UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[afleitch]

Also we now live in the age where calling out privilege is 'bullying' and a privileged wife is 'misogyny' while adding the important questions as to whether women can have a penis.

[Blair]

It's still a mystery how his team never covered such a routine base when insulating him from potential attacks.

It is interesting as attacks around his wealth (he is never referred to as ‘former investment banker’) have been floating around, including around his wife and some stuff in Private Eye- but it finally seems to have picked up some steam, and negative coverage.

It’s significant that Labour have pretty much been attacking him since September in the same way Cameron spent a lot of 06-07 weakening Brown.

[Silent Hunter]

Operation save Rishi in full swing, with claims he’s been smeared and that it’s part of a coordinated plot.

“Help me, I’ve been defamed with politically embarrassing truths!”

It's still a dead cat even if it's true.

[Blair]

U-turn announced. I’m not sure what it is but it’s some change in tax status.

It seems rather bad- because the obvious response is ‘if it was fine before why have you changed it?’

I wonder if the Sunday papers had something good- explains the Friday announcement

[Alben Barkley]

BoJo visited Zelensky in Ukraine.

Say what you will about the man, that's pretty awesome.

[LAB-LIB]

Today is the 30th anniversary of the Tories' 1992 election stunner. That really was quite the election, and I wonder if this next one might be even more dramatic.

[Torrain]

Talk about a mixed week for the Conservatives. On one hand, you’ve got Johnson’s visit to Kyiv, which prompted murmurs of outright respect from even my lefty academic colleagues, who’ve spent the whole week cursing the government for their new energy bills.

(For my part, I think it’s quite admirable and worth celebrating, but will never fully be able to detach Johnson’s approach to Ukraine from his own post-partygate sense of desperate self-preservation).

And on the other, you’ve got Sunak’s family leaving Downing Street to avoid further scrutiny, and then Sajid Javid admitting that he too held non-dom status for a number of years in the 2000s (shielding a significant volume of his income from taxation at the time), only a day after he made a grand stand about our duty to fund British institutions with our taxes.

Hard to see exactly where this all goes, but as Conservatopia said earlier in the week, the whole situation has become very “Back to Basics”. Guess the real question is whether the Labour Party of the 2020s, which is in a far weaker position electorally (and possibly financially) than New Labour was in the mid-90s, can take advantage of the situation, or simply gets lost in its umpteenth round of infra-party squabbles.

[CumbrianLefty]

Labour infighting will never go away, but to a degree it is a product of electoral pessimism. When the party is struggling, opponents of the leadership claim they would be doing things better - whereas on the loyalist wing the line is often "we need to do what we are doing now, but HARDER!"

Hence the airy talk of mass purges being the cure for the party's ills last summer/autumn.

Even in the mid-90s Blair had his critics in the party, who sometimes broke cover. They would surely have been a fair bit more vocal had New Labour not enjoyed the stratospheric poll leads it did then.

[Conservatopia]

The idea that the "Teflon Tories" are electorally unbeatable has stained the lens through which both parties view politics.

On the right it has lead to a situation where everyone feels like any scandal can just be ignored, rode out, and gotten away with. However it also means that the focus is always on electability and being the "winningest party" rather than pursuing what Appleby would describe as "brave" (let it be stated that Hacker's ideas were sometimes good), the government instead tinkers about without enacting any real change, particularly if it means tilting more towards the right-wing. It also means that the usual fabled regicidal tendencies of the party are more muted than usual as there is a belief that no matter the scandal, the Tories will still win in the end.

On the left it's the inverse. People act as though Starmer can get nothing right because he's just a sacrificial lamb, a "transitional" leader (hey a trans leader), who will inevitably be annihilated by the Tories at every electoral test. Therefore people, both politicians amd public, don't take him seriously enough and he can't get that mythical "cut through". His opponents feel justified in hitting him for every little thing and seem to feel that no matter what he does, he's just a joke who can't win.

The media are mostly to blame of course. (Put your recommends below, CumbrianLefty.) Our media, and one reporter in particulaura, are quick to ask whether or not the public will care about each new foible and generally conclude that they won't. I wasn't alive for "Back to Basics" but looking at the reporting back then it's clear Fleet Street thought differently about scandals compared to now.

Of course, like all misguided notions, the "Teflon Tories" one is grounded in truth. There's no doubt that they are good at winning and the fact that they still control more councils than any other party is just one example of that. However, as noted above it has become a self fulfilling prophecy that we cannot escape from. It's not healthy for either party or for the country. Perhaps the military should step in... No, who am I kidding, they'd mess things up too.

