Snap General Election called

[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

[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.