdoch’s evil genius but the whole ‘the left only lose because of the press’ argument needs a rethink.

[Stom]

The Murdoch press devil had a readership of circa 1.64mil in 2020 according Wikipedia which isn’t a huge chunk of the electorate and as a reader of one of his papers I can tell you that they haven’t been complimentary of this govt or the previous one. I may just be brainwashed by Murdoch’s evil genius but the whole ‘the left only lose because of the press’ argument needs a rethink.

The press isn't newspapers anymore, though, it's social media and influencers.

Have you seen the quantity of far right and libertarian media out there? It's impossible to avoid and it comes with the veneer of respectability. The recent show, split into many clips, by that beardy twunt going around asking people what is a woman, is just one of them.

The fact that not one of the guests said: gender is a social construct shows how edited those shows are, and they are pervasive. Everywhere and covering every libertarian topic such as the traditional family, 'modern - read toxic - masculinty, the role of the state, investment advice, how to treat people as a rich person, how to look rich, and so on.

It's problematic, and people cannot tell the difference between it and actual fact-based media. THIS is the media that the modern Labour party has to contend with, and it's far harder to shake off than Murdoch.

[Mellsblue]

The Murdoch press devil had a readership of circa 1.64mil in 2020 according Wikipedia which isn’t a huge chunk of the electorate and as a reader of one of his papers I can tell you that they haven’t been complimentary of this govt or the previous one. I may just be brainwashed by Murdoch’s evil genius but the whole ‘the left only lose because of the press’ argument needs a rethink.

The press isn't newspapers anymore, though, it's social media and influencers.

Have you seen the quantity of far right and libertarian media out there? It's impossible to avoid and it comes with the veneer of respectability. The recent show, split into many clips, by that beardy twunt going around asking people what is a woman, is just one of them.

The fact that not one of the guests said: gender is a social construct shows how edited those shows are, and they are pervasive. Everywhere and covering every libertarian topic such as the traditional family, 'modern - read toxic - masculinty, the role of the state, investment advice, how to treat people as a rich person, how to look rich, and so on.

It's problematic, and people cannot tell the difference between it and actual fact-based media. THIS is the media that the modern Labour party has to contend with, and it's far harder to shake off than Murdoch.

Agreed completely; however, have you seen the quantity of the left’s content? It’s an issue on all sides. Twitter’s U.K. users are mainly younger and left of centre, Twitter has said it’s own algorithm amplifies right of centre political tweets over left of centre… it’s a complete mess. Sadly, it’s the Wild West where, if you have the spare time, any old idiot can become an ‘expert’, untruths can be posted with no verification and the echo chambers will just intensify that, see the Coffey ‘quote’ earlier in this thread.

[Which Tyler]

If I'm reading this right (paraphrase, not quote, obviously)... "You MUST vote against your own manifesto pledge, or be fired - even if you're not in the country (unless you're called Boris, of course - we love you Boris)" All wrapped up in a lie that it's a confidence motion - pretty sure those are no confidence votes, not votes in opposition of their own manifesto.


Oh, and I am not Beth Rigby, nor related to Beth Rigby; Beth Rigby's opinions are (presumably) the opinions of Beth Rigby, and not necessarily shared by Which Tyler

[Puja]

If I'm reading this right (paraphrase, not quote, obviously)... "You MUST vote against your own manifesto pledge, or be fired - even if you're not in the country (unless you're called Boris, of course - we love you Boris)" All wrapped up in a lie that it's a confidence motion - pretty sure those are no confidence votes, not votes in opposition of their own manifesto.


Oh, and I am not Beth Rigby, nor related to Beth Rigby; Beth Rigby's opinions are (presumably) the opinions of Beth Rigby, and not necessarily shared by Which Tyler

It's the same tactic Boris used on the Brexit vote - self-declaring it a confidence issue where the punishment was stripping of the whip and expulsion from the party.

Big risk though - if they face a rebellion of 40 MPs, would they really expel all of them? Would they not then have no incentive not to vote with an actual confidence motion if they're already on their way out?

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

If I'm reading this right (paraphrase, not quote, obviously)... "You MUST vote against your own manifesto pledge, or be fired - even if you're not in the country (unless you're called Boris, of course - we love you Boris)" All wrapped up in a lie that it's a confidence motion - pretty sure those are no confidence votes, not votes in opposition of their own manifesto.


Oh, and I am not Beth Rigby, nor related to Beth Rigby; Beth Rigby's opinions are (presumably) the opinions of Beth Rigby, and not necessarily shared by Which Tyler

It's the same tactic Boris used on the Brexit vote - self-declaring it a confidence issue where the punishment was stripping of the whip and expulsion from the party.

Big risk though - if they face a rebellion of 40 MPs, would they really expel all of them? Would they not then have no incentive not to vote with an actual confidence motion if they're already on their way out?

Puja

A dangerous game. For any back-bencher in an unsafe seat (there are quite a lot of them now) there may not be that much to lose. For red wall Tories it might be the time to defect to Labour or go looking for a job outside Parliament. Risking your majority just to save fracking! Incredible.

Looking forward to this.

[Which Tyler]

Hunt's reshuffle

[fivepointer]

Please can someone do the humane thing and take the Govt aside and put it out of its misery.

This farce cannot go on any longer.

[Banquo]

apparently its not about policy but some indiscretion or mistake.....so, a matter of honour Who knew.

[Which Tyler]

[Banquo]

In fairness, she cocked up and resigned. Cough 'Truss' cough

Though her resignation letter has a hint of....thank god I screwed up, as I don't want to be part of this crock of sh&t...and funnily enough, makes it a double barrelled blast at automaton Liz.

Another cracking day for Planet Truss- overrules (by mistake I think) Hunt's briefing on reviewing triple lock, special advisor suspended, B of E wasn't briefed on mini non budget, Bravermann goes, and suspect she'll be fracked ce soir.

[Which Tyler]

In fairness, she cocked up and resigned. Cough 'Truss' cough

Yeah, of course she did - in no way was she told to resign today or be fired tomorrow.

[Banquo]

In fairness, she cocked up and resigned. Cough 'Truss' cough

Yeah, of course she did - in no way was she told to resign today or be fired tomorrow.

neither of us know, unless you have a fully checked source . Either way, she's served a cold revenge.

[Which Tyler]

If we carry on at this rate, 2 crazy tories lost this week - how long before we run out of crazy tories? or does the GE still come first?

[Banquo]

If we carry on at this rate, 2 crazy tories lost this week - how long before we run out of crazy tories? or does the GE still come first?

I just can't see even this bizarre mob voting to get themselves voted out of office. There may be enough to do it by accident because they know how crazy Liz is and want shot whatever the consequences.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m not getting carried away it’ll make a huge difference overall but Braverman getting canned is at least one thing to happy about. What a horrible fucking bitch.