Perpetual UK Politics Thread Part Two

[FlyAugustus]

Weirdly, it might suit him to be Leader of the Opposition for a bit. It's basically a permanent campaigning role, a lot fewer difficult decisions about budgets and planning permission and not having to deal with Brexit or asylum seekers. He'd have more spare time for . . . well, insert your own Johnson pastime, if you like. Promise his party the world on a stick, not have to deliver anything.

I'm not sure his ego would let him, but really, riding in as the saviour of the Tories after Sunak can't prevent them losing the next General Election makes a lot more sense to me than trying to fight gravity to haul the Conservatives back into contention for the next election. Unfortunately, I'm sure in Johnson's head, he was deposed when he was 10% ahead of Starmer in the polls instead of 10% behind.

 

[steelghost]

As far as I can see, Johnson didn't see he'd done anything wrong, he just felt aggrieved that everyone else had had enough. So I absolutely believe he'd have another go. I also absolutely believe he's incapable of governing, would make the current ongoing catastrophe even worse, and increase the margin of Labour victory when the GE eventually rolls around, whenever that may be.

Tragically, in so doing he will further immiserate millions, and exacerbate the ongoing harm to Britain's international reputation.

 

[crazydee]

Since nothing forces him to wait till he's returned from the Caribbean to declare - what seems certain it that's he's not declaring with a possibility of losing.

Schroedinger's Candidate after Schroedinger's Confidence vote.

 

[FlyAugustus]

The sense I get is that Johnson boosters are trying to make it seem like Johnson will inevitably reach 100, and therefore Sunak should agree to join a Reunion Cabinet (back as Chancellor?) to avoid being defeated, and subsequently frozen out, when the membership picks Johnson over him.

But also: there aren't actually that many public declarations of support for Johnson among MPs. By some counts, using only explicit public backers, he's well behind Sunak at this stage. At which point, if he can't break 70/80 MPs, it makes sense not to ever have declared in the first place.

 

[crazydee]

Sort of agreed - Johnson sees the rules that if there are 3 candidates each a little over 100 nominations then he can be excluded on Monday afternoon with just a little co-operation - and it's in the interests of the supporters of those two non-Alexander candidates to cooperate for that. Both the other two would lose to Johnson with the membership.

If MPs can be spooked into backing a unity candidate on Monday - Johnson can get on the ballot.

If not - Johnson's best play (if he wants a life of responsibility, being fact checked, legally enforceable rules, no-win decisions, financial scrutiny and limited income again) would be to publicly support a unity candidate with gusto - then get 101 nominations at 13:59h on Monday; or keep his powder dry.

 

[crazydee]

Magic numbers to watch for based on 357 Conservative MPs, self support assumed...

Some one gets 257 nominations - they are automatically PM on Monday afternoon - there can't be a second candidate so no votes needed.

Some one gets 156 nominations - there can only be 2 candidates so it starts to matter if there is a number 2 with at least 99 nominations - if not, also a coronation - if yes, indicative vote by MPs (no obvious reasons for this to happen, except to force MPs to make a public choice and tell the party members how their appointed betters would like them to vote).

No one gets to 157 - the messy bit where there are potentially three candidates and MPs reject one on Monday then indicative vote by MPs and ballot of members.

And through all this no doubt the loons that put these rules in place will be complaining about the media covering the psychodrama these rules create.

 

[pauli]

I don't suppose there's anyone actively pushing for a proper formalized system, rather than this clownshoes bullshit.

 

[GloatingSwine]

There is a proper formalised system. MPs nominate then vote down to the last two, then the party members vote on which of those two they want, they did the proper formalised system like six weeks ago. That's how Liz Truss happened.

It turns out that when a step in the process is "Ask a collection of 170,000 psychopaths and dipshits what they think" you get really stupid answers.

 

[Shavano]

The UK hasn't managed to leave behind this "us versus them" team politics, despite looking like the Lib Dems could amount to something every now and then.

Of course the conservatives have an excellent chance of not only weathering this, but also staying in power at the next election. It's inherent in the FPTP system, after all: You are given only a couple of options and have to select the least worse one, no matter whether either option is actually to your taste.

