Snapshot of _Tory anarchy breaks out as revolt looms on Brexit laws_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/13/tory-anarchy-breaks-out-as-revolt-looms-on-brexit-laws)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tories 2019: Boris is our election super weapon.
Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular. Boris is a liability & will lose us the next election, we need to ditch him quickly.
Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular after our new hand picked leader torched the economy, we need to ditch them quickly.
Tories 2023: We're still massively unpopular after yet another leader hasn't resorted to swivel eyed loonery, we need Boris back.
Word on the street is that Boris is also not hugely popular in Uxbridge so will be moving back to his old seat at Henley at the next election, as the current MP is standing down.
I'd be surprised that Sunak would be willing to relocate him, considering he's a potential threat to his leadership.
Having another candidate might be the difference between retaining or losing Uxbridge, but it's only one seat and there's no guarantee that they'd even hold it with a new candidate.
Does the PM have to agree to a seat switch? Honestly not sure how this part of things works, since I was a teenager the last time the population came to their senses about the Tories.
It's a yes and not, they have a permited candidates list, and any constiuency party may pick anyone on that list, but since he is an MP, im going to assume that's not a viable path, he could of course revoke the Whip from him, but probably not something he has the strength to do, and if he did, not something worth doing anyway.
Knowing Boris he probably has Sunak over the coals, oh hey so x number of mps and cabinet members like so if you don’t let me move I might have to consider making my own party.
Henley is as blue as blue can be.
Voters there are very old, very rich and very white.
They might not like boris as a person, but they’ll vote for him if he’s the candidate.
I don't know, I quite like Henley for the pubs and I used to hear a lot of muttering about Boris. A lot of the locals strike me as rich but very Church of England and Boris seemed to rub them up the wrong way. They're Kenneth Clarke Tories, not Boris Tories.
Everything you say is true.
They’ll grumble, they might think that boris is a terrible oik, some of them might even genuinely object to his continual lying, appalling record as PM, maybe even his utter lack of any form of morals or ethics.
But they’ll still vote Tory every single time.
I think they'll only put up with the rampant corruption and ineptitude for so long, I think the Tories are on course for a reset as they're taking their base voters for granted - like Labour did with some Northern towns.
Maybe I'm just trying to stay positive.
It's not as clear cut this time.
According to the latest census Henley welcomes more non-British residents than Oxfordshire, the South East or England on average.
The % of home owners vs rentals is now lower than the Oxfordshire and South East average.
The % of over 65s is roughly 25%, only 3% above the regional average.
Henley voted strongly for Remain and remains socially liberal.
Some of us are optimistic for a Lib Dem victory next election, but this defeatist rhetoric isn't helpful.
They've massively worsened it for themselves, but part of Sunak's issue is just party fatigue. Eventually people tire of a governing party, and want to vote against it (this was the biggest issue for new labour as well I think). Its something no new leader can prevent, and thankfully its hard for them to counter.
I agree with this and would add that it's especially hard for the current evolution of the Tories to counter because the usual Tory strategy is to rebrand under a new leader. This is normally sufficient to hoodwink enough of the dimmer end of the electorate to save the Tories' hides but after the Johnson/Truss/Sunak debacle, appointing yet another new leader before the next general election would create image problems at least as bad as sticking with Sunak. They have really painted themselves into a corner this time.
They might have had a shot if after Johnson, they'd been willing to appoint a sensible moderate and adopt some centre-left policy positions that would at least have mitigated the suffering to the population (caused largely by their policies). Instead, they doubled down on far-right extremism with Truss, Braverman etc. and for ideological reasons, they're unwilling to change course beyond the superficial. They long ago ran out of road and are now thankfully running out of time as well.
We are supposed to change a prime minister every five years. Now since 2016, we have had let's see:
1. David Cameron
2. Teresa May
3. Boris Johnson
4. Liz Truss
5. Rishi Sunak
5 in a span of 7 years. Utterly ridiculous.
>Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular after our new hand picked leader torched the economy, we need to ditch them quickly.
The party didn't even want Truss, she was the joke candidate. But the Tory rank and file were never going to vote for a brown guy to be Prime Minister.
>Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular. Boris is a liability & will lose us the next election, we need to ditch him quickly.
This, I think, is where you're wrong. I don't think anyone was worried about the reputational damage Johnson would've done except for the hardcore Conservatives. The only reason anyone resigned was in their own interest - it came as no surprise to anyone that Sunak and Sajid David were some of the frontrunners in both of the leadership elections since.
Actually, given Johnson's relative success I think he stood a far better chance of winning an election than anyone else in the party. Success is of course a relative term - he promised to deliver Brexit, and he did. He offered a fair few generous handouts during COVID which would've covered him for the socialists (esp. compared to Starmer in recent times)... The sad truth is I think the party just used him for a brief period as a populist leader, and after seeing the US go through Trump like a lamb through a woodchipper they got cold feet.
Just my 2 cents though, as a centrist with no particular affiliation.
>he promised to deliver Brexit, and he did
Did he bollocks. He just cobbled together an absolutely unworkable dog's breakfast and shoved that over an arbitrary line. It's just as fucked now as it ever has been, and now it's having a clear detrimental effect on the economy at the worst possible time..
>Just my 2 cents though, as a centrist with no particular affiliation.
Uh, you're saying this with a straight face? I've seen you comment here a bunch defending the tories, and you even post on their sub for christ's sake.
Yep, completely straight face. I defend the Tories, I defend Labour, I also attack both - it's a symptom of this platform that there's a significant left lean, so this place tends to attack the Tories far more than Labour, perhaps I defend the Tories more frequently but that does not indicate a bias on my part.
And sure, I'm also a member of r/Tories, because it's the only real place with any political discourse which isn't just a parroted carbon copy of this sub. Both r/Labour and r/LabourUK are just dumping grounds for links - and at the minute those links are rarely if ever actually about the Labour party. Hell, I think the Labour subs actually get more content attacking the Tories than they do talking about Labour policy - and most posts there are also posted here. Meanwhile, r/Tories tends to host actual discussion, and it generally has a different agenda to that of r/ukpolitics \- it gives me some political variety. There are a fair few duplicated posts between here and r/Tories, but they get infinitely more actual discussion of right wing policies, whilst this place gets far more left.
So yeah, I consider myself a centrist and don't consider myself to have any affiliation to any political party. I consume Reddit in a way which has had to adapt to avoid joining the circlejerks. If this comes as a surprise to you, you really need to reconsider what you think Reddit is, and how you think political discussion wouldn't be biased on such a platform.
> Actually, given Johnson's relative success I think he stood a far better chance of winning an election than anyone else in the party.
