Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Do you think the 2 by-election loses will mean a later or an earlier date for the next GE? I've seen people talking about Jan 25 now.

I think spring more likely. Cold weather will depress the older vote and spring will still be ahead of the small boat season. Depends I think on how brave sunak is feeling. Polling is awful for h8m right now and is there something that he thinks will improve that? His recent policy announcements haven’t shifted the dial. His only realistic hope is to buy time for the economy to recover a bit and try slashing taxes, which would tie in with the spring statement.

Sunak knows he's going to lose, and will then lose the leadership (in fact, I suspect he would be as interested in continuing as leader as Cameron was after the Brexit referendum). So a factor for Sunak is does he want to have as long a premiership as possible - does making two years mean something to him, for his legacy? (I think Truss, and by some, Johnson, will be blamed for bringing down the Tories, Sunak will always been seen as a bloodless, fairly competent caretaker. I think that's it for the history books.) So he may well want to delay the inevitable defeat till the last moment. Similarly, many Tories will want to collect their pay till the last moment, since no one can realistically turn it around.

The question is, as more Tories find themselves in seats which are no longer safe, will they flail around for a miracle, like the return of jolly old populist Johnson (not to save the government - too late for that - just to save their seats)? Or even (nah, they wouldn't would they??) Farage, finally installed in his rightful place at the head of the real Brexit party?

Anyone with serious ambitions for taking control of the Tories in the longer term (and, realistically, in opposition) will be holding their fire, building their power base, and keeping well clear of the poisoned chalice - Sunak is welcome to that. Braverman and Badenoch are clearly in this position, but also Mordaunt and Tugendhat (if they can keep their seats). So they won't be looking to oust Sunak. They might just have the longer term view that might lead to the earlier election you suggest.

My guess is that the Tories will muddle on with Sunak till the last possible moment.

(And if that's anything like my rugby predictions, expect a new leader and an early election )

[Sandydragon]

Itys all about damage control. Hanging on to the last minute does mean January 2025 which historically isn't a great polling month for the Conservatives as it's sodding cold and the older voters won't be as keen to get to voting stations.

Spring summer next year is the most likely, making sure they don't clash with the US Presidential election. Of course, a year, or even 6 months, is a long time in politics and if the economy does improve in the new year then it wouldn't surprise me if the Tories went for it right after the spring statement and a bunch of tax give aways.

[Donny osmond]

I could write the history books right now: Sunak is a shite PM and a shite politician, the only half way decent decision he ever made in his life was to marry rich. He's an incompetent, spineless doughnut who's more interested in how his feckin power stance plays with toryville focus groups than how his policies play with the public.

There. I should trademark that and watch the royalties flow in from February 2025 onward.

[Sandydragon]

I could write the history books right now: Sunak is a shite PM and a shite politician, the only half way decent decision he ever made in his life was to marry rich. He's an incompetent, spineless doughnut who's more interested in how his feckin power stance plays with toryville focus groups than how his policies play with the public.

There. I should trademark that and watch the royalties flow in from February 2025 onward.

He’s better than at least two of his predecessors, but that’s a low bar for success. I hope the Conservative Party can recover from its right wing takeover, but with reform taking votes off them, that’s unlikely in the short term as they will probably tack further to the right in opposition until someone with some brain cells comes along.

[Sandydragon]

You’d think so but some of it will appeal wider than just their activists. Tax cuts are never unpopular. Small
Boats appeal to an interesting variety of people. But they still
Have the problem of convincing people that they are the right people to fix the economic mess they are responsible for.

And stage one of the ‘shore up the loyalist vote’ has started with the cap on banker bonuses scrapped. Absolutely sends the right message.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... is-rubbish

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... is-rubbish

Glad to see Esler raising this - I wish we could have seen more like this from him on the BBC. Nothing can be done till a problem is recognised. Hopefully he will continue to make the case for a written constitution, PR, separation of Church from state and Crown from state (if indeed he is arguing for this last one rather than merely more clarity).

[Which Tyler]

[Sandydragon]

And whilst you’re at it, no more shirking from home. All back to the office now! Don’t you know how many landlords contribute to the Conservative Party?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ah, the Tories - always snowflakes when it comes to the idea of the peasants not working to the max.

[Puja]

In other news, the Conservatives have finally enacted wide-reaching electoral reform that people have been clamouring for: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-election

No, it's not anything useful, it's letting ex-pats who have been living abroad over 15 years have the vote.