All this just causes me to more and more firmly appreciate politics which can be more about actual policies and less about picking the least terrible team.

If that's what you want (and I want it too) you have to pick one of the major parties, vote for them, and then convince them that FPTP systems are a problem they need to fix. The third parties that have the natural incentives to want to do it can't get elected because of the problem they want to fix.

 

[U-99]

The issue is that asking your most frothing nutters to select leadership leads to folks like Corbyn and Truss.

 

[Shavano]

Those lining up to bring Johnson back do seem to have very short memories. His electoral magic stopped working in 2022; Partygate and Pincher tanked his popularity and the Tories were humiliated in multiple by-elections under his leadership. The Tory membership may want him back but precious few others do.

Alternatively - we should consider the possibility that the Tories are internally resigned to losing the next GE and are just going to roll over and let the membership have its sugar rush again. Those on the moderate wings of the party will be lining up think tanks and consultancy gigs, those on the right will compete for GBNews gigs and Daily Express columns.

That won't help the Tories. Labour will be able to very credibly link his (lack of) leadership with the economic straits the country has gotten itself into under mostly his watch.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Since we remain in the dumbest timeline, we still have the possibility of Johnson winning the leadership just in time to have a suspension recommended by the standards and privileges committee and having a recall by-election.

 

[philmes]

The sense I get is that Johnson boosters are trying to make it seem like Johnson will inevitably reach 100, and therefore Sunak should agree to join a Reunion Cabinet (back as Chancellor?) to avoid being defeated, and subsequently frozen out, when the membership picks Johnson over him.

But also: there aren't actually that many public declarations of support for Johnson among MPs. By some counts, using only explicit public backers, he's well behind Sunak at this stage. At which point, if he can't break 70/80 MPs, it makes sense not to ever have declared in the first place.

I think this is spot on. Guido and the usual suspects are attempting to make it seem like he has momentum... and I'm not sure he does. Anonymous "verified" nominations don't count.

 

[philmes]

As far as I can see - because it's a question that's never needed to be answered - when the 1922 Committee says "nominations" it's left ambiguous if the consent of the nominee is required.

Nominations are signatures on the nomination form. Simple. So yes, consent of the nominee is required.

 

[philmes]

Truss wasn't proposing investment, she was proposing a massive transfer of wealth to the already rich funded by public debt.

Truss was proposing huge supply side reforms.

Yep, they had a chance to bring it back with Layla Moran, but chose Ed Davey instead!

You're having a laugh. Davey is shit, but Moran is infinitely worse. And I say that as a long term habitual Lib Dem voter.

 

[CPX]

Truss wasn't proposing investment, she was proposing a massive transfer of wealth to the already rich funded by public debt.

Truss was proposing huge supply side reforms.

Not seeing the difference between these two posts.

 

[Jehos]

Truss wasn't proposing investment, she was proposing a massive transfer of wealth to the already rich funded by public debt.

Truss was proposing huge supply side reforms.

Not seeing the difference between these two posts.

Agree. We know Reaganomics when we see it.

 

[crazydee]

As far as I can see - because it's a question that's never needed to be answered - when the 1922 Committee says "nominations" it's left ambiguous if the consent of the nominee is required.

Nominations are signatures on the nomination form. Simple. So yes, consent of the nominee is required.

So, the existence or not of a Johnson nomination form confirms or denies if the is in the race or not? Is that disclosed? (It appears not it's just a level more obfuscation - also weird system as you have to check for duplicate votes - but hey - Conservative Party).

 

[steelghost]

The UK hasn't managed to leave behind this "us versus them" team politics, despite looking like the Lib Dems could amount to something every now and then.

Of course the conservatives have an excellent chance of not only weathering this, but also staying in power at the next election. It's inherent in the FPTP system, after all: You are given only a couple of options and have to select the least worse one, no matter whether either option is actually to your taste.

All this just causes me to more and more firmly appreciate politics which can be more about actual policies and less about picking the least terrible team.

If that's what you want (and I want it too) you have to pick one of the major parties, vote for them, and then convince them that FPTP systems are a problem they need to fix. The third parties that have the natural incentives to want to do it can't get elected because of the problem they want to fix.