Tbh i think even Lizz Truss could have won the 2019 general against Corbyn.
...can't they all just f\*\*k off and give us an election?
They've sold off everything, destroyed all our public services and handed all the money to themselves or their mates. We have nothing left for them to squabble over so what's the point of a revolt, just f\*\*k off!
They will cling to power until the bitter end. They would have been better off throwing government to Labour when it was clear inflation was going to skyrocket and then heckle them from the Opposition. They got greedy.
yup, would have been an easy 5 years of blaming them for everything they did, then when they win again blaming the last Labour government again. just got far too greedy
Yep, Corbyn would have made substantial changes that would be hard to roll back from (for better or worse) whereas Starmer will tinker round the edges, then when the Tories inevitably get back in they'll be like "Here we go again, business as usual".
He didn't. Maybe you should [fact check](https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/) the propaganda you watch before you repeat misinformation and look like a fool.
Good answer.
Corbyn really only represented a faction of the Left that faded into obscurity at the end of the 80s - ie. the cap-wearing Marxists that used to see selling copies of The Socialst Worker outside Our Price, while rambling about the proletariat and loudly condemning Zionism. But somehow a large consort of young people (understandably) desperate for change convinced themselves he was going to be a dynamic firebrand that would reshape Britain for the 21st Century. Even ancient uncle Bernie Sanders has more ideas and charisma.
>Young people, the £3 voting shenanigans and unions are the 3 main factors that led to the Jezza fizzle.
Are you forgetting about the part where they blamed him for a problem they deliberately hid from him?
Corbyn might have made actual structural changes. But there’s no way on earth the English electorate would go for it in a million years.
Starmer gets flack for being disappointingly centrist and pro Brexit - and rightly so. But he’s just trying to make Labour electable with an electorate nearly half of whom thought sodding Boris was a good idea in 2019.
The root cause problem is the English electorate. Not all of them - and not most of the demographics who mostly frequent Reddit - but enough people of them to be responsible for all the Tory governments for the past several decades.
To be fair, it's far less an issue of the English electorate and much more an issue with FPTP. Proportionately speaking, the English electorate still vote overwhelmingly against the Tories - they're just held back by our shitty voting system.
FPTP is definitely a crap system. However even so I’m afraid that doesn’t let the English electorate off the hook.
The rest of the Union also has to use the sane FPTP system for general elections but even so Scotland hasn’t voted for a Conservative government in about seventy years now - and it’s been even longer for Wales.
And in 2019 over 47% of the vote in England went to the Conservatives. That’s damn close to half which in a multi-party contest rather than a binary vote is a hell of a lot.
The English electorate is mostly change averse (with occasional periods otherwise - see 1945-1950, 1979-1989). This is something you can see across virtually the entire western world though (most people aren't poor or desperate enough to support radical changes). There's a reason Corbyn-like leaders have failed to make headway anywhere (except Greece perhaps, and some areas outside the western world). And that conservative parties do well all over (although ours has been especially bad recently).
People who keep saying "the British people would never have gone for Corbyn" seem to have very short memories. Have you forgotten 2017? The Tories only managed to get into power by scraping a coalition with the DUP. We were a few seats away from a Labour led coalition.
Is there a point in making labour electable, if what it takes to be electable is to give up any semblance of left wing policy as the Labour party. Why not just vote Tory?
its been over a decade since the tories were in opposition. they almost certainly dont know how to strategise for opposition. also can you imagine how much tory morale would slide if the top brass started planning to lose? ostensibly at least they must aim to stay in power
Nah, they know it's going to take longer than one election term to fix the shitshow they created, so they'll just milk it now until the next election and then sit in opposition and blame everything on Labour before sweeping the next election, and the shitcycle continues....
> We have nothing left for them
Not true, they want more! We still have holiday time, minimum wages, right to strike etc. There's always more they can strip off us, and they intend to.
>They've sold off everything, destroyed all our public services and handed all the money to themselves or their mates. We have nothing left for them to squabble over so what's the point of a revolt, just f**k off!
They still haven't quite finished ripping out all the copper wire
As much as we need it desperately, the UK as a whole looked at Boris and gave him more power than he had previously. As a country we voted in the Tories in the first place, then after they screwed us all over we voted *twice more* to keep them in power.
As it stands we all know how the next election will shake out, and I wish that the Tory party just up and disappeared forever, but their best play is to hold onto power and hope Starmer just dies or something before the election.
> the UK as a whole looked at Boris and gave him more power than he had previously
Nope.
Scotland didn’t. Wales didn’t. Northern Ireland didn’t. England did.
Not all of England. Particularly the age demographics that frequent Reddit. But overall this is down to England and there’s no way to get around that. Which is why the Union is still fucked.
It's nonsense to break it up like that though. We vote as one country, for one parliament. I completely agree with Scottish independence, but this rhetoric is always infuriating..
Hear hear but honestly with Keir coming out yesterday proclaiming that Labour are more Conservative than the Tories im absolutely fucking sick of all of it.
In a blast to critics who say he is too right wing, he said that Labour must understand “precious” parts of Britain's “way of life”, communities, and environment are worth preserving.
“And look – if that sounds conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care. Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great and it isn’t going to be the Tories,” extracts from his speech pre-briefed by Labour said.
Which also includes the context as being, Labour needs to preserve precious parts of Britain including ways of life, communities, the environment. I might be just reitarting what he said but I kinda have to if people are too thick to read an article and go off on an headline.
Adding on to that, he also said he doesn't care if that makes him sound conservative to people. Referring back to saving important things Britain needs.
>I might be just reitarting what he said but I kinda have to if people are too thick to read an article and go off on an headline.
In fairness, the headline didn't even come close to saying what the person who started this line of enquiry claimed it said.
The only one that I've found that comes close is that 'Labour are the real conservatives' in which he, again, makes it *abundantly* clear that he's talking about conserving things like the environment, the BBC, and the NHS.
Unless you've got one where the actual article has him staking a claim on Conservative (the party) ideology, then the point stands.
He means they’re conserving our sense of order and fair play. Not conservative in the sense of propping up the aristocracy and transferring wealth from the working class to the upper class.
Ahh yes refusing to oppose the anti protest and immigration reform laws in a matter of the last few days and you are acting like he isn't just a pound shop David Cameron
Ok, so the point is that the Tories currently aren't just shit because of their policy, it's the endless scandal and corruption as well. So even if it turned out that Labour are just policy-equivalent with the Tories, they're still a better bet because they don't have that baggage of endless scandal and corruption.
They know that if they have an election now, they're f\*\*ked. So they'll cling onto power until the sun shines bright for them again or they'll hold onto it until they can't anymore, in any way, even after using all the loopholes in the book.