Am I missing something here, as the article seems jubilant that a wrong has been righted, but to me it seems a spectacular waste of time and effort? If someone is living abroad, especially for as long as 15 years, what right do they have to have a say on how the country is run? What stake do they have in it? What do they get from voting for a member of parliament in a constituency that they last lived in decades ago?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Ahh, but most (ish) of them will be wealthy and older.

No idea what way older wealthy people might tend to vote, but I am sure that that never entered into the thought process at all.

[Sandydragon]

In other news, the Conservatives have finally enacted wide-reaching electoral reform that people have been clamouring for: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-election

No, it's not anything useful, it's letting ex-pats who have been living abroad over 15 years have the vote.

Am I missing something here, as the article seems jubilant that a wrong has been righted, but to me it seems a spectacular waste of time and effort? If someone is living abroad, especially for as long as 15 years, what right do they have to have a say on how the country is run? What stake do they have in it? What do they get from voting for a member of parliament in a constituency that they last lived in decades ago?

Puja

Completely agree. Most proper ex pats I’ve met think Britain is a shit hole and are glad they’ve left, so why do they feel the need to vote in our elections )noting that their British passport gets displayed VERY quickly when they are in trouble).

Also curious what constituency election they would vote in. Is someone in government going to have to work out what constituency they would have voted in if they hadn’t buggered off overseas? And why 15 years, surely the longer you spend permanently abroad the less right you have to vote?

[Puja]

In other news, the Conservatives have finally enacted wide-reaching electoral reform that people have been clamouring for: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-election

No, it's not anything useful, it's letting ex-pats who have been living abroad over 15 years have the vote.

Am I missing something here, as the article seems jubilant that a wrong has been righted, but to me it seems a spectacular waste of time and effort? If someone is living abroad, especially for as long as 15 years, what right do they have to have a say on how the country is run? What stake do they have in it? What do they get from voting for a member of parliament in a constituency that they last lived in decades ago?

Puja

Completely agree. Most proper ex pats I’ve met think Britain is a shit hole and are glad they’ve left, so why do they feel the need to vote in our elections )noting that their British passport gets displayed VERY quickly when they are in trouble).

Also curious what constituency election they would vote in. Is someone in government going to have to work out what constituency they would have voted in if they hadn’t buggered off overseas? And why 15 years, surely the longer you spend permanently abroad the less right you have to vote?

15 years was the previous time limit - this "enfranchisement" is allowing people who've been abroad longer than 15 years to vote.

Puja

[Puja]

Taking this from the Gaza thread, because I didn't want to fill that up with UK politics.

The Police:


Suella Braverman:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... -in-london

It seems that, in the view of the Government, a march calling for peace is contradictory to the sentiment of Remembrance Day.

Braverman really is a human bag of dog shit, isn't she? A walking, talking, Sun headline, with about as much depth to her. I never thought anyone could be more spiteful and hate-filled than Priti Patel, but the Tory party just keeps on demonstrating that there's always deeper depths to plumb.

Puja

Yup. And we are looking at the next Tory party leader there I reckon. She's only interested in appealing to party members (and doing a fine job of that). She doesn't care how many regular voters she puts off in the process, peddling her divisive shit.

It was the tweet about tents for the homeless that really upset me.

"We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

Why say many of them from abroad? It's irrelevant to the ostensible point of the complaint about "tent encampments", because a tent containing a foreign person has the same visibility as one containing a true-blooded Brit, but it's calculated and deliberate choice of words, conflating foreigners with being dirty, indigent, choosing to live on the streets, implying they're coming over here to live bestial lives that threaten good honest "decent" British people. It's a despicable dogwhistle. It's genuinely fascist, nasty nationalism.

And there are people who will vote for it, because it's easier to believe in the dirty foreigners and the exceptional, put-upon, "decent" British. I think you're right, I think she is going to be the next Tory leader and that saddens me terribly because I don't have faith enough in the electorate to think that'll rule them out of power.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Taking this from the Gaza thread, because I didn't want to fill that up with UK politics.

Braverman really is a human bag of dog shit, isn't she? A walking, talking, Sun headline, with about as much depth to her. I never thought anyone could be more spiteful and hate-filled than Priti Patel, but the Tory party just keeps on demonstrating that there's always deeper depths to plumb.

Puja

Yup. And we are looking at the next Tory party leader there I reckon. She's only interested in appealing to party members (and doing a fine job of that). She doesn't care how many regular voters she puts off in the process, peddling her divisive shit.

It was the tweet about tents for the homeless that really upset me.

