Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Gumboot]

Looks like that bloke's "full support & loyalty" ain't worth shit.

[Margin__Walker]

It's helpful if you have zero dignity, or self-awareness, in Tory Politics

Par for the course with this lot. His is a particularly amusing run though.

[Insane_Homer]

Zahawi out whoring mad Nads

[fishfoodie]

Zahawi out whoring mad Nads

Have you any idea how much it costs to keep stables heated all winter !!!!

[_Os_]

Reckon he thinks it could be better long term for him if Sunak gets in and goes down on flames like Truss did, so he can have a go next time without a "big gun" competing

Sunak's team were saying he had 80-ish backers, if it was more it wasn't that much more. This was his best chance he wouldn't have pulled out if he definitely had the numbers. If there were no membership vote he wouldn't have even bothered (having a minority of MPs was priced into his run).

His bid was all about his own ego with no concern for anything else, he wanted to look omnipotent in being able to resign and come back at will. That's what his undignified use of "hasta la vista baby" and the bullshit about Cincinnatus was all about. There's nothing more to it than that. What it isn't about is potentially being defeated and looking weak, so he pulled out. If he was smart he would've secured a deal on the privileges committee and the Tories voting down any recommended punishment so he doesn't face a humiliating potential by-election defeat, if Sunak was smart he would've agreed to that deal and would now be preparing to support whatever recommended punishment there is anyway. For the Tories to stand any chance they need to show they've cleaned themselves up, purging Johnson would be symbolic.

Can't see Johnson doing much in politics again, the reason he rushed back from holiday is there's going to be very few chances like this. Can't see him being at all interested in being an opposition leader which often means being a permanent loser (and also requires organisational skills he lacks), a lot of his rhetoric is about bullying people weaker than him which doesn't work as well in opposition. In 2019 he had Corbyn and "getting Brexit done" helping him, if he somehow contested a general election again he will not have cards in his hand like that.

Truss probably blew up too soon for Johnson, he may have had more chance next year. There's an outside chance the Tories change their leader again soon, they'll likely do poorly in elections next May but it would need more than that, polling would have to be bad for Sunak and he would need to be struggling to control the Tory parliamentary party. How good Sunak is as a politician will be what decides if Johnson gets another chance, and a lot of that is decided by what Sunak's motivations are which don't seem that different to Johnson wanting to be PM for the sake of it to get into the history books.

[fishfoodie]

The pig eyed sack of shit will now have to give evidence to the Standards Committee, & he'll have even less friends than he had a week ago.

He'll be found guilt,
He'll be recalled.
He'll lose the By-Election.
& by disgracing himself, & his Party, he'll lose any chance of a Seat in the HoL !

[_Os_]

The pig eyed sack of shit will now have to give evidence to the Standards Committee, & he'll have even less friends than he had a week ago.

He'll be found guilt,
He'll be recalled.
He'll lose the By-Election.
& by disgracing himself, & his Party, he'll lose any chance of a Seat in the HoL !

Sunak's first test of if he's up to it is if he makes sure this happens. May made a mistake promoting Johnson into a job she knew he couldn't do (Foreign Secretary), May thought his failure would sink him, the opposite happened. If he's there he's a threat, if he's not there is no Johnson faction.

If it's looking like that's the route, Johnson will not want a Portillo moment that ruins his image, so probably wouldn't even contest the by-election.

[_Os_]

We could go back and forth all day point by point I sense.

At the root of this is that you are conflating political crisis with constitutional crisis. The mess Britain is in is entirely one of politics.
We introduced an extra-constitutional step of a referendum, politicians have attempted to deal with the consequences, and by and large have failed to do so. Boris Johnson's government foundered not because the constitution was found to be inadequate but because he was incapable of putting in the graft required to legislate and govern, and was surrounded by mediocrities who wanted cabinet positions for the prestige and the boozy parties. Would that he was replaced by one of those mediocrities rather than a car crash. Truss has come unstuck on parliamentary arithmetic and the bond market.

None of this can be written constitution-ed away, the issue is political. Were there to be an election and Starmer wins the majority I suspect he would, the entire 'constitutional crisis' would disappear, almost as if it never existed.

I get the sense that you'd like to dissolve the people and elect another, and in the absence of that proving possible get judges and their coteries to effect something similar, but that's not how power and authority works in our constitution. The verdict and sanctions lie first with Parliament and ultimately with the electorate, and I don't see by what right a constitution could or should supersede that.

