Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2022, Take Two

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

When I was a history student in the UK most of the classes I took had some degree of racial undertones (one class was literally just about Racism in the UK).

The main thing I learned is, while it feels natural to compare UK racism to US racism there is, in reality, very little to compare. The demographics are different, the history is wildly different, the underlying cultural attitude is different, the political system is incredibly different.

Does anyone think a candidate named Rishi Sunak (MP from rural Yorkshire) would win a congressional seat in rural Ohio?

Candidate nomination in the UK can be very top-down, parties give their star candidates easy seats even if they have no connection to the area. Sunak is from Southampton and represents a North Yorkshire district. But since the US has a very bottom-up candidate selection process, the party leaders can't simply parachute candidates to random seats, so you don't see minorities getting elected in very white rural areas as is the case for Sunak in his seat.

Sort of / not really. Parties will shortlist candidates, but the local members still get a final say - and total stitch ups tend to be more of a Labour than a Conservative thing.

Conservative members have also historically been quite relaxed about selecting MPs with no / very few local connections to the area, including ethnic minority candidates. This is a massive generalisation, but Labour and Lib Dem selectorates generally tend to be focused on selecting someone who will be a good local MP, whereas Conservative Associations often pick more on who they think can achieve high office.

Interesting, but that does make sense in the context of a Westminster parliament vs the American congress. In the former, there's more of an argument that local associations should pick the star candidates shortlisted by HQs, because the goal is to form a majority government and elect someone who could make a good minister, etc. Whereas when Americans vote in local primaries, that's not really a consideration.

It's also interesting that you point out the difference between Tories and Labour/Lib Dems in this regard, which also makes sense because the Tories are a much more "elitist" party with a more centralized structure, while I think Labour has always been comparatively more decentralized and "grassroots" - to say nothing of the Lib Dems. This is probably a consequence of the Tories being the "natural governing party" of the UK, to borrow a Canadian-ism - in Canada, it works kind of the opposite in that the Liberals tend to be more top-down and the Tories are more grassroots.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I fail to see how you prove your point. There’s a difference between voting for a Republican nominee in the general then in the primary.

As others have alluded to, I don't recall Rishi Sunak having won a primary election in Richmond (Yorks).

My point still stands. Just looking at raw numbers, America has a *much* larger minority population then the UK, yet the Republican Party currently has less then 10 minority members in congress.

This is because the Republican Party is repulsive to minorities, not because Republican voters are unwilling to vote for minority candidates. There is a difference in that distinction.

Trump got a higher share of the minority vote in 2020 than Boris did. Trump got 25% and Boris got 20%

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-won-highest-share-non-164843048.html


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

[LabourJersey]

I fail to see how you prove your point. There’s a difference between voting for a Republican nominee in the general then in the primary.

As others have alluded to, I don't recall Rishi Sunak having won a primary election in Richmond (Yorks).

My point still stands. Just looking at raw numbers, America has a *much* larger minority population then the UK, yet the Republican Party currently has less then 10 minority members in congress.

This is because the Republican Party is repulsive to minorities, not because Republican voters are unwilling to vote for minority candidates. There is a difference in that distinction.

Trump got a higher share of the minority vote in 2020 than Boris did. Trump got 25% and Boris got 20%

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-won-highest-share-non-164843048.html


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

This isn't at all a fair comparison. Republicans are repulsive to many minorities, but not all of them, at least not to the same degree.

Most Hispanics, a huge fraction of "minorities" in the US, view the GOP less negatively than, say, Pakistani-Americans or Nigerian-Americans (to use two demographics that are present in the UK and the US)

[mileslunn]

I fail to see how you prove your point. There’s a difference between voting for a Republican nominee in the general then in the primary.

As others have alluded to, I don't recall Rishi Sunak having won a primary election in Richmond (Yorks).

My point still stands. Just looking at raw numbers, America has a *much* larger minority population then the UK, yet the Republican Party currently has less then 10 minority members in congress.

This is because the Republican Party is repulsive to minorities, not because Republican voters are unwilling to vote for minority candidates. There is a difference in that distinction.