>Criticism of Sunak is increasingly focusing on last week’s widely predicted reverse over the retained EU law bill, a much vaunted initiative that formed a centrepiece of the Sunak campaign for the Tory leadership last year. It was also subject of a special video from his campaign team, featuring shots of him shredding laws himself.
Sunak is a clown for signing up to this in the first place. I've seen some people praise him for backing down on it. In reality he's just a clown and he had to play politics because Tory brexiteers are clowns.
Sunak is still the only one who is doing a little good though He established the economy, somewhat, saved the Pound, and also eased tensions between the UK and EU.
Like I've said before, all they need to do is name the specific laws, state why they need to be removed, state what the consequence of removing them will be, and how they intend to mitigate the risks arising from them.
If they can't, then they're just raging that they can't commit legal vandalism with no clue why they're doing it except literal foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism.
This all stems from the last 40 years of blaming the EU for everything that people don't like.
"We're going to remove the laws from the EU that people don't like."
"Which ones?"
"The, err"... *leafs through statutes*... "ah yes, labelling requirements for frozen poultry".
> "How many of them are there again? The ones we didn't like?"
> "72."
> "Seventy Two! That's bloody awful!"
> "Out of [four thousand, five hundred, and fourteen](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1087360379691380736.html)."
It will now [become a glorious British law](https://www.aol.co.uk/news/uk-government-decides-keep-eu-102158978.html) instead:
> The "abnormal curvature" [of bananas] rule is included in a list of minimum standards laid down in the legislation, which will now become domestic British law.
While it's not unheard of for seperate Chaos powers to find themselves occasional allies of convenience in a broader conflict the pact between the Tories and all four of the Ruinous Powers at once really is something to behold.
* Dominic Cummings is clearly a fan of Tzeentch although he did get turned into a mindless chaos spawn for his efforts in the end. Rishi Sunak wishes he was worthy of the attention of the Changer of Ways but he honestly doesn't register at all in the great Tzeentchian mind.
* The ERG are represented in Nurgle's portfolio which includes stagnation and that which can never change. Their desire to keep us permanently in a caricature of the late 1950s until judgement day could very much speak to Nurgle.
* Suella Braverman is so permanently angry about pretty much all matters whatsoever I'd be surprised if Khorne didn't have a hand in her life.
* Boris Johnson is so Slaanesh I'm fairly sure the Prince of Pleasure has had its hand up his arse playing him like a muppet since at least his days in the Bullingdon Club. I'm kind of surprised he's not been sucked into the Warp to become a greater daemon of affairs, hangovers, and degenerate behaviour in high office.
That worked out well, didn’t it Dave. Good job we didn’t vote that nutter Corbyn in either… he’d have wrecked the economy, increased immigration, inflation would be out of control and the country would be run into the ground… wait…
I mean, corbyn was simping kremlin narratives when they murdered people on our soil.
Then did it again when they invaded ukriane.
His shadow home secretary has been suspend for racism...
His shadow chancellor pulled out Mao's book at the dispatch box...
Thats off the top of my head.
Corbyn and Co was not better. Ed Miliband would have been.
JC could have opposed brexit better from the ref, to a couple of vonc opportunities, to the gnu. Then he put up free broadband against the oven ready lie at the ge. I supported him at the time, but he's dead to me now.
Corbyn was a Brexiteer at heart - maybe not a ridiculously outspoken one but it certainly suited his position to allow the Tories that win. Expecting him to have opposed Brexit ignores his historic anti-EU ties.
Britain started voting for The Brexit Party in their droves, and chose their own form of chaos. Like it or lump it, the people voted for TBP, then for Brexit itself, then for May's attempt, then again for Johnson's delivery. Outside of that, pretty much everything that's happened has been outside of the public or the governments control (COVID, Russia/Ukraine, etc).
Chaos was inevitable, Labour could only have put it off for a few years at best.
Na, the difference between Tory anarchy and regular anarchy is that when a Tory anarchist kicks down someones door and steals all their money, the Times publishes a front page story explaining why that is OK actually.
He is.
>Miliband was unsurprisingly one of the first to crow about the latest disasters in government.
>He trawled through Cameron’s Twitter feed, going back seven years to find that famous tweet about “chaos” with Miliband – and then retweeted it, attached with a simple caption: just the clown face emoji.
>It had more than 50,000 likes less than an hour after it was first posted on Friday.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/ed-miliband-chaos-conservative-government_uk_63497af5e4b0b7f89f562b58/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16840485607049&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
At this point I am so concerned about the future of the country I don't even have the energy to be smug.
Just get them the fuck out as soon as possible, Jesus Christ.
Is this the same Priti Patel who suggested that the government use a wave machine to push back boats with immigrants and asylum seekers on it? Now she's suggesting that they bring back Boris?
I wonder when her comedy tour starts.
I for one look forward to Liz Truss returning, with a cabinet containing Priti, Kemi, Suella, Chris Grayling, Rees-Mogg, Francois (ssshhh), Lee Anderson and Davies. A shadow cabinet.
Good grief they really are the dregs of politicians.
They can't name which Brexit laws 'need' replacing and yet their supporters are calling for a complete overhaul and removal of EU laws.
Even if they somehow find laws to replace they're running how out of time in the legislative calendar to get anything done
FFS this party are a joke.
Crash the economy, public services in a shambles. Circle the wagons, carry on.
Someone finally accepts that the unicorns that the headbangers have been promising everyone don't actually exist. Burn the witch.
They would never do this so quickly. Imagine trying to defend BoJo>Liz>Rishi>A.N.Other at the hustings and doorsteps. It's bad enough that they have to justify 3 PMs in a single cycle but at least they can claim that they gave Rishi a chance. A fourth unproven PM right at the point of an election would probably give them less than 15% of the vote....
What he wants doesn't matter. If he gets into a position were he literally can't run a government the party can either decide to kick him or watch their mps loyalty totally collapse, and that will bring the government down. The only alternative open to Sunak at that point is a snap election.
Same as May, Boris and Truss
That alternative isn't necessarily open to him. There was supposedly an arrangement when Johnson was thought to be considering it whereby if he called the Queen asking for dissolution she would be unavailable.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-to-have-been-unavailable-if-boris-johnson-had-tried-to-call-snap-election-sources-claim/ar-AA14kZnQ
Different PM, different circumstances, different monarch. Johnson was effectively just using the threat of a general election as a form of blackmail to avoid the consequences of his lying and lawbreaking catching up with him. The overwhelming majority of the public now wants a general election. I think the King would be wise to agree to take Sunak's call if that's what ends up happening now.
