|
Horseshoe theory posted:Doesn't the Tory party constitution explicitly block him from running due to resigning...? Rules don't apply to Boris
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Jose posted:Got our first bottler apparently he wants the NATO Secretary General role which is up for renewal next year also I suspect he sees the way the tide is turning and doesn’t want to be the PM when the Tories lose their majority
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Technically 'a source at No 10' could be from any street. A source at No 10 tells me that Boris spends his time now constantly crying and lazily masturbating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
0 chance this hasn't been known about since it happened but had to do absolutely anything to stop corbyn https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1545825125810970626?s=20&t=G-zgkSjxNpAuNL70YgMJbQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Doesn't the Tory party constitution explicitly block him from running due to resigning...? Nah. Rules are decided by the 1922 committee each time. Still can't really decide if it would be stupid as gently caress to let him run or relatively clever to guarantee he can run in exchange for the resignation, but I'm certain it would be funny
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Zoran posted:don’t rich people in Britain solve this problem by shipping all their kids off to boarding schools to get raped Fun fact: Sunak's parents sent him to a boarding school 12 miles (and a 20-minute drive) away from where they lived. Now that's responsible Conservative parenting... i say swear online posted:what happened in '51 There was an element of that - Labour had built a far-reaching and functional welfare state, nationalised huge swathes of the industrial economy and infrastructure and started a transformative home-building and urban planning programme. All in six years. Crucially, unlike in 1945, the Tories basically accepted the post-war settlement as a new consensus but promised to reduce the Labour government's penchant for monolithic central planning, reversing some of the more swingeing tax changes and focusing more on raising the quality of life and material conditions for the British people - especially the middle classes who were getting back to normality after the war and were chafing at imposed greyscale austerity when you weren't allowed to buy a car, had to get permission to go on a foreign holiday and had to buy cheap standardised 'utility' house furniture. As opposed to Labour which was seen as preferring to do big-scale economic and state policies that failed to do much for the average person's living standards. The Conservatives fought on a platform of personal freedom - no more nationalisation (but no privatisation), no more price controls...and no more rationing. Pretty much everyone in Britain was fed up with rationing but the Labour governments had no firm plan to end it, citing that it had eliminated food poverty and raised the health of the population. Which it had, but everyone was itching to turn in their ration books. Labour ran on what amounted to 'more of the same'....and it sort of worked because Labour won more votes by number and by share than the Conservatives in 1951 (numbers that remain an all-time high for Labour and only the Conservatives in 1992 have ever earned more votes), they were thwarted by FPTP - Labour's vote increased in its safe seats but dropped in the lower-middle class suburban constituencies that had tilted strongly for Labour in 1945 to kick out Churchill and get a new deal after the war...but were now returning to their more usual tastes. It's interesting to think how things might have shaken out if Attlee had been PM for 11 years and Labour had been in power to ride the surge in living standards in the 1950s (which was mostly down to the groundwork done by the 45-50 Labour government). But then they'd have been around to gently caress up Suez, so who knows 
BalloonFish has issued a correction as of 20:23 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
thanks for that
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Nah. Rules are decided by the 1922 committee each time. it would be the only way to dispel the myth that boris is popular, but super high risk reward
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Sounds like this 1922 committee is more like a 1984 committee to me... canceled are bojo all the way out of number 10...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Can imagine rationing getting a bit unpopular by 51, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Nah. Rules are decided by the 1922 committee each time. The Tory constitution seems to imply otherwise: quote:SCHEDULE 2 As far as I can tell, they'd need to amend the party constitution to let BoJo be re-nominated in the current leadership election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Quotey posted:Can imagine rationing getting a bit unpopular by 51, yeah. And a lot of items were actually more tightly rationed after the war than during it - bread went on ration in 1946 and potatoes in 1947. Fish was never rationed but the supply dropped post-war. This was because the UK was no longer receiving food materials from the USA and was having to support the ruined territories of occupied Europe. Plus the harvests in 1946 and 1947 were bad and there was a wave of dock and transport strikes once restrictions on industrial action were eased. It was easy to portray the 'Labour project' as a big, impersonal, bureaucratic, totalitarian system where your basic needs were all provided but you had no fun, no prospects and no individuality - you sat on standardised furniture in your standardised prefab house, eating rationed government-branded cheese on rationed government-branded bread, then took a nationalised train to a nationalised factory where the BBC piped in morale-raising music and chat, then you went for dinner in your government-run restaurant with a set menu and walked home dreaming of being able to buy a car that came in black or grey and ran on rationed government-issue unbranded petrol, or getting to the top of a nine-month waiting list for the GPO to install a phone in your house (only one design, one colour and you don't actually own the phone, the state does). That's a caricature of Britain in the early 50s (and a world where the government guaranteed healthcare, housing and employment, ran a restaurant chain selling heavily subsidised meals and implemented vast taxes on wealth and luxury goods can sound appealing in 2022...) but all those aspects were true. And the Conservatives leaned heavily on those sentiments to promise a less dreary and more comfortable and upwardly mobile world. Labour were aware of this image problem and that the British public was fed up with 12 years of shortages, 'make do and mend' and generally being told to knuckle down and put their lives on hold for some greater good payoff in the future. That's what the Festival of Britain was supposed to counteract - a big, nationwide party full of colour, novelty and optimism to show what future Labour could build on the foundations of 1945. That's in no small part why Labour called the 1951 in that autumn, right after the Festival.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:The Tory constitution seems to imply otherwise:
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Zoran posted:don’t rich people in Britain solve this problem by shipping all their kids off to boarding schools to get raped it's how they preserve their culture