Trump got a higher share of the minority vote in 2020 than Boris did. Trump got 25% and Boris got 20%

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-won-highest-share-non-164843048.html


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

Depends.  Amongst Blacks, Tories did better in UK as got in high teens not single digits like US.  Hispanics you don't really have a UK comparison but usually GOP gets between 25-45% amongst them thus higher than British Tories do amongst minorities.  For Asians, actually two similar if you divide by ethnic group.  In UK, largest Asian is Asian Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi and pretty sure GOP only got around 20% amongst them.  In US you have a lot more from East Asia which GOP does better amongst although rarely wins.  While little data, I kind of have a hunch that Tories won the Chinese vote in UK. 

[mileslunn]

Be very interested in what polls say.  I suspect Sunak probably wishing won first time around as he may have had a shot at re-election, whereas Truss I think damaged the Tories enough that yes he can help party recover somewhat, but since starting from much lower point, winning will be a lot harder than had he won first time around.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If we're discussing the electoral implications of Sunak's religion and ethnicity, then the issue won't be the Conservative Party's base, so much as the former BNP supporters that the party has chased with rather more determined enthusiasm than a lot of its own MPs entirely realize since May took over. These two groups are very, very different! The latter are a marginal group in most of the country, but there are significant concentrations in parts of the country with a lot of marginals in 2019. Of course many of those seats are probably gone anyway. Against that, he will almost certainly benefit in constituencies with substantial Hindu populations.

I think it's unpleasant to consider for Labour supporters but I strongly suspect that the segment of working class voters that moved from Labour to UKIP and, then, to the Tories will be more inclined to dislike Sunak due to his ethnicity than other swingy groups. Of course, they'd also hate him because he's extremely posh with no common touch and comes off as a liberal (doubt BNP types like this either). In this respect, he comes off as a (less charismatic) Tory Obama - seems like the perfect choice to guarantee that Labour wins Mansfield by at least a 10 point margin...

[Zinneke]

If we're discussing the electoral implications of Sunak's religion and ethnicity, then the issue won't be the Conservative Party's base, so much as the former BNP supporters that the party has chased with rather more determined enthusiasm than a lot of its own MPs entirely realize since May took over. These two groups are very, very different! The latter are a marginal group in most of the country, but there are significant concentrations in parts of the country with a lot of marginals in 2019. Of course many of those seats are probably gone anyway. Against that, he will almost certainly benefit in constituencies with substantial Hindu populations.

I think it's unpleasant to consider for Labour supporters but I strongly suspect that the segment of working class voters that moved from Labour to UKIP and, then, to the Tories will be more inclined to dislike Sunak due to his ethnicity than other swingy groups. Of course, they'd also hate him because he's extremely posh with no common touch and comes off as a liberal (doubt BNP types like this either). In this respect, he comes off as a (less charismatic) Tory Obama - seems like the perfect choice to guarantee that Labour wins Mansfield by at least a 10 point margin...

Johnson was posh too, foreign born, and boasted of his Turkish ancestors. I maintain that you have one section of the population who are overtly racist and they are a minority, but another who hates Sunak because of his microcultural background of Stanford, US Green Card, Indian moghul shoulder-rubber (could be any nationality). Johnson managed to tap in to a sense of Englishness and Britishness and the whole narrative that becoming PM of the United Kingdom was the greatest thing one could aspire too. Sunak is the soulless sovereign individual whose world is his oyster and for whom the job of Prime Minister of a bankrupt island is merely yet another stepping stone. The "globalist" slur (which is laughably being equated with anti-Semitism) is the key here - and why electorally he could lose that chunk of Labour -- > UKIP --> BoJo voters who aren't necessarily against a brown man or woman (cough Braverman) being PM.

[CumbrianLefty]

If we're discussing the electoral implications of Sunak's religion and ethnicity, then the issue won't be the Conservative Party's base, so much as the former BNP supporters that the party has chased with rather more determined enthusiasm than a lot of its own MPs entirely realize since May took over. These two groups are very, very different! The latter are a marginal group in most of the country, but there are significant concentrations in parts of the country with a lot of marginals in 2019. Of course many of those seats are probably gone anyway. Against that, he will almost certainly benefit in constituencies with substantial Hindu populations.