"We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

Why say many of them from abroad? It's irrelevant to the ostensible point of the complaint about "tent encampments", because a tent containing a foreign person has the same visibility as one containing a true-blooded Brit, but it's calculated and deliberate choice of words, conflating foreigners with being dirty, indigent, choosing to live on the streets, implying they're coming over here to live bestial lives that threaten good honest "decent" British people. It's a despicable dogwhistle. It's genuinely fascist, nasty nationalism.

And there are people who will vote for it, because it's easier to believe in the dirty foreigners and the exceptional, put-upon, "decent" British. I think you're right, I think she is going to be the next Tory leader and that saddens me terribly because I don't have faith enough in the electorate to think that'll rule them out of power.

Puja

She is a total disgrace, and rumour has it that she went ahead with this latest initiative without bothering to inform No 10. But I don't think Sunak would dare sack her.

She also ignores with that penetrating analysis of hers that most rough sleepers were born in the UK and there's a disproportionate number of veterans sleeping rough. I know a number of people who work in the veterans' welfare area and they are not happy with this BS announcement.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Taking this from the Gaza thread, because I didn't want to fill that up with UK politics.

Braverman really is a human bag of dog shit, isn't she? A walking, talking, Sun headline, with about as much depth to her. I never thought anyone could be more spiteful and hate-filled than Priti Patel, but the Tory party just keeps on demonstrating that there's always deeper depths to plumb.

Puja

Yup. And we are looking at the next Tory party leader there I reckon. She's only interested in appealing to party members (and doing a fine job of that). She doesn't care how many regular voters she puts off in the process, peddling her divisive shit.

It was the tweet about tents for the homeless that really upset me.

"We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

Why say many of them from abroad? It's irrelevant to the ostensible point of the complaint about "tent encampments", because a tent containing a foreign person has the same visibility as one containing a true-blooded Brit, but it's calculated and deliberate choice of words, conflating foreigners with being dirty, indigent, choosing to live on the streets, implying they're coming over here to live bestial lives that threaten good honest "decent" British people. It's a despicable dogwhistle. It's genuinely fascist, nasty nationalism.

And there are people who will vote for it, because it's easier to believe in the dirty foreigners and the exceptional, put-upon, "decent" British. I think you're right, I think she is going to be the next Tory leader and that saddens me terribly because I don't have faith enough in the electorate to think that'll rule them out of power.

Puja

The first sentence made me laugh: We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. It had to be followed by a 'but . . .' because given the level of support offered by Braverman there clearly are no genuine homeless.

Thinking about it a little more, there is a slight chance that the Tories will pull back from the brink. Mordaunt is fairly useless but she garnered quite a few votes last time (I mean last time it came to a vote). It's a slim hope.

I am torn though on which would be for the best for the country - Braverman or Mordaunt. I don't doubt Braverman would drag the party to disaster in the polls and might just cripple it as an electoral force (though they'd probably recover eventually . . . too many newspapers prop it up). This would of course be fantastic, but the price might be to drag UK politics to the right and seal the Tories as a Trumpian/semi-fascistic party. On the other hand, Mordaunt would bring it a little away from the right but would make it more popular. Tough call.

[Stom]

In other news, the Conservatives have finally enacted wide-reaching electoral reform that people have been clamouring for: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-election

No, it's not anything useful, it's letting ex-pats who have been living abroad over 15 years have the vote.

Am I missing something here, as the article seems jubilant that a wrong has been righted, but to me it seems a spectacular waste of time and effort? If someone is living abroad, especially for as long as 15 years, what right do they have to have a say on how the country is run? What stake do they have in it? What do they get from voting for a member of parliament in a constituency that they last lived in decades ago?

Puja

Completely agree. Most proper ex pats I’ve met think Britain is a shit hole and are glad they’ve left, so why do they feel the need to vote in our elections )noting that their British passport gets displayed VERY quickly when they are in trouble).

Also curious what constituency election they would vote in. Is someone in government going to have to work out what constituency they would have voted in if they hadn’t buggered off overseas? And why 15 years, surely the longer you spend permanently abroad the less right you have to vote?

It’s always been up to 15 years. So this next election was due to be my last. I vote in the last constituency I was registered in when living in the UK.

I did, however, vote in person last time as I just so happened to be in the UK at the time.

I think it should be called out in much the same way we should call out the antics of Hungary and Poland when it comes to overseas voters…

It’s disgusting.

But I do have one very clear reason to vote: I want my rights back, the rights taken away by this disgraceful Tory government.

Every package from the UK, no matter what is inside, no matter if it’s a gift, is now subject to tax. And this is Hungary, so that’s 27%. Try explaining 400x to family members: please, if you want to order something, just go to the German site and do it there. Most British sites have a “Dutch” version now, too.

