There were some rumblings during the previous leadership contest that there was a plan among the Johnsonites to pick the worst possible candidate who would rapidly implode, thus making Boris look much better by comparison and allowing him to sweep back into office. Sadly, this is now looking like an entirely credible theory.
By what mechanism? There would be public outrage for a few days, probably some fairly large protest marches, all of which Boris would ignore, then he would carry on his (un)merry way. Most of us are too jaded or too busy to storm 10 Downing Street.
Well by that mechanism; I just dispute the scale of it.
Public outrage would be massive, there would be enough fighting in the commons that the last few weeks will seem like a hug-a-thon by comparison, and the majority of the media will go on and on about how disgraceful this is. Oh, and more market turmoil. A new election would have to be called, fast.
If Boris were to return, and Ladbrokes were taking bets, I’d happily wager a month’s salary that he won’t make it to 2025. But I suspect Ladbrokes would only give me 1/50 odds (i.e. I get my stake back, plus 2%) or something like that.
If Boris gets back in, his followers (and media sources like the Daily Mail) would probably be thrilled, but I suspect the markets would not be - the whole reason Boris left was that he was a force for chaos in the country, and a return under these circumstances will not calm things down.
Much as I loathe Sunak, he seems to be the most market-friendly of the current options available.
I’m not so sure. The markets were upset by the radical and stupid Truss/Kwarteng budget.
Boris doesn’t give a toss for such technicalities and would just appoint someone boring to do the boring things like worry about money. And the markets like boring.
Johnson wasn’t removed due to markets. Johnson was removed because he was an electoral liability. This has not changed, indeed, now Truss has gone it seems as the tories actually less popular. The shit sticks.
There is only one move left for a chance of a future for the Conservative party, and that is sensible. Any sort of move to the middle, even by a small amount (and Sunak isn’t towards the middle, he’s more of the same) might placate things.
But this is the conservative party/continuity BNP, they’ve proven themselves capable of making the worst possible choice many times over now.
Do you really think there is a bottom?
Really? It’s a word I hear (and have used) often. Rhymes with house.
The electorate has a short memory.
Not necessarily. There can be short-term volatility, but there can also be patterns where a position solidified and becomes baked-in.
Here’s one prediction for « if the election were held today », suggesting a crushing Labour majority.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
I appreciate that the election may be as long as two years away, but the steady decline in Tory support over the past two years is also a factor.
Yep, really. Never heard it before … yesterday.
I agree with some of your speculation. I think you are rather harsh on the electorate - by your measure, half my family would fall into ’ small c conservative xenophobic Little Englanders.’ Which they aren’t. Deluded about Brexit and the Conservative Party perhaps, but there isn’t simply one reason that people vote conservative, whatever us Guardian readers might think.
Anyhow, whilst I would normally agree that I could see Boris scraping another election victory, that would be in a ‘normal year’. We are sliding head first into a recession, mortgage rates are rocketing, fuel bills are out of control, the NHS is on its knees, people of all classes are somewhere on a scale of very worried to really suffering, and no government gets to survive that. They are toast, whoever leads them.
It’s a very useful word, you should adopt it.
I’ve heard it, but for me it’s a Britishism; not common this side of the pond.
Actually, according to the wiktionary citation in my first post on this topic, its American pronunciation is just like noose.
I think I have enough words for the concept, and it’s not a very pleasant looking or sounding word to me, so I doubt I’ll use it much. Good to know it exists, though.
Tell that to the many many people currently laying the groundwork for his return. The Guardian currently has stories on the ticker about cabinet member Ben Wallace leaning toward supporting Boris, as well as unnamed MPs trying to have ongoing internal investigations into Johnson’s ethics violations quashed, to eliminate the headache they would create if Boris returns and then those inquiries culminate in damning findings.
I don’t disagree that the backlash would be fierce. But evidently there is political calculus inside the party that as much of a liability Boris represents, the other candidates could be worse. That’s the thing, there are simply no good choices. Truss was picked because she was supposed to be kind of a neutral unknown, and that didn’t work out. Boris is a clownish villain, but he’s a known clownish villain.
Ultimately the Conservatives are doomed in the near term. They’re just trying to figure out which meal they want on their plate before the axe falls.
Over here in the US, one party has targeted poor, low-educated, misinformed voters with xenophobic, hate and fear-based messaging that results in these people voting against their own interests.
Same in the UK - and, I believe, many other places such as Brazil, the Philippines, India, Australia (though I’m no expert on any of those - correct me if I’m wrong).
It’s been the sort of event that comes to symbolise everything that’s turned people from doubting to conviction that the government has shot its bolt/lost the plot: like Gordon Brown’s chapter of accidents (“from Stalin to Mr Bean”), Lamont frantically chucking money into trying (and failing) to stay in fixed exchange rates (likewise the Attlee and Wilson governments) or the way the Tories in the 50s would go on and on about groundnuts.
I also saw this morning, “Who do you think will play Liz Truss in the last ten seconds of The Crown?”
Nice.
In the early 1950s, when Italian politics were notorious for their upheavals and instability, this joke made the rounds:
Two Italian MPs are sitting on the back benches, very bored, as a parliamentary debate drones on around them. One says, “I think I’ll take a little nap, Paolo.”
The other nods. “Of course, Giorgio.”
Awhile later, Giorgio wakes up, looks at the clock and is surprised to see that nearly an hour has passed. He stretches and yawns. “Did I miss anything, Paolo?” he asks his seatmate.
“Not much,” the other man says. “But you were Prime Minister twice.”