Honestly, I’m surprised they haven’t considered calling a general election; let Labour win and inherit a totally fucked up situation, then spend that entire term blaming them for the mess, running interference and jeering at them, then walk back into power again at the next general leaving Labour as the underdog again.
That’s certainly what happens in the US.
If the polls are to be believed, an election held today would leave the Tories as not even the official Opposition. Tough to walk back from that.
I personally don’t believe it. Labor might win a majority, but I think it would be a slim one and the Conservatives would be a solid 2nd. But that would be a hell of a bet to make for a party that is, at the moment, technically leaderless.
So, is it really the case that as long as the Conservatives keep putting somebody up in the PM spot, and voting for that person in confidence votes, they get to wait out the full two years? Let’s say Sunak gets it and lasts twice as long as Liz. So, in late January, he gets ousted, and Mourdant takes her turn. She lasts a solid 120 days. So late May/early June, the 1922 Committee shows up at her doorstep… is there really nothing to be done other than let the carousel keep spinning? Is there no way, outside an election (which is up to the people who got themselves into this mess), for the populace to say “Enough!”? What if party registration plummets, is there a threshold, or anything?
But not on purpose. Once it happens, yes, but I don’t believe either major party has ever deliberately tanked an election. Too much can happen in the meantime to have that strategy backfire.
I think I heard Mogg once described as “the Honourable Member for the 19th Century.”
The other exciting thing British parliament watchers should brace themselves for is Boris, having graciously declined to run, sitting on the backbench as a cranky gorilla just waiting for Sunak to mess up or have some of his backers have doubts.
This is incredibly destablising, and was a staple of Australian parliaments [when both sides were in govt] for several decades. It leads to implosions as the party courts defeat by renting itself over even minor or non-existent ideological points, and is likely to eventually lead to BJ’s return. This will satisfy his ego but probably crush their electoral chances.
It does sound like this could be the Boris plan. He considers himself ‘uniquely’ placed to avoid an immediate general election, yet isn’t putting himself forward - which, given the polls, sounds like handing the tattered reins to Labour. And who’s the one bull-shitter who could blame Labour for the country’s woes after they’ve righted the ship somewhat in four years’ time and sweep back into power, lockdown parties a distant storm-in-a-teacup?
Far from being “uniquely placed to avoid a general election”, Johnson would be highly likely to precipitate one, if installed as leader. Legally, an election isn’t required until January 2025, but limping on until then depends on the collection of demoralised and delusional factions fighting like cats in a bag that is the current Tory parliamentary party holding together. To achieve that they need a leader who isn’t loathed by any faction; Johnson is widely loathed within the parliamentary party.
Whether Sunak or Mordaunt can hold the parliamentary party together remains to be seen but Johnson certainly can’t; this has already been vividly demonstrated. Thus appointing Johnson would have maximised the likelihood of an early election.
So, let’s say Sunak (or whoever) does manage to hold things together until, say, late 2024. There will then be an election which the Tories will certainly lose, probably badly. Sunak (or whoever) will stand down as party leader, and the party will seek to choose a leader who can begin the long, slow process of rebuilding the party as a credible party of government. Could Johnson take over at that point, with a view to returning as Prime Minister following the next election in, say 2029? Is that the long game he is playing?
In theory he could do this, but it doesn’t seem very plausible. Hard to see Johnson, notoriously workshy and inattentive to detail, doing the challenging work of deconstructing and rebuilding the party over a period of years. Also hard to see him as a credible figure to lead the party out of the delusions it has embraced when he played such a large part in fostering those delusions in the first place, and in purging the party of anybody not willing to embrace them. Finally, hard to see him taking on the “leader of the opposition” role which comes without the trappings of office, which are the main attraction for him.
The ominous line in Johnson’s statement is the last one:
I believe I have much to offer but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time.
It’s not as snappy as “I’ll be back” but has much the same intent.
I agree with @UDS1 however that he hasn’t thought it through. Although it suits his purposes to play king over the water/heir apparent - largely because it guarantees him attention, kudos and after-dinner speaking gigs - he is constitutionally incapable of doing the work that role requires, both in shoring up his own support and, you know, forming a coherent programme of government. He will be much happier getting columns printed, being talked about as a political force and taking regular holidays than he will be, for example, trying to get people he holds in contempt (i.e. everybody who isn’t him) to trust him again.
There’s no guarantee he’ll retain his seat in the Commons (though granted, the opinion polls are likely to return to a less staggering lead for Labour).
Meanwhile, let’s take a moment to hoot and holler at Nadhim Zahawi, who has spent the last 24 hours twisting and turning so much you could now use him as a corkscrew.