I think it's unpleasant to consider for Labour supporters but I strongly suspect that the segment of working class voters that moved from Labour to UKIP and, then, to the Tories will be more inclined to dislike Sunak due to his ethnicity than other swingy groups. Of course, they'd also hate him because he's extremely posh with no common touch and comes off as a liberal (doubt BNP types like this either). In this respect, he comes off as a (less charismatic) Tory Obama - seems like the perfect choice to guarantee that Labour wins Mansfield by at least a 10 point margin...

Johnson was posh too, foreign born, and boasted of his Turkish ancestors. I maintain that you have one section of the population who are overtly racist and they are a minority, but another who hates Sunak because of his microcultural background of Stanford, US Green Card, Indian moghul shoulder-rubber (could be any nationality). Johnson managed to tap in to a sense of Englishness and Britishness and the whole narrative that becoming PM of the United Kingdom was the greatest thing one could aspire too. Sunak is the soulless sovereign individual whose world is his oyster and for whom the job of Prime Minister of a bankrupt island is merely yet another stepping stone. The "globalist" slur (which is laughably being equated with anti-Semitism) is the key here - and why electorally he could lose that chunk of Labour -- > UKIP --> BoJo voters who aren't necessarily against a brown man or woman (cough Braverman) being PM.

In truth the term is a bit like "cultural Marxism" innit - not AS *in itself* but frequently used by those who *are*, and thus best avoided if at all possible.

If you want a term to cover the non-toxic aspects of "globalist", how about "supranationalist"?

[Zinneke]

If we're discussing the electoral implications of Sunak's religion and ethnicity, then the issue won't be the Conservative Party's base, so much as the former BNP supporters that the party has chased with rather more determined enthusiasm than a lot of its own MPs entirely realize since May took over. These two groups are very, very different! The latter are a marginal group in most of the country, but there are significant concentrations in parts of the country with a lot of marginals in 2019. Of course many of those seats are probably gone anyway. Against that, he will almost certainly benefit in constituencies with substantial Hindu populations.

I think it's unpleasant to consider for Labour supporters but I strongly suspect that the segment of working class voters that moved from Labour to UKIP and, then, to the Tories will be more inclined to dislike Sunak due to his ethnicity than other swingy groups. Of course, they'd also hate him because he's extremely posh with no common touch and comes off as a liberal (doubt BNP types like this either). In this respect, he comes off as a (less charismatic) Tory Obama - seems like the perfect choice to guarantee that Labour wins Mansfield by at least a 10 point margin...

Johnson was posh too, foreign born, and boasted of his Turkish ancestors. I maintain that you have one section of the population who are overtly racist and they are a minority, but another who hates Sunak because of his microcultural background of Stanford, US Green Card, Indian moghul shoulder-rubber (could be any nationality). Johnson managed to tap in to a sense of Englishness and Britishness and the whole narrative that becoming PM of the United Kingdom was the greatest thing one could aspire too. Sunak is the soulless sovereign individual whose world is his oyster and for whom the job of Prime Minister of a bankrupt island is merely yet another stepping stone. The "globalist" slur (which is laughably being equated with anti-Semitism) is the key here - and why electorally he could lose that chunk of Labour -- > UKIP --> BoJo voters who aren't necessarily against a brown man or woman (cough Braverman) being PM.

In truth the term is a bit like "cultural Marxism" innit - not AS *in itself* but frequently used by those who *are*, and thus best avoided if at all possible.

If you want a term to cover the non-toxic aspects of "globalist", how about "supranationalist"?

Are we seriously going to censor the term globalist or compare it to Cultural Marxism tropes? As far as I can tell it has been in circulation for years to describe people in favour of more globalisation yet I was shocked at how a radio presenter stopped someone in their tracks as if they had said the N-word...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The entry for the word in the OED was written in 2009 and, interestingly, has it down as a rarely used* technical term with a meaning a little different to its ostensible use now. I do wonder a bit about the history of the term in its present usual usage: wonder whether it's originally from another language, which would be ironic.