Typically, for Britain, the only positive out of the whole debacle is duty free booze. Who cares if the country is going to shit, let’s get drunk together cheap!

[Son of Mathonwy]

Taking this from the Gaza thread, because I didn't want to fill that up with UK politics.

Yup. And we are looking at the next Tory party leader there I reckon. She's only interested in appealing to party members (and doing a fine job of that). She doesn't care how many regular voters she puts off in the process, peddling her divisive shit.

It was the tweet about tents for the homeless that really upset me.

"We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

Why say many of them from abroad? It's irrelevant to the ostensible point of the complaint about "tent encampments", because a tent containing a foreign person has the same visibility as one containing a true-blooded Brit, but it's calculated and deliberate choice of words, conflating foreigners with being dirty, indigent, choosing to live on the streets, implying they're coming over here to live bestial lives that threaten good honest "decent" British people. It's a despicable dogwhistle. It's genuinely fascist, nasty nationalism.

And there are people who will vote for it, because it's easier to believe in the dirty foreigners and the exceptional, put-upon, "decent" British. I think you're right, I think she is going to be the next Tory leader and that saddens me terribly because I don't have faith enough in the electorate to think that'll rule them out of power.

Puja

The first sentence made me laugh: We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. It had to be followed by a 'but . . .' because given the level of support offered by Braverman there clearly are no genuine homeless.

Thinking about it a little more, there is a slight chance that the Tories will pull back from the brink. Mordaunt is fairly useless but she garnered quite a few votes last time (I mean last time it came to a vote). It's a slim hope.

I am torn though on which would be for the best for the country - Braverman or Mordaunt. I don't doubt Braverman would drag the party to disaster in the polls and might just cripple it as an electoral force (though they'd probably recover eventually . . . too many newspapers prop it up). This would of course be fantastic, but the price might be to drag UK politics to the right and seal the Tories as a Trumpian/semi-fascistic party. On the other hand, Mordaunt would bring it a little away from the right but would make it more popular. Tough call.

I have to add it's almost impressive how many insults and slurs Braverman packs into a single sentence. I'm a 'hate marcher', I'm not a decent British person, I'm a thug, I intimidate people and I'm also (just to be clear) an extremist. Well done Suella's scriptwriter!

The hate marchers need to understand that decent British people have had enough of these displays of thuggish intimidation and extremism.

[Which Tyler]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1721 ... 46681.html

I apologise, but try as I might, I can’t find any material for #TheWeekInTory.

Only kidding. It’s an absolute casserole. Let’s down a pint of absinth and get stuck in.

Also - trigger warning.

[Puja]

Jonathan Pie once again making me feel a touch better about my impotent rage with his own:



Puja

[Sandydragon]

Taking this from the Gaza thread, because I didn't want to fill that up with UK politics.




It was the tweet about tents for the homeless that really upset me.

"We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

Why say many of them from abroad? It's irrelevant to the ostensible point of the complaint about "tent encampments", because a tent containing a foreign person has the same visibility as one containing a true-blooded Brit, but it's calculated and deliberate choice of words, conflating foreigners with being dirty, indigent, choosing to live on the streets, implying they're coming over here to live bestial lives that threaten good honest "decent" British people. It's a despicable dogwhistle. It's genuinely fascist, nasty nationalism.

And there are people who will vote for it, because it's easier to believe in the dirty foreigners and the exceptional, put-upon, "decent" British. I think you're right, I think she is going to be the next Tory leader and that saddens me terribly because I don't have faith enough in the electorate to think that'll rule them out of power.

Puja

The first sentence made me laugh: We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. It had to be followed by a 'but . . .' because given the level of support offered by Braverman there clearly are no genuine homeless.

Thinking about it a little more, there is a slight chance that the Tories will pull back from the brink. Mordaunt is fairly useless but she garnered quite a few votes last time (I mean last time it came to a vote). It's a slim hope.

I am torn though on which would be for the best for the country - Braverman or Mordaunt. I don't doubt Braverman would drag the party to disaster in the polls and might just cripple it as an electoral force (though they'd probably recover eventually . . . too many newspapers prop it up). This would of course be fantastic, but the price might be to drag UK politics to the right and seal the Tories as a Trumpian/semi-fascistic party. On the other hand, Mordaunt would bring it a little away from the right but would make it more popular. Tough call.

I have to add it's almost impressive how many insults and slurs Braverman packs into a single sentence. I'm a 'hate marcher', I'm not a decent British person, I'm a thug, I intimidate people and I'm also (just to be clear) an extremist. Well done Suella's scriptwriter!