I'm aware I'm preaching to the choir here but I thought I need to do the occasional #analysis to break up my sh**tposting.

[Blair]

Funnily enough I was going to post how it’s increasingly looking rather grim for the Conservatives- there is really only 18 months left of serious time to legislate and it’s hard to see what there big offer is- levelling up is nothing without a serious injection of cash, the anti-migrants bill rather chides with the national reaction to Ukraine and there’s increasingly the same smell that there was around Brown.

The actions over the last 9 months have been bizarre- cutting UC so savagely, saving Owen Paterson, triggering a full blown crisis over second jobs. Patygate and the energy bill loan.

The cost of living crisis will be the one to watch- I’m still scarred by the claims from 2013 that Labour would win purely because of this but well thinks are quite different to what they were then- growth is very low, wages are falling, prices are surging etc etc.

I do wonder if we will reach the stage where senior Tories say it will be good to be in opposition.

The challenge for Labour is will this be 2005 (unpopular incumbent sees majority slashed but wins because opposition is still weak) or 2010 ( hated government loses, but opposition not strong enough to win majority’

[Silent Hunter]

Probably the latter.

[Pericles]

It could be an in between version of 2005 and 2010, with the Tories as the largest party in a hung parliament. After 2016, the Tories have only had the DUP as possible allies in a hung parliament. Given how seriously Boris backstabbed them, you have to wonder whether 320 seats is now the bare minimum that he has to win. After 14 years in power, it's about time for a change in government. Starmer being bland is hardly a negative in such an environment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'll repeat the observation that I've made quite a few times: on present polling the Conservatives are dropping an average of about 10pts on the last General Election. This is not conventionally considered to be a good situation for a government party to find itself in.

[Torrain]

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1513538740861513736

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So. Crispin Blunt. Discuss.

[afleitch]

So. Crispin Blunt. Discuss.

It's the sort of story that had it involved allegations from people over the age of consent you might think 'hmm, maybe there's something we're not being told.'

But it seems pretty clear cut, we know their age and nothing that happened could be considered outside of that fact.

[Torrain]

As Afleitch says, this case was beyond the pale. From testimony, the victim clear would not have consented, even if he could, which he couldn’t as a minor.

Blunt gets away with some pretty inflammatory stuff - but calling a convicted abuser “my friend and colleague”, as he did in his statement today, feels beyond the pale. If he was my MP, that statement alone would be enough to make me write to the constituency party and urge his deselection.

Several classmates of mine had their lives marred by a predator like Khan, at a particularly vulnerable age. I look on the perpetrator of those crimes with a degree of revulsion that I didn’t think possible until I learned the full story. The idea that a man of similar action like Khan would find himself lauded by one of the most prominent LGBT Conservatives is infuriating and dangerous.

Blunt said in his statement that convicting Khan would hurt “millions of LGBT+ Muslims around the world”, and that the conviction reinforced ”lazy tropes about LGBT+ people”. But the real damage has been done by Blunt himself. By verbally embracing a convicted abuser - he has himself given fodder to those very same stereotypes and falsehoods (that there is little or no distinction between gay men and pedophiles). I expect we’ll hear these words parroted by the Tommy Robinsons and Julia Hartley-Brewer’s of the world before the end of the week.

For reference, the Spectator has recorded the full statement here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/crispin-blunt-s-late-night-blunder/amp

[LAB-LIB]

This is worse than the 90s.

[Blair]

It’s worth reading the court reporting today.

It is clear this is different to the other sexual assault cases involving politicians. Very different.

Blunt is an idiot and will no doubt be getting called by the whips office- expect a retraction in the morning or him losing the whip if he continues in the vein as he’s already doubled down. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1513538740861513736

It has not been a good week for politicians named Imran Ahmed or Ahmad Khan

[Blair]

It’s worth reading the court reporting today.

It is clear this is different to the other sexual assault cases involving politicians. Very different.

Blunt is an idiot and will no doubt be getting called by the whips office- expect a retraction in the morning or him losing the whip if he continues in the vein as he’s already doubled down. 

I moonlight as a Tory whip…

https://mobile.twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1513757150790787075?ref_src=twsr...

[Blair]

At the risk of sounding pious it is depressing how stupid a lot of the people who rubberstamp our laws actually are.

He’s a former Justice Minister!

[CumbrianLefty]

Actually referred to that in his deranged statement.

[beesley]

Not really relevant, but other than Blunt losing to Tugendhat, how many other Select Committee Chairs have been defeated for re-election since the Commons-wide elections were introduced?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

CRIME WEEK