_{*Frequency Band Three: examples of words in that category include 'ebullition' and 'argentiferous'.}

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like so many words of our political lingo, it's basically a Rorschach test for whatever someone feels is the Great Foreign Menace. For some it's gonna be Jews, for others it's gonna be someone else.

What it is in all cases is a prime example of false class consciousness, as evidenced by Zinneke here using it to distinguish between "good" patriotic billionaires and "bad" globalist billionaires. As it turns out, if you're poor, good ol' boy homegrown billionaires rip you off all the same.

[Zinneke]

Like so many words of our political lingo, it's basically a Rorschach test for whatever someone feels is the Great Foreign Menace. For some it's gonna be Jews, for others it's gonna be someone else.

What it is in all cases is a prime example of false class consciousness, as evidenced by Zinneke here using it to distinguish between "good" patriotic billionaires and "bad" globalist billionaires. As it turns out, if you're poor, good ol' boy homegrown billionaires rip you off all the same.

I'm saying the critics of Sunak on the Right of the Conservative party are using false class consciousness. But you should know all about false class consciousness being a sheltered academic whose travelled the world but is willing to back Strasserites in order to feel working class!

Also, believing that globalisation is a negative thing and that globalists exist is not necessarily indicative of believing there is a Great Foreign Menace. If Sunak sycophants start equating it with anti-Semitism it's a total exaggeration.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like so many words of our political lingo, it's basically a Rorschach test for whatever someone feels is the Great Foreign Menace. For some it's gonna be Jews, for others it's gonna be someone else.

What it is in all cases is a prime example of false class consciousness, as evidenced by Zinneke here using it to distinguish between "good" patriotic billionaires and "bad" globalist billionaires. As it turns out, if you're poor, good ol' boy homegrown billionaires rip you off all the same.

I'm saying the critics of Sunak on the Right of the Conservative party are using false class consciousness. But you should know all about false class consciousness being a sheltered academic whose travelled the world but is willing to back Strasserites in order to feel working class!

Also, believing that globalisation is a negative thing and that globalists exist is not necessarily indicative of believing there is a Great Foreign Menace. If Sunak sycophants start equating it with anti-Semitism it's a total exaggeration.

I don't know why you're so obsessed with Mélenchon but this is completely off topic and I'm not taking the bait.

Anyway, I don't disagree that opposition to globalization is driving a lot of today's politics (I think I might know a thing or two about that, lol). But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of this opposition is rooted in poorly defined buzzwords rather than anything concrete. The fact that Sunak and Starmer (heck, even Corbyn if you want to go there) could both easily be defined as "globalists" should be enough to demonstrate its limited utility.

[Zinneke]

Like so many words of our political lingo, it's basically a Rorschach test for whatever someone feels is the Great Foreign Menace. For some it's gonna be Jews, for others it's gonna be someone else.

What it is in all cases is a prime example of false class consciousness, as evidenced by Zinneke here using it to distinguish between "good" patriotic billionaires and "bad" globalist billionaires. As it turns out, if you're poor, good ol' boy homegrown billionaires rip you off all the same.

I'm saying the critics of Sunak on the Right of the Conservative party are using false class consciousness. But you should know all about false class consciousness being a sheltered academic whose travelled the world but is willing to back Strasserites in order to feel working class!

Also, believing that globalisation is a negative thing and that globalists exist is not necessarily indicative of believing there is a Great Foreign Menace. If Sunak sycophants start equating it with anti-Semitism it's a total exaggeration.

I don't know why you're so obsessed with Mélenchon but this is completely off topic and I'm not taking the bait.

Anyway, I don't disagree that opposition to globalization is driving a lot of today's politics (I think I might know a thing or two about that, lol). But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of this opposition is rooted in poorly defined buzzwords rather than anything concrete. The fact that Sunak and Starmer (heck, even Corbyn if you want to go there) could both easily be defined as "globalists" should be enough to demonstrate its limited utility.