To be fair, the membership of the Labour Party (and the unions) are pushing electoral reform pretty hard. Party leadership thus far turning it down, I suspect because of fear of spooking the horses more than anything.

 

[philmes]

Agree. We know Reaganomics when we see it.

Reagan reformed the planning system to stop NIMBY's fucking everything up? Wow. He sounds great!

 

[philmes]

So, the existence or not of a Johnson nomination form confirms or denies if the is in the race or not? Is that disclosed? (It appears not it's just a level more obfuscation - also weird system as you have to check for duplicate votes - but hey - Conservative Party).

It'll be disclosed at the latest by 2pm on Monday when the nomination forms due. This unfortunately means we're in for another few days of this cockwomblery.

 

[ramases]

Agree. We know Reaganomics when we see it.

Reagan reformed the planning system to stop NIMBY's fucking everything up? Wow. He sounds great!

Except the quoted bit that started off the tangent had all to do with trickle down, had fuck all to do with the planning system.

Goal post move: Rejected.

 

[SunRaven01]

So why did Liz Truss plan of Trickle down economics fail so spectacularly in the UK unlike the US where it’s more and more trickle down tax cuts and corporate welfare yet no blowback like in the UK?

The budget gap was huge and the energy crisis, food crisis, Ukrainian war, Brexit trade barriers, immigration barriers, rising interest rates, and impending recession means high investment and growth just can't happen.

Truss wasn't proposing investment, she was proposing a massive transfer of wealth to the already rich funded by public debt.

/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///

---

From the Posting Guidelines:

Cardinal Rules are rules meant to provide everyone with a level playing field and reasonable expectations for open and frank engagement. Violations of Cardinal Rules will result in Official Warnings. Accumulation of OWs will result in bans, which may be temporary or permanent, depending on the level of offense. The one exception for this is spamming. This will result in an immediate ban (for obvious reasons).

• 1. The Forum Usage Agreement must be respected in full. If you need to refresh your memory, you can see the agreement here.
• 2. Pay attention to moderation directives. Moderators can give directives in a thread (e.g., stop posting off-topic, stop bad behavior, etc). Everyone is expected to abide by such directives. Directives may be general ("stop being so hostile") to specific ("no more talk about chili”), and are intended to keep a thread from completely derailing.
• 15. No disingenuously editing quotes. If you want to respond to a post quote them accurately, don't change the wording to make it seem like they said things they didn't, even sarcastically. Editing to reply to a smaller part of their post is fine, so long as you don't change the context of what they said.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement.

It is important to understand that the rules that follow are not intended to represent a comprehensive legal code: rather, these rules are intended to help you understand the most important rules that we expect everyone to follow. All participants are expected to abide by official moderator directives, regardless of whether or not that directive is related to one of the rules that follow.

Expectations of Conduct

Quoting Replies/Quote Editing New Sept. 6, 2022

• From Aurich: 
“A quote is for their words, full stop. If you alter it to include anything else, at all, you're going against the posting guidelines.”


• From Aurich: “Don't put something inside of quotes that someone didn't say. That's all. You can reply to just part of it, but what's in the quotes should be their words, not your edits or changes. No snip or whatever.”
• 

You are only permitted to trim someone’s reply for brevity. You cannot make any other changes to a quoted reply, at all. Do not add words, do not paraphrase, do not erase part of the quote and replace the text with <snip>, do not add formatting such as bolding text.

Moderator Directive: This is the one and only reminder you are going to get for this. If you do it again, you will incur an Official Warning for Posting Guidelines violations.

Questions or comments about this moderation should be directed to the Contact Moderators link located in the upper right hand corner of this page. Do not PM me directly regarding this moderation, as I will not respond. Responding to this moderation in-thread will result in an Official Warning.

 

[Doomlord_uk]

So I take a three day break (I think) from the 'box and the Tory shit show gets real. Truss resigned! At least we'll have a quicker process for finding the next PM. I'll laugh if it's Boris Johnson. I've no idea who I think would be best, anyone not a fucking libertarian, but apparently the libertarian wing of the party has some serious pull these days... But perhaps they can actually SEE that fact this time, and choose someone not like themselves. =/

I still don't think this is all quite the end of the line for the current Government. It's an embaressing and ridiculous stumble but if Lessons Were Learned™, to use a popular piece of contemporary parlance, then a stable, back-to-usual government might yet result. No chance in hell they'll go for an early GE, just because the Loyal Opposition (and the SNP, the Disloyal Opposition) are a bunch of opportunistic gannets doesn't mean an early GE is warranted.