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Quotey posted:Can imagine rationing getting a bit unpopular by 51, yeah. Poors got enough to eat, it had to go
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Labour were aware of this image problem and that the British public was fed up with 12 years of shortages, 'make do and mend' and generally being told to knuckle down and put their lives on hold for some greater good payoff in the future. That's what the Festival of Britain was supposed to counteract - a big, nationwide party full of colour, novelty and optimism to show what future Labour could build on the foundations of 1945. That's in no small part why Labour called the 1951 in that autumn, right after the Festival. good post. i had forgotten or not learned rationing had lasted that long, thank you. what was the nationalised restaurant!?!?!? PRET?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
They were just called British Restaurants
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
yeah he's not actually resigned, he just said he is going to i would not be shocked if he runs in the leadership contest
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
ContinuityNewTimes posted:They were just called British Restaurants
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
lmao guardian already talking like rishi is pm. democracy
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:The Divine Right of Short Kings the desi right of short kings
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
I will not accept a short prime minister. Do not post small rishi in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
Very cool and normal that all the candidates are focusing on trans people as their main issue and not at all concerning. Pretty sure theyre all committing to keeping the Rwanda deportation plan
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
Jose posted:Very cool and normal that all the candidates are focusing on trans people as their main issue and not at all concerning. Pretty sure theyre all committing to keeping the Rwanda deportation plan Yes but enough about the labour party
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 09:04
|
|
|
grant schapps somehow already the least worst person in the race https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1546045999327608834?s=20&t=JPM0XIlLsRfCkQeCeklMBg
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 09:30
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:what happened in '51 afaik Attlee hosed up by not waiting until 1952 to call the election, instead calling it in 1951 before the king went on his tour of the Commonwealth in 1952, which hosed him over because (a) the economy improved going into 1952 (b) the king didn't even go on that tour, since he took ill towards the end of the year and died the next February if he'd won in 1952, even a slightly bigger majority, not only would it demotivate Churchill and probably Eden enough to quit, it'd also mean Labour'd see in the QE2 era, which'd be some funny poo poo if nothing else
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 09:33
|
|
|
Lol https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1546058667069526017?t=XucT3IZipNj74FVCZXd5Ng&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 10:53
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/joejglenton/status/1546094874080038914?s=20&t=xSq_6vCRlcfw5SmP9NKDkg
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 12:38
|
|
|
In a former role as equalities minister, Mordaunt said that “trans men are men, and trans women are women”, a statement that sets out the current legal basis for gender recognition but has become an increasingly fraught area of debate over issues such as safe spaces for women. This has led to Mordaunt being criticised by some Conservative factions. The former defence minister wrote on Twitter: “I am biologically a woman. If I have a hysterectomy or mastectomy, I am still a woman. And I am legally a woman. “Some people born male and who have been through the gender recognition process are also legally female. That DOES NOT mean they are biological women, like me.” Mordaunt said: “All my life, I’ve fought for gender equality. I’ve stood up for women,” pointing to her work as equalities minister, saying she had opposed gender-neutral language and campaigned about women’s sport
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
she's been called out by her gay twin brother
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
The one thing that gives me a little hope with the Tories focusing on the gender culture war is that there doesn't seem to be the same appetite for it here as there is in the US. The media keeps pushing transphobia as hard as they can but in my experience people are by and large accepting, or at least indifferent, and the tide seems to be turning again them and not us
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
meanwhile in europe: https://twitter.com/translibnews/status/1542752780594692096?s=21&t=hsl0b-3OSOYh8652xoEs9w
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 13:08
|
|
|
No Dignity posted:The one thing that gives me a little hope with the Tories focusing on the gender culture war is that there doesn't seem to be the same appetite for it here as there is in the US. The media keeps pushing transphobia as hard as they can but in my experience people are by and large accepting, or at least indifferent, and the tide seems to be turning again them and not us wait what? they don't call it TERF island for nothing; trans rights in the UK are much more precarious than in the states
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:wait what? they don't call it TERF island for nothing; trans rights in the UK are much more precarious than in the states they absolutely are not
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:wait what? they don't call it TERF island for nothing; trans rights in the UK are much more precarious than in the states Are they? We haven't just banned transitioning for minors in half our counties or recriminalised abortion. The political and media class is deeply transphobic but the people by large aren't such braying hogs as the US
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
No Dignity posted:Are they? We haven't just banned transitioning for minors in half our counties or recriminalised abortion. The political and media class is deeply transphobic but the people by large aren't such braying hogs as the US I guess that's fair. I see UK trans rights through its media and what I see is nothing positive
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
One of the big differences between the US and UK is that the UK genuinely isn't that socially conservative, especially on things like gender. Most people just don't give that much of a gently caress over here and it's not so much of a wedge issue. But things are heading in the wrong direction through a combo of TERFs working their way up in media and now dominating the conversation, and the Tories looking for scapegoats because they genuinely do not know how to get out of the current economic crisis
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
how tenable is that though? "oh our anti-trans voices are only in the most powerful media outlets, not with common people" is something that i feel would invite long-term problems
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Hitler never had a majority of popular support, and yet Nazi Germany still got away with everything, until they didn't basically, we're in for some more fascism
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 16:03
|
|