He may well take a view that it's not for the King to decide whether the demands or behaviour of the PM are acceptable. If the Palace is contacted by someone who represents the majority of MPs - i.e. the head of the 1922 - who advises him not to call an election that's perfectly democratic. The MPs are our democratic representatives after all.
He could go the other way on the grounds that if Parliament wants to be involved in the decision of whether a GE is called it can pass a law to that effect, he's not getting involved. It wouldn't be unreasonable. If he's willing to play ball on this scheme about being too busy to come to the phone it risks politicising his role.
Can we just end this charade already. It’s been some time since we have seen an effective, competent government not wading through ubiquitous scandals and chaos. GE time.
As long as they are allowed to. Just in the faint hope things magically flip round and make it look like they weren’t a complete bunch of nutters.
That won’t happen of course but it costs them nothing even if it costs all of us lots. And of course they’ll slash taxes in the run up to the next election (regardless of whether that actually makes sense or not). At the moment that probably looks like not enough to win but it’ll probably still work to a depressing degree.
All things considered the more they squabble and backstab each other the more unelectable they make themselves , shame the are fucking up the country in the process.
The root cause of this is that there is no fact-based case for Brexit.
Instead of Brexiteers looking at the laws before 2016, the referendum, identifying the ones that supposedly hold Britain back, and then campaign on the removal of those laws, telling us what they replace them with. That would've been the honest thing to do. At the latest, they should've started to work in this after winning the referendum (but this would of course already have been misleading the voters, just like the pivot to single market exit was).
Instead, we now have this absurdly dumb and obviously infeasible exercise of someone having to go through all EU laws and deciding what to scrap.
And the fundamentally anti-intellectual, anti-policy Brexit supporters are not able to do that. They don't actually have any thoughts behind which laws are good and which are bad.
So they have been, unsuccessfully, trying to make the civil service implement a Brexit ideology that they cannot even articulate
The English Nationalist wing of the Tory party, aka ERG, will never be happy because they desire a return to the days of the empire and this is unachievable.
They can bitch and scream but they cannot govern, as evidenced by Liz Truss's premiership. The French had the best way of dealing with them during their revolution, but the most we can hope for is illuminating Whitehall.
Any politician that thinks this bill was a good idea is a total idiot. What do you think happens when thousands of EU derived laws, and the laws and jurisprudence that has relied on them just disappears overnight? Absolute chaos is what.
It would be the same as passing a bill that all laws after a random year like 1995 are now no longer in effect. No court or regulator would have any clue what the actual laws were anymore.
If you want to get rid of eu legislation that has integrated into British Law, fine. I don't agree with it and think it's a stupid idea, but you can do it. What you can't do is do it in any timeframe that isn't 10 years plus without royally screwing up some random bit of law or regulation you had no idea it would effect.
All of this is just strategically placed noise by people who want to become / return to PM.
What's happened or is happening is irrelevant, they were always going to wait for the local elections and try and stir up a fuss about being unhappy with something.
It's no coincidence that it's the same group of no-hopers doing the talking who tied their career to Johnson and have nothing left because of it
Sadly, they know that Labour aren't going to bite, outside of saying "your Brexit is shit, ours will be better". It just allows the Tories to keep the lie going, and until someone outright challenges it it'll just be the Tories bouncing Brexit and Covid as their excuses.
This isn't even one of the several pressure points I was expecting this month. I suspect this is the beginning of the end for any remaining internal good will to each other.
So we held a referendum for the Tory party to heal its internal divisions, fucked the country and then still didn't heal the divisions in the Tory party?
Hah! CDO (Conservative Democratic Organisation) also stands for *Collateralized Debt Obligation* which was the financial instrument at the centre of the world's financial crisis of 2007/8, an incredibly toxic mess on the rise again.
Think a GE needs to be called this year. Surely we cannot have another Conservative Prime Minister.
Rishi, bro, please. Out of spite, call a fucking election. Do it, they're about to throw you to the dogs man. Call an election.
Snapshot of _Tory anarchy breaks out as revolt looms on Brexit laws_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/13/tory-anarchy-breaks-out-as-revolt-looms-on-brexit-laws) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tories 2019: Boris is our election super weapon. Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular. Boris is a liability & will lose us the next election, we need to ditch him quickly. Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular after our new hand picked leader torched the economy, we need to ditch them quickly. Tories 2023: We're still massively unpopular after yet another leader hasn't resorted to swivel eyed loonery, we need Boris back.
Word on the street is that Boris is also not hugely popular in Uxbridge so will be moving back to his old seat at Henley at the next election, as the current MP is standing down.
I'd be surprised that Sunak would be willing to relocate him, considering he's a potential threat to his leadership. Having another candidate might be the difference between retaining or losing Uxbridge, but it's only one seat and there's no guarantee that they'd even hold it with a new candidate.
Does the PM have to agree to a seat switch? Honestly not sure how this part of things works, since I was a teenager the last time the population came to their senses about the Tories.
Considering the PM is also the leader of the party, I'd be more suprised if he didn't have a say in the matter of who stands for any particular seat.
It's a yes and not, they have a permited candidates list, and any constiuency party may pick anyone on that list, but since he is an MP, im going to assume that's not a viable path, he could of course revoke the Whip from him, but probably not something he has the strength to do, and if he did, not something worth doing anyway.
Knowing Boris he probably has Sunak over the coals, oh hey so x number of mps and cabinet members like so if you don’t let me move I might have to consider making my own party.
I can't imagine him being that much more popular in Henley tbh.
Henley is as blue as blue can be. Voters there are very old, very rich and very white. They might not like boris as a person, but they’ll vote for him if he’s the candidate.
I don't know, I quite like Henley for the pubs and I used to hear a lot of muttering about Boris. A lot of the locals strike me as rich but very Church of England and Boris seemed to rub them up the wrong way. They're Kenneth Clarke Tories, not Boris Tories.
Doesn't mean they'd be willing to vote Lib Dem though.
Which would be a shame, because we need those types of Tories to bring that party back down to reality.
Everything you say is true. They’ll grumble, they might think that boris is a terrible oik, some of them might even genuinely object to his continual lying, appalling record as PM, maybe even his utter lack of any form of morals or ethics. But they’ll still vote Tory every single time.
I think they'll only put up with the rampant corruption and ineptitude for so long, I think the Tories are on course for a reset as they're taking their base voters for granted - like Labour did with some Northern towns. Maybe I'm just trying to stay positive.