I disagree fundamentally here - globalism is a real phenomenon - with the political implications, and globalists - proponents of a more interdependent, connected world - are a separate spectrum of their own
 That doesn't mean they are all identical. What it does mean is that you'll have a counterweight of anti or alter-globalists who are also perfectly legitimate in identifying this political movement and opposing it. I don't particularly like their extreme forms, but you can't deny that these people have potentially felt the material effects and what's more envy the likes of Sunak who can live his jet set Green card lifestyle.

This is what you don't get, the vast majority of people, even circa 2022, don't have your international profile or have even left their country other than for a summer holiday. And the growing class of "citizens of nowhere"  who could work at their consultancy in any European or American big city, they constitute a target for some. When you see some of the globalist posters here you can't blame them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is what you don't get, the vast majority of people, even circa 2022, don't have your international profile or have even left their country other than for a summer holiday. And the growing class of "citizens of nowhere"  who could work at their consultancy in any European or American big city, they constitute a target for some. When you see some of the globalist posters here you can't blame them.

Oh wow, I had never considered that perspective. You've truly blown my mind.

Cheap grandstanding aside, the point is that globalization is a real phenomenon, but one that is driven by a multitude of actors with very different (and often outright contradictory) goals and interests, not a grand unified cabal working in concert to bring about the New World Order. Sure, you can take all sort of people, ranging all the way from Washington Consensus dead-enders to socialist internationalists and say that all want "a more interdependent, connected world". But of course what that world actually looks like is going to be pretty damn, different, isn't it? The question is if lumping all these people into the box of "globalists" (and, conversely, acting like there is a fundamental difference between a "globalist" plutocrat like Sunak and a "patriotic" plutocrat like BoJo) actually makes politics more or less intelligible.

[Zinneke]

This is what you don't get, the vast majority of people, even circa 2022, don't have your international profile or have even left their country other than for a summer holiday. And the growing class of "citizens of nowhere"  who could work at their consultancy in any European or American big city, they constitute a target for some. When you see some of the globalist posters here you can't blame them.

Oh wow, I had never considered that perspective. You've truly blown my mind.

Cheap grandstanding aside, the point is that globalization is a real phenomenon, but one that is driven by a multitude of actors with very different (and often outright contradictory) goals and interests, not a grand unified cabal working in concert to bring about the New World Order. Sure, you can take all sort of people, ranging all the way from Washington Consensus dead-enders to socialist internationalists and say that all want "a more interdependent, connected world". But of course what that world actually looks like is going to be pretty damn, different, isn't it? The question is if lumping all these people into the box of "globalists" (and, conversely, acting like there is a fundamental difference between a "globalist" plutocrat like Sunak and a "patriotic" plutocrat like BoJo) actually makes politics more or less intelligible.

Yes I know globalisation is a phenomenon but not necessarily something top-down driven by a cabal. Nevertheless a global elite has formed that actively supports further globalisation and further breaking down of barrier, market, social or otherwise. I don't necessarily see them as evil people, but they do gather at the forums cited by the conspiracy theorists (World Economic Forum seems to be the trope of the hour) and promote further globalisation when there is a push back by many others, often dismissed as ignorant plebs.


 Sunak belongs to this gilded class of people. He's a Stanford MBA graduate with his US Green Card as a backup and rubs shoulders with billionaires outside the UK. He probably sees 90% of the British political class as small timers and provincial, and for some he probably lacks a real identity and commitment to his country of birth, not because of the colour of his skin but because he just sees himself as a sovereign individual/citizen of nowhere who fancied a go at politics in his country of birth.

Again, though, I'm not saying that Johnson isn't a globalist, or inherently different to Sunak. I'm saying Johnson sold himself as an alter-globalist (amongst many other things - his greatest asset was being a chameleon) and the perspective of certain right-wing Tories is that Sunak is the incarnation of ideological globalism, even if Sunak is right wing. I don't consider these people racist in the traditional sense, just because they are calling Sunak a globalist as a slur. They have an element of truth if anything : his whole green card issue showed he's not all that committed to the UK.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is what you don't get, the vast majority of people, even circa 2022, don't have your international profile or have even left their country other than for a summer holiday. And the growing class of "citizens of nowhere"  who could work at their consultancy in any European or American big city, they constitute a target for some. When you see some of the globalist posters here you can't blame them.