In other news, I, er... rejoined UKIP It's deader than a dodo, doesn't even feature in public polls any more and got about 420 votes total in the last two by-elections (another one coming up in Blackpool apparently). But, I can't see myself rejoining the Tories. I just can't. It's not even the Truss ShitShow™ that's off-putting, but an organisation I have past experience of that I know for a fact is almost as moribund (literally) as UKIP is, they just don't know it yet. And the bad memories... But I couldn't not join a party, and Labour ...just can't quite bring myself to side with anything riven with Corbynism or some of the other 'bearded weirdy' lefty stuff. Not to mention I suspect there's a lot more Remainerism there than we publicly see. Maybe the same in the Tories too. As for the Liberals? LOL.

Lastly, there was a good comment a few pages back (page 16? I'm not looking) about how Labour are as effectively hamstrung budget wise as the Tories, and they don't really have any real room for manoeuvre financially, because now neither tax rises or budget cuts are politically possible.

I find that fascinating. Corbyn at one point had wanted to spend an extra £75bn... and got lambasted for being unable to explain where it was all going to come from. Here's a fun little statistic (reported in Nicholas Shaxson's book Treasure Islands): the UK was estimated to be losing £120bn/year to offshoring... maybe (iirc) £20bn to £40bn a year in VAT fraud (eg 'carousel fraud', etc) and I don't know how much more due to Gordon Brown's 'IR to get into 'customer relationships' with big business' approach to what actual revenue collection took place then. It's not hard to do some perfunctory back-of-the-envelope calculations and realise we could very easily Fix Everything™ by actually dealing with offshoring, major tax fraud, cozy corporate relationships, etc. What blew my mind is that even Labour either don't realise this, or won't 'go there'. I can understand the Tories not wanting to touch it (it was their government that brought in many of these financial *ahem* possibilities, and New Labour's continuation was just that. But why wouldn't Corbyn be all over this? I don't get it.

 

[Deleted member 827803]

So I take a three day break (I think) from the 'box and the Tory shit show gets real. Truss resigned! At least we'll have a quicker process for finding the next PM. I'll laugh if it's Boris Johnson. I've no idea who I think would be best, anyone not a fucking libertarian, but apparently the libertarian wing of the party has some serious pull these days... But perhaps they can actually SEE that fact this time, and choose someone not like themselves. =/

I still don't think this is all quite the end of the line for the current Government. It's an embaressing and ridiculous stumble but if Lessons Were Learned™, to use a popular piece of contemporary parlance, then a stable, back-to-usual government might yet result. No chance in hell they'll go for an early GE, just because the Loyal Opposition (and the SNP, the Disloyal Opposition) are a bunch of opportunistic gannets doesn't mean an early GE is warranted.

In other news, I, er... rejoined UKIP It's deader than a dodo, doesn't even feature in public polls any more and got about 420 votes total in the last two by-elections (another one coming up in Blackpool apparently). But, I can't see myself rejoining the Tories. I just can't. It's not even the Truss ShitShow™ that's off-putting, but an organisation I have past experience of that I know for a fact is almost as moribund (literally) as UKIP is, they just don't know it yet. And the bad memories... But I couldn't not join a party, and Labour ...just can't quite bring myself to side with anything riven with Corbynism or some of the other 'bearded weirdy' lefty stuff. Not to mention I suspect there's a lot more Remainerism there than we publicly see. Maybe the same in the Tories too. As for the Liberals? LOL.

Lastly, there was a good comment a few pages back (page 16? I'm not looking) about how Labour are as effectively hamstrung budget wise as the Tories, and they don't really have any real room for manoeuvre financially, because now neither tax rises or budget cuts are politically possible.