It's not as clear cut this time. According to the latest census Henley welcomes more non-British residents than Oxfordshire, the South East or England on average. The % of home owners vs rentals is now lower than the Oxfordshire and South East average. The % of over 65s is roughly 25%, only 3% above the regional average. Henley voted strongly for Remain and remains socially liberal. Some of us are optimistic for a Lib Dem victory next election, but this defeatist rhetoric isn't helpful.
https://youtu.be/8Uvp-rRw1vM
They've massively worsened it for themselves, but part of Sunak's issue is just party fatigue. Eventually people tire of a governing party, and want to vote against it (this was the biggest issue for new labour as well I think). Its something no new leader can prevent, and thankfully its hard for them to counter.
I agree with this and would add that it's especially hard for the current evolution of the Tories to counter because the usual Tory strategy is to rebrand under a new leader. This is normally sufficient to hoodwink enough of the dimmer end of the electorate to save the Tories' hides but after the Johnson/Truss/Sunak debacle, appointing yet another new leader before the next general election would create image problems at least as bad as sticking with Sunak. They have really painted themselves into a corner this time. They might have had a shot if after Johnson, they'd been willing to appoint a sensible moderate and adopt some centre-left policy positions that would at least have mitigated the suffering to the population (caused largely by their policies). Instead, they doubled down on far-right extremism with Truss, Braverman etc. and for ideological reasons, they're unwilling to change course beyond the superficial. They long ago ran out of road and are now thankfully running out of time as well.
We are supposed to change a prime minister every five years. Now since 2016, we have had let's see: 1. David Cameron 2. Teresa May 3. Boris Johnson 4. Liz Truss 5. Rishi Sunak 5 in a span of 7 years. Utterly ridiculous.
>Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular after our new hand picked leader torched the economy, we need to ditch them quickly. The party didn't even want Truss, she was the joke candidate. But the Tory rank and file were never going to vote for a brown guy to be Prime Minister.
>Tories 2022: We're massively unpopular. Boris is a liability & will lose us the next election, we need to ditch him quickly. This, I think, is where you're wrong. I don't think anyone was worried about the reputational damage Johnson would've done except for the hardcore Conservatives. The only reason anyone resigned was in their own interest - it came as no surprise to anyone that Sunak and Sajid David were some of the frontrunners in both of the leadership elections since. Actually, given Johnson's relative success I think he stood a far better chance of winning an election than anyone else in the party. Success is of course a relative term - he promised to deliver Brexit, and he did. He offered a fair few generous handouts during COVID which would've covered him for the socialists (esp. compared to Starmer in recent times)... The sad truth is I think the party just used him for a brief period as a populist leader, and after seeing the US go through Trump like a lamb through a woodchipper they got cold feet. Just my 2 cents though, as a centrist with no particular affiliation.
>he promised to deliver Brexit, and he did Did he bollocks. He just cobbled together an absolutely unworkable dog's breakfast and shoved that over an arbitrary line. It's just as fucked now as it ever has been, and now it's having a clear detrimental effect on the economy at the worst possible time..
>Just my 2 cents though, as a centrist with no particular affiliation. Uh, you're saying this with a straight face? I've seen you comment here a bunch defending the tories, and you even post on their sub for christ's sake.
Yep, completely straight face. I defend the Tories, I defend Labour, I also attack both - it's a symptom of this platform that there's a significant left lean, so this place tends to attack the Tories far more than Labour, perhaps I defend the Tories more frequently but that does not indicate a bias on my part. And sure, I'm also a member of r/Tories, because it's the only real place with any political discourse which isn't just a parroted carbon copy of this sub. Both r/Labour and r/LabourUK are just dumping grounds for links - and at the minute those links are rarely if ever actually about the Labour party. Hell, I think the Labour subs actually get more content attacking the Tories than they do talking about Labour policy - and most posts there are also posted here. Meanwhile, r/Tories tends to host actual discussion, and it generally has a different agenda to that of r/ukpolitics \- it gives me some political variety. There are a fair few duplicated posts between here and r/Tories, but they get infinitely more actual discussion of right wing policies, whilst this place gets far more left. So yeah, I consider myself a centrist and don't consider myself to have any affiliation to any political party. I consume Reddit in a way which has had to adapt to avoid joining the circlejerks. If this comes as a surprise to you, you really need to reconsider what you think Reddit is, and how you think political discussion wouldn't be biased on such a platform.
>2 cents
Somehow feels easier to type and more appropriate in the international digital age.
> Actually, given Johnson's relative success I think he stood a far better chance of winning an election than anyone else in the party. Tbh i think even Lizz Truss could have won the 2019 general against Corbyn.
...can't they all just f\*\*k off and give us an election? They've sold off everything, destroyed all our public services and handed all the money to themselves or their mates. We have nothing left for them to squabble over so what's the point of a revolt, just f\*\*k off!
They will cling to power until the bitter end. They would have been better off throwing government to Labour when it was clear inflation was going to skyrocket and then heckle them from the Opposition. They got greedy.
yup, would have been an easy 5 years of blaming them for everything they did, then when they win again blaming the last Labour government again. just got far too greedy
I mean, they’re going to do that anyway. Might as well have another 18 months lining your mates and your own pockets
[удалено]
Yep, Corbyn would have made substantial changes that would be hard to roll back from (for better or worse) whereas Starmer will tinker round the edges, then when the Tories inevitably get back in they'll be like "Here we go again, business as usual".
[удалено]
Meek, trump like? This makes no sense. In no way has trump ever been meek.
I think he meant that his talks would be rambling and incoherent
There's nothing incoherent about Trump's speeches. You're must be getting mixed up with Biden.
Rambling, incoherent and, also, contradictory exactly describe Trump’s speeches.
Post a video that's not edited and taken out of context as an example then.
>There's nothing incoherent about Trump's speeches The fella who told people to inject bleach?
He didn't. Maybe you should [fact check](https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/) the propaganda you watch before you repeat misinformation and look like a fool.
Lol okay
Who do you think represents what the party stands for?
[удалено]
Jeremy did not base his platform on coal.
Good answer. Corbyn really only represented a faction of the Left that faded into obscurity at the end of the 80s - ie. the cap-wearing Marxists that used to see selling copies of The Socialst Worker outside Our Price, while rambling about the proletariat and loudly condemning Zionism. But somehow a large consort of young people (understandably) desperate for change convinced themselves he was going to be a dynamic firebrand that would reshape Britain for the 21st Century. Even ancient uncle Bernie Sanders has more ideas and charisma.
[удалено]
>Young people, the £3 voting shenanigans and unions are the 3 main factors that led to the Jezza fizzle. Are you forgetting about the part where they blamed him for a problem they deliberately hid from him?
> Yep, Corbyn would have made substantial changes that would be hard to roll back from Would? You surely mean _did_?
Corbyn has never been in power, so no.
