UK Politics Thread

[rory_20_uk]

What really condemned Corbyn was his ambiguous position towards Brexit. Hadn't he chickened out and instead adopted a transparent position, he would have performed much better, in my opinion.

Anyway, who do you think is going to succeed Boris in the leadership of the Tories? Michael Gove seems like the strongest candidate to me. Could also be Sunak; Javid, although internationally more famous, is less likely.

In the meantime, Baker (Tory version of Republican extremism) has also expressed his interest. His case is hopeless, thankfully.

Corbyn was a sub-normal IQ dumpster fire. He was too stupid to realise his ideals of nationalising everything he could lay his hands on would cause vast damage to the economy - equality for those too poor to flee the country for anywhere else.

On who is next I think that there's three classes:

• Optimists
• Chancers
• Strategists

The first think they can win, solve the problems that are endemic and get the populace to vote for them again in the next elections and either win or not screw up so much that they loose the position.
The second just want to be PM for a bit - one's name in the history books, the links it gives, meet the monarchy and a lifetime stipend.
The third will wait the disaster to end, possibly after the next election and then swoop in.

[Montmorency]

Shortish podcast with an American and an American expat going in depth on the British political system and the process and history of what's going on in Westminster. Seems pretty legit.

On the subject of the next Conservative leader, the point is made that the Conservatives have been in power for so long that all of the old frontbenchers are widely unpopular among the party and the public for their various views on, mostly, cutting taxes, raising taxes, and cutting spending. John Heseltine (still living) did not follow Margaret Thacther; John Major did.

[Pannonian]

Shortish podcast with an American and an American expat going in depth on the British political system and the process and history of what's going on in Westminster. Seems pretty legit.

On the subject of the next Conservative leader, the point is made that the Conservatives have been in power for so long that all of the old frontbenchers are widely unpopular among the party and the public for their various views on, mostly, cutting taxes, raising taxes, and cutting spending. John Heseltine (still living) did not follow Margaret Thacther; John Major did.

Michael Heseltine was from that section of the Tory party called the One Nation Conservatives, a line that goes back to Benjamin Disraeli (author of A Tale of Two Nations). Their aim is t preserve institutions whilst looking after the ordinary people. To a man jack of them, they opposed Brexit, as something that would benefit the very few whilst making things worse for the massive majority of poorer people. The last of the One Nation Big Beasts, Ken Clarke, noted after yet another tax cut for the rich, that he was well off enough and didn't need more tax cuts. But the cult of Brexit, and Boris Johnson the Brexit Enabler, has driven out all the moderate Tories, with those remaining picked for their adherence to Brexit and personal loyalty to Johnson. All the old Tories who'd believed in effective government have been driven out.

At the same time as tax rates for the richest were cut yet again, the tax rates for the poorest were raised to the highest level for quite a few decades. This after Labour were voted out for allowing National Debt to rise to an unsustained near-trillion GBP (it's currently 2.3 trillion), local government collapsing because of lack of funds despite tax money going extravagantly up, and billions of tax payers money being paid to friends and families of Tory politicians. Those who are in a position to benefit, mainly Tory politicians and their friends, have benefited from Brexit and other Tory policies. Everyone else has suffered. The old One Nation Tories, believing in the reverse of this, absolutely despise the current Tories and Brexit.

[Pannonian]

Why is Johnson being allowed to throw a wedding party at Chequers? If he's resigned, but is only there to provide continuity while the Tories decide on a replacement, why is he allowed to use the amenities for personal use?

[rory_20_uk]

Why is Johnson being allowed to throw a wedding party at Chequers? If he's resigned, but is only there to provide continuity while the Tories decide on a replacement, why is he allowed to use the amenities for personal use?

I hope that this is a rhetorical question since the answer is always the same.

The Good Chap System has nothing to deal with such people. His current wife wants a big do so, why not? Chequers isn't owned by the state and the Trust makes it available for the PM. He is the PM so he gets to play.

If we get an interim PM the first - perhaps only - legislation they should pass is to codify much of what has up until been merely optional.

[Pannonian]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's iffy that a lame duck PM who's admitted to meeting with enemy agents without the presence of other officials is left in place, even after he's announced that he plans to continue to take advantage of a PM's facilities and privileges?

[Furunculus]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's iffy that a lame duck PM who's admitted to meeting with enemy agents without the presence of other officials is left in place, even after he's announced that he plans to continue to take advantage of a PM's facilities and privileges?

No. Because context.

The subtext of your question about iffy'ness is that he is acting as an agent of a foreign power.
A foreign power that we are engaged in a proxy war with, and have been leading the global coordination of sanctions against the same foreign power.

And the context here is as I have asked before - to complete silence: what is the pay-off that this foreign power is getting?

It may be inappropriate, and that may justify 'iffy', but i see little merit in the insinuation that he is traitorous russian dupe.