I find that fascinating. Corbyn at one point had wanted to spend an extra £75bn... and got lambasted for being unable to explain where it was all going to come from. Here's a fun little statistic (reported in Nicholas Shaxson's book Treasure Islands): the UK was estimated to be losing £120bn/year to offshoring... maybe (iirc) £20bn to £40bn a year in VAT fraud (eg 'carousel fraud', etc) and I don't know how much more due to Gordon Brown's 'IR to get into 'customer relationships' with big business' approach to what actual revenue collection took place then. It's not hard to do some perfunctory back-of-the-envelope calculations and realise we could very easily Fix Everything™ by actually dealing with offshoring, major tax fraud, cozy corporate relationships, etc. What blew my mind is that even Labour either don't realise this, or won't 'go there'. I can understand the Tories not wanting to touch it (it was their government that brought in many of these financial *ahem* possibilities, and New Labour's continuation was just that. But why wouldn't Corbyn be all over this? I don't get it.

Good luck friend - My very best friend in the world (best man at my wedding, the works) is an Alte Kampfer UKIP member - got the CAMRA badge and everything. I've never joined a party, and we cheerfully don't talk politics when we're together (it's why we're such good friends), but I can see where you're coming from in terms of joining in - I get it.

I reckon that when we eventually have a GE, it'll be a bloodbath and we'll end up with some nightmare Labour-Libden-SNDASP coalition. I've put my tenner on Boris coming back to the Tories to lead the election fight.

 

[The Aloof Alot]

Isn't UKIP borderline fascist? Why would anyone consider that a sane choice, ever?

Also, experience with similar parties in other European countries and elsewhere has more than shown that whenever they get into power the result is a Conservatives-like shitfest at best, usually worse (read: disintegrating governments, self-destruction, chaos, and if you have bad luck a tanked economy and other serious damage). If your problem is that you don't want to vote for or be a member of a party that pulls shenanigans like the British Conservatives, extreme right populist parties should be last on your list, because they are much worse, right down to funding from dubious sources, being puppets for the Russians, and generally being only competent in pure incompetence.

 

[Doomlord_uk]

Isn't UKIP borderline fascist?

It's long been accused of that, but no. It was (and remains) a lot of bad things, but it wasn't really fascist, or even 'borderline' fascist. It's principle political sin was becoming libertarian, because that is what Farage was basically. The party pretty much revolved around him. It was also influenced by the IEA (I myself got an invite to a presentation by them, but didn't go) of course. But at one time it attracted a lot of people from across the political spectrum, and it used to be quite diverse in terms of personal politics. My former local branch leader was ex-Labour - and I mean dyed-in-the-wool lifelong socialist Labour activist who joined UKIP partly because he (like many on the left at one point) opposed membership of the EU. There were also other reasons, which I won't repeat, but oh man did he have some stories to tell about Labour. He and I both left at the same time, because Gerard Batten, as leader, (an original founding member, I believe) was a fuckwad who dragged the party into the orbit of Tommy Robinson, many of whose supporters then joined UKIP hoping he'd join and become its leader. At one point it looked like they were going to take over the party altogether, and on the numbers they easily could have done. At his most popular, Tommy Robinson had a six figure following of supporters, many many more than UKIP's membership base. He was fortunately barred from joining the party, but the damage was done and I watched the membership move hard to the (far) right. Many left the party, not wanting anything to do with the TR crowd. I left when Batten's successor basically promised to be a stooge for him, implementing whatever policy Batten wanted. The Brexit Party beckoned and we were actively and personally courted (many who left UKIP had joined TBP, naturally) but it proved to be a scam. You couldn't join it! They'd take your e-mail address and your money, but you couldn't join, or have a vote on anything, etc. LOL no fuck off. Plus, by then I had come to more or less hate Farage, and still do, so following him to another party seemed like a bad idea anyway. Even when they had a bit of success... He is due credit on certain things, of course, but having dropped the ball after the referendum, he went off the libertarian/Trumpian deep end. So fuck him.