I didn't reply because we're going to go round in circles as you say. But whilst I'm here, there's two parts to your post.

The first isn't really completely at odds with my initial post in this string. Which stated May relied on something outside parliament (the referendum which wasn't legally binding and didn't happen during her parliament) for her legitimacy (she kept making "will of the people" arguments to support her specific deal) and when this proved insufficient to pass her Brexit deal she astonishingly restorted to criticising/attacking parliament itself, and a potential Johnson return would've also relied on something outside parliament (Tory members) for legitimacy and he too would've ended up attacking parliament (the privileges committee). Many then argue as you do that this a political problem which it is, but something as simple as having some more developed rules about how referendums function would've prevented a lot of this (eg NZ's referendum/s on changing their flag were more thought out). And this is where I depart from you, if Starmer gets a majority there's still going to be a political crisis (or maybe people will have just accepted being poorer than their parents generation? Or immigration levels they thought they were voting to reduce?) and the cause of the crisis isn't entirely political.

Since then we've seen Johnson supporters claiming he has a "mandate" to be PM, when the only mandate he has is from his constituency to be an MP. There's a Twitter post from Priti Patel on this thread supporting this "mandate" bullshit, it's what most of his supporters have stated. It's a "will of the people" argument, they tried to use the assumed value many have about general elections in the UK (people think an PM is elected by them at a general election, eg "I'm not voting for Corbyn"). Which supports that making Johnson PM would've been a constitutional crisis, something outside of parliament would've selected the PM for a second time, and there would've been more "will of every fucker outside parliament" type justifications to override the decisions of the actual will of the people (the MPs).

The second part of this, you're just making stuff up I'm afraid. You've said FPTP is separate to a written constitution (I pointed out not really, SA's constitution explicitly states the type but not exact form of electoral system). Now you're saying referendums are "extra-constitutional". This isn't a difficult one, if you're talking about the rules of the game you're talking about the constitution. I think a lot of the UK's issues originate from some of the rules of the game being poor, you've then jumped into the unwritten v written constitution stuff (I didn't bring it up, "constitutional crisis" isn't the same as "immediately start drafting the written constitution!").

It would be pointless saying the UK should have a written constitution, because it's never going to happen (how you then get federalism/subsidiarity to keep your country together long term, I don't know, but it's not my problem). But the means by which the electoral system changes is the continued fragmentation of the party politics (as soon as Labour can't secure a majority but can form coalitions). Someone supporting PR hardly wants to "dissolve the people and elect another", all the BNP and UKIP arguments would've fallen apart in a less damaging way if they had more exposure sooner, one of the things that was said about the Brexit referendum was "it was the first time people were heard" ... well exactly.

[PCPhil]

Not like Boris to pull out at the last minute.

[tabascoboy]

With luck could be they really will implode in a fit of pique

[Tichtheid]

With luck could be they really will implode in a fit of pique

If anyone, ever, thought this Tory party was competent enough to govern, they must be re-examining their thoughts on the matter.

Just from a political point of view, what an incredibly stupid act, to make that public threat on the privileges comittee like that.

[Insane_Homer]

[tabascoboy]

Oh the outrage...

[SaintK]

With luck could be they really will implode in a fit of pique

If anyone, ever, thought this Tory party was competent enough to govern, they must be re-examining their thoughts on the matter.

Just from a political point of view, what an incredibly stupid act, to make that public threat on the privileges comittee like that.

The thick witch has forgotten that the Blonde Slug is being investigated for knowingly lying to parliament. Sunak is facing no such allegation.

[Ymx]

Impartial Beeb at it again

[Paddington Bear]

We could go back and forth all day point by point I sense.

At the root of this is that you are conflating political crisis with constitutional crisis. The mess Britain is in is entirely one of politics.
We introduced an extra-constitutional step of a referendum, politicians have attempted to deal with the consequences, and by and large have failed to do so. Boris Johnson's government foundered not because the constitution was found to be inadequate but because he was incapable of putting in the graft required to legislate and govern, and was surrounded by mediocrities who wanted cabinet positions for the prestige and the boozy parties. Would that he was replaced by one of those mediocrities rather than a car crash. Truss has come unstuck on parliamentary arithmetic and the bond market.

None of this can be written constitution-ed away, the issue is political. Were there to be an election and Starmer wins the majority I suspect he would, the entire 'constitutional crisis' would disappear, almost as if it never existed.