Oh wow, I had never considered that perspective. You've truly blown my mind.

Cheap grandstanding aside, the point is that globalization is a real phenomenon, but one that is driven by a multitude of actors with very different (and often outright contradictory) goals and interests, not a grand unified cabal working in concert to bring about the New World Order. Sure, you can take all sort of people, ranging all the way from Washington Consensus dead-enders to socialist internationalists and say that all want "a more interdependent, connected world". But of course what that world actually looks like is going to be pretty damn, different, isn't it? The question is if lumping all these people into the box of "globalists" (and, conversely, acting like there is a fundamental difference between a "globalist" plutocrat like Sunak and a "patriotic" plutocrat like BoJo) actually makes politics more or less intelligible.

Yes I know globalisation is a phenomenon but not necessarily something top-down driven by a cabal. Nevertheless a global elite has formed that actively supports further globalisation and further breaking down of barrier, market, social or otherwise. I don't necessarily see them as evil people, but they do gather at the forums cited by the conspiracy theorists (World Economic Forum seems to be the trope of the hour) and promote further globalisation when there is a push back by many others, often dismissed as ignorant plebs.


 Sunak belongs to this gilded class of people. He's a Stanford MBA graduate with his US Green Card as a backup and rubs shoulders with billionaires outside the UK. He probably sees 90% of the British political class as small timers and provincial, and for some he probably lacks a real identity and commitment to his country of birth, not because of the colour of his skin but because he just sees himself as a sovereign individual/citizen of nowhere who fancied a go at politics in his country of birth.

Again, though, I'm not saying that Johnson isn't a globalist, or inherently different to Sunak. I'm saying Johnson sold himself as an alter-globalist (amongst many other things - his greatest asset was being a chameleon) and the perspective of certain right-wing Tories is that Sunak is the incarnation of ideological globalism, even if Sunak is right wing. I don't consider these people racist in the traditional sense, just because they are calling Sunak a globalist as a slur. They have an element of truth if anything : his whole green card issue showed he's not all that committed to the UK.

I mean, if we really want to make this all about branding and image, then sure. My point was that beneath this image there's very little separating BoJo from Sunak, but if we agree on that, fair. As for the green car stuff and everything else, I just fundamentally don't believe that's substantively different from all the other ways which rich people use to insulate themselves from the rule of law - less overtly "globalist" methods of tax evasion to the trick just as well.

[Zinneke]

This is what you don't get, the vast majority of people, even circa 2022, don't have your international profile or have even left their country other than for a summer holiday. And the growing class of "citizens of nowhere"  who could work at their consultancy in any European or American big city, they constitute a target for some. When you see some of the globalist posters here you can't blame them.

Oh wow, I had never considered that perspective. You've truly blown my mind.

Cheap grandstanding aside, the point is that globalization is a real phenomenon, but one that is driven by a multitude of actors with very different (and often outright contradictory) goals and interests, not a grand unified cabal working in concert to bring about the New World Order. Sure, you can take all sort of people, ranging all the way from Washington Consensus dead-enders to socialist internationalists and say that all want "a more interdependent, connected world". But of course what that world actually looks like is going to be pretty damn, different, isn't it? The question is if lumping all these people into the box of "globalists" (and, conversely, acting like there is a fundamental difference between a "globalist" plutocrat like Sunak and a "patriotic" plutocrat like BoJo) actually makes politics more or less intelligible.

Yes I know globalisation is a phenomenon but not necessarily something top-down driven by a cabal. Nevertheless a global elite has formed that actively supports further globalisation and further breaking down of barrier, market, social or otherwise. I don't necessarily see them as evil people, but they do gather at the forums cited by the conspiracy theorists (World Economic Forum seems to be the trope of the hour) and promote further globalisation when there is a push back by many others, often dismissed as ignorant plebs.