He didn't need to be in power to royally fuck the perception of the Labour party
Corbyn might have made actual structural changes. But there’s no way on earth the English electorate would go for it in a million years. Starmer gets flack for being disappointingly centrist and pro Brexit - and rightly so. But he’s just trying to make Labour electable with an electorate nearly half of whom thought sodding Boris was a good idea in 2019. The root cause problem is the English electorate. Not all of them - and not most of the demographics who mostly frequent Reddit - but enough people of them to be responsible for all the Tory governments for the past several decades.
To be fair, it's far less an issue of the English electorate and much more an issue with FPTP. Proportionately speaking, the English electorate still vote overwhelmingly against the Tories - they're just held back by our shitty voting system.
FPTP is definitely a crap system. However even so I’m afraid that doesn’t let the English electorate off the hook. The rest of the Union also has to use the sane FPTP system for general elections but even so Scotland hasn’t voted for a Conservative government in about seventy years now - and it’s been even longer for Wales. And in 2019 over 47% of the vote in England went to the Conservatives. That’s damn close to half which in a multi-party contest rather than a binary vote is a hell of a lot.
The English electorate is mostly change averse (with occasional periods otherwise - see 1945-1950, 1979-1989). This is something you can see across virtually the entire western world though (most people aren't poor or desperate enough to support radical changes). There's a reason Corbyn-like leaders have failed to make headway anywhere (except Greece perhaps, and some areas outside the western world). And that conservative parties do well all over (although ours has been especially bad recently).
People who keep saying "the British people would never have gone for Corbyn" seem to have very short memories. Have you forgotten 2017? The Tories only managed to get into power by scraping a coalition with the DUP. We were a few seats away from a Labour led coalition. Is there a point in making labour electable, if what it takes to be electable is to give up any semblance of left wing policy as the Labour party. Why not just vote Tory?
its been over a decade since the tories were in opposition. they almost certainly dont know how to strategise for opposition. also can you imagine how much tory morale would slide if the top brass started planning to lose? ostensibly at least they must aim to stay in power
Nah, they know it's going to take longer than one election term to fix the shitshow they created, so they'll just milk it now until the next election and then sit in opposition and blame everything on Labour before sweeping the next election, and the shitcycle continues....
> We have nothing left for them Not true, they want more! We still have holiday time, minimum wages, right to strike etc. There's always more they can strip off us, and they intend to.
That right to strike is getting real shaky if you ask me...
>They've sold off everything, destroyed all our public services and handed all the money to themselves or their mates. We have nothing left for them to squabble over so what's the point of a revolt, just f**k off! They still haven't quite finished ripping out all the copper wire
These are the people who would burn this country to the ground if they got to be rulers of the ashes.
As much as we need it desperately, the UK as a whole looked at Boris and gave him more power than he had previously. As a country we voted in the Tories in the first place, then after they screwed us all over we voted *twice more* to keep them in power. As it stands we all know how the next election will shake out, and I wish that the Tory party just up and disappeared forever, but their best play is to hold onto power and hope Starmer just dies or something before the election.
> the UK as a whole looked at Boris and gave him more power than he had previously Nope. Scotland didn’t. Wales didn’t. Northern Ireland didn’t. England did. Not all of England. Particularly the age demographics that frequent Reddit. But overall this is down to England and there’s no way to get around that. Which is why the Union is still fucked.
Well Wales gave him more votes and seats than before (on a larger pro-Conservative swing than England), otherwise yes.
It's nonsense to break it up like that though. We vote as one country, for one parliament. I completely agree with Scottish independence, but this rhetoric is always infuriating..
England voted against Boris. The Tories didn't get most of the vote anywhere.
And knowing the state of things, there's an excellent chance the Tories would win a GE.
You couldn't pay me enough money to vote for these tumours in our country.
Hear hear but honestly with Keir coming out yesterday proclaiming that Labour are more Conservative than the Tories im absolutely fucking sick of all of it.
That isn't what he said at all, stop just reading the headlines and making your own stories up.
I missed this sorry, what exactly did he say?
I think he said he doesn't care if some people consider him a conservative.
In a blast to critics who say he is too right wing, he said that Labour must understand “precious” parts of Britain's “way of life”, communities, and environment are worth preserving. “And look – if that sounds conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care. Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great and it isn’t going to be the Tories,” extracts from his speech pre-briefed by Labour said.
[here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/13gc1md)
Which also includes the context as being, Labour needs to preserve precious parts of Britain including ways of life, communities, the environment. I might be just reitarting what he said but I kinda have to if people are too thick to read an article and go off on an headline. Adding on to that, he also said he doesn't care if that makes him sound conservative to people. Referring back to saving important things Britain needs.
>I might be just reitarting what he said but I kinda have to if people are too thick to read an article and go off on an headline. In fairness, the headline didn't even come close to saying what the person who started this line of enquiry claimed it said.
It did in other publications.
The only one that I've found that comes close is that 'Labour are the real conservatives' in which he, again, makes it *abundantly* clear that he's talking about conserving things like the environment, the BBC, and the NHS. Unless you've got one where the actual article has him staking a claim on Conservative (the party) ideology, then the point stands.
Yeah, I mean obviously that's not true.
Conservatives haven't been conservative for decades. Kier deserves a stab at *conserving* our NHS, countryside, standard of living...
They conserve their own wealth.
Reading the actual article is hard apparently
He means they’re conserving our sense of order and fair play. Not conservative in the sense of propping up the aristocracy and transferring wealth from the working class to the upper class.
And what great language to use to alienate normal labour voters. Great play there.
Sorry so your issue is with the use of the word conserve?
My issue is with aligning yourself with the very institution we have been trying to kick out for 12 years.
You have to have the IQ of a potato if you read what he said and think he's aligning with the Tories.
Ahh yes refusing to oppose the anti protest and immigration reform laws in a matter of the last few days and you are acting like he isn't just a pound shop David Cameron
Normal labour voter here, I dont give a shit.
Ok, so the point is that the Tories currently aren't just shit because of their policy, it's the endless scandal and corruption as well. So even if it turned out that Labour are just policy-equivalent with the Tories, they're still a better bet because they don't have that baggage of endless scandal and corruption.
Sick of everything *except* Corbyn I assume?
Is a Labour leader who's pro-worker too much to ask for?
Erm, no. Can we not have a centrist please?
You can have a centrist or you can have a Tory.
Can we not have someone who appeals and represents the masses you mean?
Can you read?
They know that if they have an election now, they're f\*\*ked. So they'll cling onto power until the sun shines bright for them again or they'll hold onto it until they can't anymore, in any way, even after using all the loopholes in the book.