I get the sense that you'd like to dissolve the people and elect another, and in the absence of that proving possible get judges and their coteries to effect something similar, but that's not how power and authority works in our constitution. The verdict and sanctions lie first with Parliament and ultimately with the electorate, and I don't see by what right a constitution could or should supersede that.

I didn't reply because we're going to go round in circles as you say. But whilst I'm here, there's two parts to your post.

The first isn't really completely at odds with my initial post in this string. Which stated May relied on something outside parliament (the referendum which wasn't legally binding and didn't happen during her parliament) for her legitimacy (she kept making "will of the people" arguments to support her specific deal) and when this proved insufficient to pass her Brexit deal she astonishingly restorted to criticising/attacking parliament itself, and a potential Johnson return would've also relied on something outside parliament (Tory members) for legitimacy and he too would've ended up attacking parliament (the privileges committee). Many then argue as you do that this a political problem which it is, but something as simple as having some more developed rules about how referendums function would've prevented a lot of this (eg NZ's referendum/s on changing their flag were more thought out). And this is where I depart from you, if Starmer gets a majority there's still going to be a political crisis (or maybe people will have just accepted being poorer than their parents generation? Or immigration levels they thought they were voting to reduce?) and the cause of the crisis isn't entirely political.

Since then we've seen Johnson supporters claiming he has a "mandate" to be PM, when the only mandate he has is from his constituency to be an MP. There's a Twitter post from Priti Patel on this thread supporting this "mandate" bullshit, it's what most of his supporters have stated. It's a "will of the people" argument, they tried to use the assumed value many have about general elections in the UK (people think an PM is elected by them at a general election, eg "I'm not voting for Corbyn"). Which supports that making Johnson PM would've been a constitutional crisis, something outside of parliament would've selected the PM for a second time, and there would've been more "will of every fucker outside parliament" type justifications to override the decisions of the actual will of the people (the MPs).

The second part of this, you're just making stuff up I'm afraid. You've said FPTP is separate to a written constitution (I pointed out not really, SA's constitution explicitly states the type but not exact form of electoral system). Now you're saying referendums are "extra-constitutional". This isn't a difficult one, if you're talking about the rules of the game you're talking about the constitution. I think a lot of the UK's issues originate from some of the rules of the game being poor, you've then jumped into the unwritten v written constitution stuff (I didn't bring it up, "constitutional crisis" isn't the same as "immediately start drafting the written constitution!").

It would be pointless saying the UK should have a written constitution, because it's never going to happen (how you then get federalism/subsidiarity to keep your country together long term, I don't know, but it's not my problem). But the means by which the electoral system changes is the continued fragmentation of the party politics (as soon as Labour can't secure a majority but can form coalitions). Someone supporting PR hardly wants to "dissolve the people and elect another", all the BNP and UKIP arguments would've fallen apart in a less damaging way if they had more exposure sooner, one of the things that was said about the Brexit referendum was "it was the first time people were heard" ... well exactly.

I had a rare very slow working day Friday which gave me time to respond in detail repeatedly, the fact that a few days later your best response boils down to 'you're making stuff up' is pretty telling. You can hide being wrong on a forum like this quite a lot by writing constant lengthy posts, you couldn't hide it this time and you don't like being called on it.
To repeat - there is a difference between a political and a constitutional crisis, we have the former and not the latter, and the fact that we are getting governments and outcomes you don't like is not cause for major constitutional reform. And please stop with the patronising 'loads of Brits don't understand/know xyz about their country' - it's tedious and certainly isn't true of the vast majority of posters on here.

[C69]

With luck could be they really will implode in a fit of pique

If anyone, ever, thought this Tory party was competent enough to govern, they must be re-examining their thoughts on the matter.

Just from a political point of view, what an incredibly stupid act, to make that public threat on the privileges comittee like that.

The thick witch has forgotten that the Blonde Slug is being investigated for knowingly lying to parliament. Sunak is facing no such allegation.

This is what Sunak is going to face. Remember when Truss was elected his economic policy was criticised as causing stagnation his reputation was trashed. He is hated by a large majority of MPs and loads of Party members for thean who brought the Big Dog down.
The party has fractured and Boris has openly stated he wants to lead on 2024.
There is apparently a lot more dirt on Sunak and his family finance and ties.
I hope the Tories burn

[JM2K6]

I don't like it when the Dads argue

[Torquemada 1420]

You can hide being wrong on a forum like this quite a lot by writing constant lengthy posts, you couldn't hide it this time and you don't like being called on it.