A brief recap: In early July, after Sunak quit as Chancellor, Zahawi took on the job when Boris offered it to him. Two (2) days later, Zahawi published a letter calling for Boris to quit (but didn’t actually resign). “The country deserves a government which is not only stable but which acts with integrity”.
Yesterday at 9.28 am he announces his support for Johnson: ‘With a unified team behind him, he is the one to lead us to victory & prosperity’.
Better than that, in what is obviously a well-co-ordinated move, he writes a column for the Daily Telegraph, headed ‘Get ready for Boris 2.0, the man who will make the Tories and Britain great again’ with the sub-heading ‘fresher, stronger and more compassionate than before, he is the outstanding choice to lead our country through rough seas.’ This was due to be published at 9.00 pm.
Minutes beforehand, Johnson announced that he was dropping out of the race. The piece was briefly published, but almost immediately taken down.
Later that same evening, Zahawi - clearly untroubled by concerns of shame, or dignity - tweets:
" A day is a long time in politics… Given today’s news, it’s clear that we should turn to @RishiSunak to become our next Prime Minister. Rishi is immensely talented, will command a strong majority in the parliamentary Conservative Party, and will have my full support & loyalty."
So obviously, this is hilarious. But it also says a lot about Johnson, who surely knew that this article was due to be published, and also knew that he was going to drop out at some point before the statement was published. Did he warn Zahawi privately to contact the Telegraph and get hte article pulled before publication? No, he left it to run, exposing Zahawi as a fool. This is either because a) Johnson is utterly careless with the reputations of others or b) Johnson is vindictive as hell and was punishing Zahawi for earlier disloyalty. Either way, why would you lend this man your support?
I think interest rates and house prices and inflation makes all the difference to the Tory voters. The country could be half covered in molten lava but if they’ve got low interest rates and their house prices are good (not particularly because they have a mortgage, but because of low interest rates), they’ll vote Tory. Once that’s done, well, they’re a bunch of selfish stupid f**ks who’ll probably not bother to vote anymore.
There is a decent chance a whole lot of famous tory mps will be gone in the next election. Lifers. Once Brexit has been exposed as the sham it was, then that will bury the rest for years.
Labour has a long record of shooting themselves in the foot, but I think they can’t do that this time. They will have a poisoned chalice, but I think sell rejoining the EU (which is the missing part here, as a neutered BBC/ITN hasn’t been allow to criticise it), and then get 20% of trade back, and a huge currency boost. But you can’t speak those words until you’ve got the chance to pull the trigger.
Actually I think that’s the one way they could lose the election, if they bring that up as an electoral issue. Win the election first, then maybe look into that, would be my advice to them.
Indeed, without the control of the press, and a clear detailed list of how badly Brexit cost them, in genuine terms which people can understand, then there really is no point.
There is a chunk of the electorate unable to see the 20% drop in trade, the huge queues in dover (yet seem to know about every boat which lands near there), mainly because the mainstream news isn’t reporting it. They genuinely think that the Guardian and Independent are making this up
Let there be a thorough citizen’s assembly process to investigate the options in some depth to test the water first. Don’t let it look like something smuggled in in bad faith, and make sure there’s a visible economic and social improvement in the areas of deprivation before any attempt to come up with a specific proposal - and even then it might need a new election on the issue.
Brexit opinion poll 2022 | Statista
Since May 21, more people say that it was wrong to leave the EU than say it was right, and the gap is widening.
(At some point, pollsters asking people (for weighing purposes) how they voted in the Referendum they will start to find more than 48% of people saying they voted Remain.)
But just because there’s a level of discontent, it doesn’t mean that a bold public stance of “Brexit was wrong, I’ll get us back in” is going to work because a) many people still feel the result should be honoured and b) it amounts to telling voters they were wrong, which is always a bad look especially if the voters know it might be true. Plus it would generate an above average level of aggro from the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph etc. when Labour’s strategy right now is to play the Sensible Suit, Corbyn Who? card.
Plus it’s an empty stance without some sort of assurance from the EU side that they’d want this political basket case back in the Union. Not to mention the problems of the likely terms of any such acceptance (back of the line behind, say, Moldova? and what about the exception for the pound?). Any British politician getting out over his skis on readmittance to the EU would probably be yanked back by the blandly dismissive shrugs from Brussels. So, yeah, I agree, as far as bold policymaking is concerned, reversing Brexit is a non starter, unfortunately.
That’s never going to come back, even if the UK did. The UK would probably have to join Schengen too (along with Ireland).
So yeah, a very hard sell.
Made a new thread…
Oh yeah - I’ve long thought that his ‘the nine most dangerous words are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”’ were at some level the end of the American experiment.
That and Ted Turner inventing 24-hour news, when there just isn’t that much news to report and now that time is filled with crap.
Except it is four names (or three, not sure if Mary Anne is considered a compound). At least in the US, most folks have at most two names.