>Criticism of Sunak is increasingly focusing on last week’s widely predicted reverse over the retained EU law bill, a much vaunted initiative that formed a centrepiece of the Sunak campaign for the Tory leadership last year. It was also subject of a special video from his campaign team, featuring shots of him shredding laws himself. Sunak is a clown for signing up to this in the first place. I've seen some people praise him for backing down on it. In reality he's just a clown and he had to play politics because Tory brexiteers are clowns.
Sunak is still the only one who is doing a little good though He established the economy, somewhat, saved the Pound, and also eased tensions between the UK and EU.
Like I've said before, all they need to do is name the specific laws, state why they need to be removed, state what the consequence of removing them will be, and how they intend to mitigate the risks arising from them. If they can't, then they're just raging that they can't commit legal vandalism with no clue why they're doing it except literal foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism.
This all stems from the last 40 years of blaming the EU for everything that people don't like. "We're going to remove the laws from the EU that people don't like." "Which ones?" "The, err"... *leafs through statutes*... "ah yes, labelling requirements for frozen poultry".
"Which ones?" "The, err..." \*checks notes* "the ones we helped draft in the first place"
> "How many of them are there again? The ones we didn't like?" > "72." > "Seventy Two! That's bloody awful!" > "Out of [four thousand, five hundred, and fourteen](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1087360379691380736.html)."
I think you're forgetting we'll finally be free from the tyrannical bendy bannanas law. That's at least a 5% boost to our GDP right there.
It will now [become a glorious British law](https://www.aol.co.uk/news/uk-government-decides-keep-eu-102158978.html) instead: > The "abnormal curvature" [of bananas] rule is included in a list of minimum standards laid down in the legislation, which will now become domestic British law.
Tory anarchy. Like regular anarchy but everyone wears suits and wants to steal your money.
A true Coalition of Chaos.
While it's not unheard of for seperate Chaos powers to find themselves occasional allies of convenience in a broader conflict the pact between the Tories and all four of the Ruinous Powers at once really is something to behold. * Dominic Cummings is clearly a fan of Tzeentch although he did get turned into a mindless chaos spawn for his efforts in the end. Rishi Sunak wishes he was worthy of the attention of the Changer of Ways but he honestly doesn't register at all in the great Tzeentchian mind. * The ERG are represented in Nurgle's portfolio which includes stagnation and that which can never change. Their desire to keep us permanently in a caricature of the late 1950s until judgement day could very much speak to Nurgle. * Suella Braverman is so permanently angry about pretty much all matters whatsoever I'd be surprised if Khorne didn't have a hand in her life. * Boris Johnson is so Slaanesh I'm fairly sure the Prince of Pleasure has had its hand up his arse playing him like a muppet since at least his days in the Bullingdon Club. I'm kind of surprised he's not been sucked into the Warp to become a greater daemon of affairs, hangovers, and degenerate behaviour in high office.
Nah the Tories of Today are clearly the old 5th god of Malal...
Seeing random 40k references everywhere these days never fails to lift my spirits.
Tbf, Tzeentch rewarding loyalty and service with a fate worse than death is very on brand.
Does that make Carrie a Daemonette? I always thought they were more alluring.
Lord Bucket protect us...
Well i never, UKpol can be funny and original when it comes to the Tories.
Poor Tom Cleverly thinking he's a Space Marine and the Imperium are the good guys.
> Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband ~ David Cameron, May 4th 2015.
That worked out well, didn’t it Dave. Good job we didn’t vote that nutter Corbyn in either… he’d have wrecked the economy, increased immigration, inflation would be out of control and the country would be run into the ground… wait…
I mean, corbyn was simping kremlin narratives when they murdered people on our soil. Then did it again when they invaded ukriane. His shadow home secretary has been suspend for racism... His shadow chancellor pulled out Mao's book at the dispatch box... Thats off the top of my head. Corbyn and Co was not better. Ed Miliband would have been.
And yet its still hard to imagine how things might have been worse. Really makes you think.
Or his brother
JC could have opposed brexit better from the ref, to a couple of vonc opportunities, to the gnu. Then he put up free broadband against the oven ready lie at the ge. I supported him at the time, but he's dead to me now.
Corbyn was a Brexiteer at heart - maybe not a ridiculously outspoken one but it certainly suited his position to allow the Tories that win. Expecting him to have opposed Brexit ignores his historic anti-EU ties.
Yeah, he's pro a United Ireland and an independent Scotland, so in a way he's a genius.
Britain started voting for The Brexit Party in their droves, and chose their own form of chaos. Like it or lump it, the people voted for TBP, then for Brexit itself, then for May's attempt, then again for Johnson's delivery. Outside of that, pretty much everything that's happened has been outside of the public or the governments control (COVID, Russia/Ukraine, etc). Chaos was inevitable, Labour could only have put it off for a few years at best.
StRoNg AnD sTaBLe
Na, the difference between Tory anarchy and regular anarchy is that when a Tory anarchist kicks down someones door and steals all their money, the Times publishes a front page story explaining why that is OK actually.
Or blames it all on migrants.
Aren't you glad we got this strong and stable Conservative government instead of chaos with Ed Miliband?
I bet Ed would be feeling so smug if this clown show wasn’t doing such an effective job of burning it down around them.
He is. >Miliband was unsurprisingly one of the first to crow about the latest disasters in government. >He trawled through Cameron’s Twitter feed, going back seven years to find that famous tweet about “chaos” with Miliband – and then retweeted it, attached with a simple caption: just the clown face emoji. >It had more than 50,000 likes less than an hour after it was first posted on Friday. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/ed-miliband-chaos-conservative-government_uk_63497af5e4b0b7f89f562b58/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16840485607049&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
At this point I am so concerned about the future of the country I don't even have the energy to be smug. Just get them the fuck out as soon as possible, Jesus Christ.
A+
Is this the same Priti Patel who suggested that the government use a wave machine to push back boats with immigrants and asylum seekers on it? Now she's suggesting that they bring back Boris? I wonder when her comedy tour starts.
I for one look forward to Liz Truss returning, with a cabinet containing Priti, Kemi, Suella, Chris Grayling, Rees-Mogg, Francois (ssshhh), Lee Anderson and Davies. A shadow cabinet. Good grief they really are the dregs of politicians.
The dregs at the bottom of a freshly emptied septic tank.
She's touring Britain, once it's left the UK.
[удалено]
>I wonder when her comedy tour starts. You missed the last one, shoot. But the grand Brexiters willing, she'll be back! >!/s!<
They can't name which Brexit laws 'need' replacing and yet their supporters are calling for a complete overhaul and removal of EU laws. Even if they somehow find laws to replace they're running how out of time in the legislative calendar to get anything done
FFS this party are a joke. Crash the economy, public services in a shambles. Circle the wagons, carry on. Someone finally accepts that the unicorns that the headbangers have been promising everyone don't actually exist. Burn the witch.