Oh, I don't know. One poster has made a career out of it

[Margin__Walker]

Impartial Beeb at it again

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

[Ymx]

Impartial Beeb at it again

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

Care to enlighten us morons about the actual context of the glee? Or are you going to double down and sling out phrases like fascist nazis as well.

[Hal Jordan]

Impartial Beeb at it again

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

Care to enlighten us morons about the actual context of the glee?

The default reaction of a reasonable person on hearing Johnson has fucked off again?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I hope the Tories burn

A variant on the winter fuel allowance perhaps

[sturginho]

Impartial Beeb at it again

Is this the best you can do?

[Ymx]

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

Care to enlighten us morons about the actual context of the glee?

The default reaction of a reasonable person on hearing Johnson has fucked off again?

So, not so out of context then.

Be interesting to see if there are ramifications for the said presenter on impartiality grounds.

[JM2K6]

Bet you'll be gleeful if anything does happen.

[Slick]

Impartial Beeb at it again

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

That website seems to be written by12 year old for 12 year olds. I've never been on it before but assumed it was a fairly serious political website

[Biffer]

Care to enlighten us morons about the actual context of the glee?

The default reaction of a reasonable person on hearing Johnson has fucked off again?

So, not so out of context then.

Be interesting to see if there are ramifications for the said presenter on impartiality grounds.

You can’t seriously think that Guido is a reliable, unbiased news source?

[Margin__Walker]

Impartial Beeb at it again

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

Care to enlighten us morons about the actual context of the glee? Or are you going to double down and sling out phrases like fascist nazis as well.

You're the one getting excited about the article. I thought you'd be able to tell us what she's gleeful about.

[tabascoboy]

At least one good thing will come out of a Sunak Prime Ministership then - unless of course he does another backtrack

[Lobby]

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

Care to enlighten us morons about the actual context of the glee? Or are you going to double down and sling out phrases like fascist nazis as well.

You're the one getting excited about the article. I thought you'd be able to tell us what she's gleeful about.

She doesn't actually say she is happy because Johnson has fucked off (although that would be a perfectly reasonable reaction), and her glee appears at least in part to be because there will be so much for her and her guests to discuss in their review of tomorrow's papers.

[Ymx]

The default reaction of a reasonable person on hearing Johnson has fucked off again?

So, not so out of context then.

Be interesting to see if there are ramifications for the said presenter on impartiality grounds.

You can’t seriously think that Guido is a reliable, unbiased news source?

I have no idea who Guido is. But I’m pretty sure that was not a fabricated video.

[Insane_Homer]

That morning after look you have after being fucked by Boris.

[Ymx]

12 second clip out of context. Packaged to be spread and amplified by morons to suit an agenda.

Care to enlighten us morons about the actual context of the glee? Or are you going to double down and sling out phrases like fascist nazis as well.

You're the one getting excited about the article. I thought you'd be able to tell us what she's gleeful about.

Not sure, genius. But you seemed pretty sure a minute ago when you were calling it misleading and out of context, that you felt the need to shout moron.

Is this finger in ears moment, shouting wanker/moron … I’m not listening.

[salanya]

At least one good thing will come out of a Sunak Prime Ministership then - unless of course he does another backtrack

That's good news indeed

And the 'of course not' statement says a lot about the lack of quality in that man as well as the Tory party.

[dpedin]

So, not so out of context then.

Be interesting to see if there are ramifications for the said presenter on impartiality grounds.

You can’t seriously think that Guido is a reliable, unbiased news source?

I have no idea who Guido is. But I’m pretty sure that was not a fabricated video.

Aye right!

[Insane_Homer]

I have no idea who Guido is.

[SaintK]

At least one good thing will come out of a Sunak Prime Ministership then - unless of course he does another backtrack

No such qualms for this moron. Having spent the past 3 months slagging Sunak off!!

[SaintK]

The default reaction of a reasonable person on hearing Johnson has fucked off again?

So, not so out of context then.

Be interesting to see if there are ramifications for the said presenter on impartiality grounds.

You can’t seriously think that Guido is a reliable, unbiased news source?

[Biffer]

So, not so out of context then.

Be interesting to see if there are ramifications for the said presenter on impartiality grounds.

You can’t seriously think that Guido is a reliable, unbiased news source?

I have no idea who Guido is. But I’m pretty sure that was not a fabricated video.

Guido’s post gives a reasonable idea of where the motivation for Guido Fawkes lies.