 Sunak belongs to this gilded class of people. He's a Stanford MBA graduate with his US Green Card as a backup and rubs shoulders with billionaires outside the UK. He probably sees 90% of the British political class as small timers and provincial, and for some he probably lacks a real identity and commitment to his country of birth, not because of the colour of his skin but because he just sees himself as a sovereign individual/citizen of nowhere who fancied a go at politics in his country of birth.

Again, though, I'm not saying that Johnson isn't a globalist, or inherently different to Sunak. I'm saying Johnson sold himself as an alter-globalist (amongst many other things - his greatest asset was being a chameleon) and the perspective of certain right-wing Tories is that Sunak is the incarnation of ideological globalism, even if Sunak is right wing. I don't consider these people racist in the traditional sense, just because they are calling Sunak a globalist as a slur. They have an element of truth if anything : his whole green card issue showed he's not all that committed to the UK.

I mean, if we really want to make this all about branding and image, then sure. My point was that beneath this image there's very little separating BoJo from Sunak, but if we agree on that, fair.

Agreed, there's very little difference. At the same time Johnson probably only believes in Boris Johnson, and you have super rich that are still more "provincial" that other super rich.

As for the green car stuff and everything else, I just fundamentally don't believe that's substantively different from all the other ways which rich people use to insulate themselves from the rule of law - less overtly "globalist" methods of tax evasion to the trick just as well.

This is a good example - the Green Card issue would not be an issue with most millionaire UK politicians because most of them only aspire to Number 10 then a cushy board position or speaking tour in the City. Johnson obviously has an American passport but he never let on the idea that Silicon Valley would be more appealing that Downing Street. And remember most Silicon Valley - Stanford types or media moguls see even the bloody Beltway as small time, so imagine what they think of Downing Street.

I think Sunak sees Number 10 as potentially below his station, or something eccentric and exciting to do mid-career, to buil his contact book and become sort sort of senior figure amongst his elite friends ("I once ran a country you know") the way a Johnson sees Number 10 as a genuine end, barely hiding his ambition for 10 years, and also in order to also get in the history books of the Great British fable. I think that translated into Johnson's appeal to British anti-globalist nationalists who saw him as someone who genuinely loves the station and the country as opposed to someone just looking to build their contact book.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One difference between Sunak and Johnson is that Sunak is not drowning in personal debt. There's a reason why quite a few of Johnson's scandals during his time in No. 10 involved abuse of state property or questionable funding from third party donors...

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

One difference between Sunak and Johnson is that Sunak is not drowning in personal debt. There's a reason why quite a few of Johnson's scandals during his time in No. 10 involved abuse of state property or questionable funding from third party donors...

Sunak has the opposite problem. He and his wife (mostly his wife) have a net worth of almost 5 billion dollars

Come to think of it Sunak might be one of the few billionaire leader of a democratic county

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

This is what you don't get, the vast majority of people, even circa 2022, don't have your international profile or have even left their country other than for a summer holiday. And the growing class of "citizens of nowhere"  who could work at their consultancy in any European or American big city, they constitute a target for some. When you see some of the globalist posters here you can't blame them.

Oh wow, I had never considered that perspective. You've truly blown my mind.

Cheap grandstanding aside, the point is that globalization is a real phenomenon, but one that is driven by a multitude of actors with very different (and often outright contradictory) goals and interests, not a grand unified cabal working in concert to bring about the New World Order. Sure, you can take all sort of people, ranging all the way from Washington Consensus dead-enders to socialist internationalists and say that all want "a more interdependent, connected world". But of course what that world actually looks like is going to be pretty damn, different, isn't it? The question is if lumping all these people into the box of "globalists" (and, conversely, acting like there is a fundamental difference between a "globalist" plutocrat like Sunak and a "patriotic" plutocrat like BoJo) actually makes politics more or less intelligible.

Yes I know globalisation is a phenomenon but not necessarily something top-down driven by a cabal. Nevertheless a global elite has formed that actively supports further globalisation and further breaking down of barrier, market, social or otherwise. I don't necessarily see them as evil people, but they do gather at the forums cited by the conspiracy theorists (World Economic Forum seems to be the trope of the hour) and promote further globalisation when there is a push back by many others, often dismissed as ignorant plebs.