The hate marchers need to understand that decent British people have had enough of these displays of thuggish intimidation and extremism.

I wonder what the odds are on her remaining Home Secretary much longer?

Just when Labour are struggling to maintain a cohesive response to this crisis and a shadow front bench minister resigns, Suella has a ‘hold my beer’ moment.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The first sentence made me laugh: We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. It had to be followed by a 'but . . .' because given the level of support offered by Braverman there clearly are no genuine homeless.

Thinking about it a little more, there is a slight chance that the Tories will pull back from the brink. Mordaunt is fairly useless but she garnered quite a few votes last time (I mean last time it came to a vote). It's a slim hope.

I am torn though on which would be for the best for the country - Braverman or Mordaunt. I don't doubt Braverman would drag the party to disaster in the polls and might just cripple it as an electoral force (though they'd probably recover eventually . . . too many newspapers prop it up). This would of course be fantastic, but the price might be to drag UK politics to the right and seal the Tories as a Trumpian/semi-fascistic party. On the other hand, Mordaunt would bring it a little away from the right but would make it more popular. Tough call.

I have to add it's almost impressive how many insults and slurs Braverman packs into a single sentence. I'm a 'hate marcher', I'm not a decent British person, I'm a thug, I intimidate people and I'm also (just to be clear) an extremist. Well done Suella's scriptwriter!

The hate marchers need to understand that decent British people have had enough of these displays of thuggish intimidation and extremism.

I wonder what the odds are on her remaining Home Secretary much longer?

Just when Labour are struggling to maintain a cohesive response to this crisis and a shadow front bench minister resigns, Suella has a ‘hold my beer’ moment.

Sunak is no doubt calculating whether she's more dangerous to him in or out of cabinet. And how weak he looks if he fails to act.

I wish Labour could just do the decent thing. Sometimes you actually need to take a clear position and say this is what we stand for. People have been known to respect that.

[Puja]

The first sentence made me laugh: We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. It had to be followed by a 'but . . .' because given the level of support offered by Braverman there clearly are no genuine homeless.

Thinking about it a little more, there is a slight chance that the Tories will pull back from the brink. Mordaunt is fairly useless but she garnered quite a few votes last time (I mean last time it came to a vote). It's a slim hope.

I am torn though on which would be for the best for the country - Braverman or Mordaunt. I don't doubt Braverman would drag the party to disaster in the polls and might just cripple it as an electoral force (though they'd probably recover eventually . . . too many newspapers prop it up). This would of course be fantastic, but the price might be to drag UK politics to the right and seal the Tories as a Trumpian/semi-fascistic party. On the other hand, Mordaunt would bring it a little away from the right but would make it more popular. Tough call.

I have to add it's almost impressive how many insults and slurs Braverman packs into a single sentence. I'm a 'hate marcher', I'm not a decent British person, I'm a thug, I intimidate people and I'm also (just to be clear) an extremist. Well done Suella's scriptwriter!

The hate marchers need to understand that decent British people have had enough of these displays of thuggish intimidation and extremism.

I wonder what the odds are on her remaining Home Secretary much longer?

Just when Labour are struggling to maintain a cohesive response to this crisis and a shadow front bench minister resigns, Suella has a ‘hold my beer’ moment.

Suella's got no interest in the next general election though. If anything, she wants it to be as disastrous for the Tories as possible so that she can point to it and say, "See, the British public don't want 'nice' Conservatives like Ready4Rish!, they want a colossal dickhole and I am the epitome of dickholidom!"

Saw an article the other day suggesting that she's trying to get sacked, which I think is a fair shout. Being a martyr would be a good look for her and would be enough to push her over the top of Badenoch in the race to be the most abhorrent cuntpuffin. Ready4Rish! is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't really - fire her and he loses any control over her and has to deal with her openly attacking him, but if he keeps her in the face of this kind of disrespect and provocation then does he really have any control over her anyway?

You're right that it's an absolute boon for Labour. Starmer's entire strategy/personality is based around not attracting attention of any kind and this has handily taken the spotlight off him when he was in severe danger of having to take a public position on something.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Thing is, Braverman is being such a pain that she might be damaging her own chances. The conservative activists are more to the right than many of their MPs, but they also value loyalty to the leader and she has none of that. To be fair, disloyalty did boris no harm, but that was probably as much the brexit effect. They also won’t get to vote for her unless she makes the final 2 candidates and that’s not certain if she is helping to make the conservatives look more of a basket case than they are already.