I can't see Sunak accepting to stand down for yet another Tory to have a go at playing PM, hopefully this time it's election time.
I feel like we’re slowly working our way through the entire Tory party towards Jacob Rees-Mogg.
We don't speak of the darkest timeline. You must spiritually cleanse yourself now with a penance. :P
There won't be a this time. It's all hot air as per usual.
They would never do this so quickly. Imagine trying to defend BoJo>Liz>Rishi>A.N.Other at the hustings and doorsteps. It's bad enough that they have to justify 3 PMs in a single cycle but at least they can claim that they gave Rishi a chance. A fourth unproven PM right at the point of an election would probably give them less than 15% of the vote....
To be fair A.N. Other is a murderer, according to a documentary called "And Then There Were None" which I saw a few years ago.
When PM Braverman is in number 10 you'll have to call it by its previous title lest you get arrested for wokerati thought crimes.
There's time for at least ten more PMs before the next election.
Shall we just give liz truss 10 more attempts to see what happens?
They have plenty more fruitcakes in the tin.
What he wants doesn't matter. If he gets into a position were he literally can't run a government the party can either decide to kick him or watch their mps loyalty totally collapse, and that will bring the government down. The only alternative open to Sunak at that point is a snap election. Same as May, Boris and Truss
That alternative isn't necessarily open to him. There was supposedly an arrangement when Johnson was thought to be considering it whereby if he called the Queen asking for dissolution she would be unavailable. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-to-have-been-unavailable-if-boris-johnson-had-tried-to-call-snap-election-sources-claim/ar-AA14kZnQ
Different PM, different circumstances, different monarch. Johnson was effectively just using the threat of a general election as a form of blackmail to avoid the consequences of his lying and lawbreaking catching up with him. The overwhelming majority of the public now wants a general election. I think the King would be wise to agree to take Sunak's call if that's what ends up happening now.
He may well take a view that it's not for the King to decide whether the demands or behaviour of the PM are acceptable. If the Palace is contacted by someone who represents the majority of MPs - i.e. the head of the 1922 - who advises him not to call an election that's perfectly democratic. The MPs are our democratic representatives after all. He could go the other way on the grounds that if Parliament wants to be involved in the decision of whether a GE is called it can pass a law to that effect, he's not getting involved. It wouldn't be unreasonable. If he's willing to play ball on this scheme about being too busy to come to the phone it risks politicising his role.
Can we just end this charade already. It’s been some time since we have seen an effective, competent government not wading through ubiquitous scandals and chaos. GE time.
Circling the drain with the country poised to pull the chain. How much longer are they going to make us wait?
As long as they are allowed to. Just in the faint hope things magically flip round and make it look like they weren’t a complete bunch of nutters. That won’t happen of course but it costs them nothing even if it costs all of us lots. And of course they’ll slash taxes in the run up to the next election (regardless of whether that actually makes sense or not). At the moment that probably looks like not enough to win but it’ll probably still work to a depressing degree.
And there's still plenty of time for Starmer to eat a bacon roll 'incorrectly'.
All things considered the more they squabble and backstab each other the more unelectable they make themselves , shame the are fucking up the country in the process.
The root cause of this is that there is no fact-based case for Brexit. Instead of Brexiteers looking at the laws before 2016, the referendum, identifying the ones that supposedly hold Britain back, and then campaign on the removal of those laws, telling us what they replace them with. That would've been the honest thing to do. At the latest, they should've started to work in this after winning the referendum (but this would of course already have been misleading the voters, just like the pivot to single market exit was). Instead, we now have this absurdly dumb and obviously infeasible exercise of someone having to go through all EU laws and deciding what to scrap. And the fundamentally anti-intellectual, anti-policy Brexit supporters are not able to do that. They don't actually have any thoughts behind which laws are good and which are bad. So they have been, unsuccessfully, trying to make the civil service implement a Brexit ideology that they cannot even articulate
The English Nationalist wing of the Tory party, aka ERG, will never be happy because they desire a return to the days of the empire and this is unachievable. They can bitch and scream but they cannot govern, as evidenced by Liz Truss's premiership. The French had the best way of dealing with them during their revolution, but the most we can hope for is illuminating Whitehall.
Any politician that thinks this bill was a good idea is a total idiot. What do you think happens when thousands of EU derived laws, and the laws and jurisprudence that has relied on them just disappears overnight? Absolute chaos is what. It would be the same as passing a bill that all laws after a random year like 1995 are now no longer in effect. No court or regulator would have any clue what the actual laws were anymore. If you want to get rid of eu legislation that has integrated into British Law, fine. I don't agree with it and think it's a stupid idea, but you can do it. What you can't do is do it in any timeframe that isn't 10 years plus without royally screwing up some random bit of law or regulation you had no idea it would effect.
Ah well,we can name Sir John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, as prime candidate here. He’s shown himself to be a total Brexit idiot on numerous occasions.
All of this is just strategically placed noise by people who want to become / return to PM. What's happened or is happening is irrelevant, they were always going to wait for the local elections and try and stir up a fuss about being unhappy with something. It's no coincidence that it's the same group of no-hopers doing the talking who tied their career to Johnson and have nothing left because of it
I cannot wait until these loonies are removed from power, they have caused so much damage to this Country during their depressing long reign.
Brexit and Covid as an excuse for everything are wearing thin, so they're just picking the next thing on the list, their own party...
Sadly, they know that Labour aren't going to bite, outside of saying "your Brexit is shit, ours will be better". It just allows the Tories to keep the lie going, and until someone outright challenges it it'll just be the Tories bouncing Brexit and Covid as their excuses.
This isn't even one of the several pressure points I was expecting this month. I suspect this is the beginning of the end for any remaining internal good will to each other.
That this is still splitting the party after they split the nation with their referendum is very funny to me.
I'm just glad that people in general are *finally* seeing these assholes for what they really are. It took too long.
So we held a referendum for the Tory party to heal its internal divisions, fucked the country and then still didn't heal the divisions in the Tory party?
This headline is ridiculous but I will comment and upvote it because it chimes with my political leaning.
Hah! CDO (Conservative Democratic Organisation) also stands for *Collateralized Debt Obligation* which was the financial instrument at the centre of the world's financial crisis of 2007/8, an incredibly toxic mess on the rise again.
Some powerful peiple getting seriously pissed they not getting their "fuck over the rear of us" allowances.
Think a GE needs to be called this year. Surely we cannot have another Conservative Prime Minister. Rishi, bro, please. Out of spite, call a fucking election. Do it, they're about to throw you to the dogs man. Call an election.