 Sunak belongs to this gilded class of people. He's a Stanford MBA graduate with his US Green Card as a backup and rubs shoulders with billionaires outside the UK. He probably sees 90% of the British political class as small timers and provincial, and for some he probably lacks a real identity and commitment to his country of birth, not because of the colour of his skin but because he just sees himself as a sovereign individual/citizen of nowhere who fancied a go at politics in his country of birth.

Again, though, I'm not saying that Johnson isn't a globalist, or inherently different to Sunak. I'm saying Johnson sold himself as an alter-globalist (amongst many other things - his greatest asset was being a chameleon) and the perspective of certain right-wing Tories is that Sunak is the incarnation of ideological globalism, even if Sunak is right wing. I don't consider these people racist in the traditional sense, just because they are calling Sunak a globalist as a slur. They have an element of truth if anything : his whole green card issue showed he's not all that committed to the UK.

Laki has been dethroned.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

One difference between Sunak and Johnson is that Sunak is not drowning in personal debt. There's a reason why quite a few of Johnson's scandals during his time in No. 10 involved abuse of state property or questionable funding from third party donors...

Sunak has the opposite problem. He and his wife (mostly his wife) have a net worth of almost 5 billion dollars

Come to think of it Sunak might be one of the few billionaire leader of a democratic county

I've kind of changed my opinon on Sunak, he's currently rich but he wasn't realy born into it. His family background is solidy upper-middle class, and I think that probably allows him to appele better to the electorate than someone born a plutocrat.

[Zinneke]

One difference between Sunak and Johnson is that Sunak is not drowning in personal debt. There's a reason why quite a few of Johnson's scandals during his time in No. 10 involved abuse of state property or questionable funding from third party donors...

Sunak has the opposite problem. He and his wife (mostly his wife) have a net worth of almost 5 billion dollars

Come to think of it Sunak might be one of the few billionaire leader of a democratic county

I've kind of changed my opinon on Sunak, he's currently rich but he wasn't realy born into it. His family background is solidy upper-middle class, and I think that probably allows him to appele better to the electorate than someone born a plutocrat.

What total bollox, he went to one of the most elite schools in the country, and was filmed litterally saying he doesn't even know poor people.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

One difference between Sunak and Johnson is that Sunak is not drowning in personal debt. There's a reason why quite a few of Johnson's scandals during his time in No. 10 involved abuse of state property or questionable funding from third party donors...

Sunak has the opposite problem. He and his wife (mostly his wife) have a net worth of almost 5 billion dollars

Come to think of it Sunak might be one of the few billionaire leader of a democratic county

I've kind of changed my opinon on Sunak, he's currently rich but he wasn't realy born into it. His family background is solidy upper-middle class, and I think that probably allows him to appele better to the electorate than someone born a plutocrat.

What total bollox, he went to one of the most elite schools in the country, and was filmed litterally saying he doesn't even know poor people.

A lot of upper-midde class people are like that, tbh for almost everyone socializing outside of their socioeconomic status is the exception rather than the norm.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

One difference between Sunak and Johnson is that Sunak is not drowning in personal debt. There's a reason why quite a few of Johnson's scandals during his time in No. 10 involved abuse of state property or questionable funding from third party donors...

Sunak has the opposite problem. He and his wife (mostly his wife) have a net worth of almost 5 billion dollars

Come to think of it Sunak might be one of the few billionaire leader of a democratic county

I've kind of changed my opinon on Sunak, he's currently rich but he wasn't realy born into it. His family background is solidy upper-middle class, and I think that probably allows him to appele better to the electorate than someone born a plutocrat.

What total bollox, he went to one of the most elite schools in the country, and was filmed litterally saying he doesn't even know poor people.

A lot of upper-midde class people are like that, tbh socializing outside of our socioeconomic status is the exception rather than the norm.

That's probably even truer in Britain than in America. Possibly.