But, UKIP's ongoing rigor mortis has the kernel of political promise, at least in my idealistic mind (I am and always have been an idealist). The party's abject failure has turned to almost total irrelevance - it doesn't feature in polls any more, it gets almost no votes, the media don't notice it any more. Did you read about their party conference? Probably not, and just as well because - whilst everyone else was focused on real-life issues like, oh, I don't know, the fucking cost-of-living crisis... UKIP had it's one-day conference on, I kid you not, the "War On Woke". The party is that dead. And out of the corpse, I want to believe a whole new party can be born. There are still people, including at the top, and whom I know, who have agreed with me that 'things have to change' and I've been welcomed to outline how and why. So that's what I'm currently writing up, bit by bit. I'm not optimistic, but I have spent three years being 'party-less' and it was an itch that never went away. I don't have some key figures (party membership, finances...) but it's easy to make the case that the current leader - Neil Hamilton - couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, and has achieved nothing as 'leader' beyond making UKIPpy bleatings for two years. The previous leader was a literal village idiot called Freddy Vacha. (I've met him. Total loon.) So I want to get the guy I've always supported for the leadership to actually get it now. I've already been promised a role as a political advisor (fwiw...).

The alternative was re-joining the Conservative Party. That party is actually a governing party, and of course it concentrates its inflence and power at the top, and you work your way up the greasy pole the traditional way - by being liked by those above you, who then won't push you down/keep you out. And that means sucking up to all the inherent BS and vested interests in the party. I left it (2004) because their leadership was horribly out-of-touch with its own membership, nevermind the public, even then. Among other reasons. It's hard to describe the dour taste the tory party leaves in your mouth, and you HAVE to be ambitious to clamber your way up that sweaty, shitty, greasy pole. And it would take a long time, if you could.

I'd rather have an unrealistic shot at having influence in a party where I have direct access to the 'top level' and the ear of someone who listens and, at least, doesn't disagree. I'm just one guy, but it's a party I know and for all its myriad and manifest failings, it has at least the core of a functioning political party left. If we can find the right leader, then we literally have a 'tabula rasa' opportunity to construct a new party from scratch. Yes, its past will be a millstone around its neck, but that's true of every party out there. I just see more hope in that, than anything else.

 

[Doomlord_uk]

Also, experience with similar parties in other European countries and elsewhere has more than shown that whenever they get into power the result is a Conservatives-like shitfest at best, usually worse (read: disintegrating governments, self-destruction, chaos, and if you have bad luck a tanked economy and other serious damage). If your problem is that you don't want to vote for or be a member of a party that pulls shenanigans like the British Conservatives, extreme right populist parties should be last on your list, because they are much worse, right down to funding from dubious sources, being puppets for the Russians, and generally being only competent in pure incompetence.

Absolutely. UKIP in recent (last few years) form would probably have done similar had it ever succeeded... In part, actually, I can't speak for the continental parties, but UKIP absolutely has shot for the angry white male/grievance vote (and apparently still does... not that it's working). I got rather exasperated with all the RT-reading 'friends of Putin' but afaict no Russian money came to UKIP; rather, we got subsidised by Arron Banks and that Mercer guy (of Cambridge Analytica fame), on top of whatever funds it brought in directly from the membership. [Edit] - mostly, actually, it was the party's MEPs that funded the party. So, not really comparable to Front National in France. Orban, of course, actually came to power...

 

[Doomlord_uk]

when we eventually have a GE, it'll be a bloodbath

I don't even want to think about it. Politics today is so fucked up. I'm trying to pivot from US politics, post-Trump, to UK politics and I kinda miss Trump actually!

 

[Shavano]

It would be a lot easier to miss him if he and his followers would go away.

 

[Dystopia]

There is a proper formalised system. MPs nominate then vote down to the last two, then the party members vote on which of those two they want, they did the proper formalised system like six weeks ago. That's how Liz Truss happened.

It turns out that when a step in the process is "Ask a collection of 170,000 psychopaths and dipshits what they think" you get really stupid answers.

No, the real lesson is that when you attempt to force the choice by putting an obviously terrible option as the only alternative to the anointed one, the membership are likely to resent the manipulation and punish you by choosing the terrible candidate they weren't supposed to.

 

[Skoop]

choosing the terrible candidate they weren't supposed to.

"Terrible" is different things to different people. Truss was a terrible choice, obvious now. But Sunak was also terrible, a back-stabbing turncoat in the eyes of many.

 

[Dystopia]

choosing the terrible candidate they weren't supposed to.

"Terrible" is different things to different people. Truss was a terrible choice, obvious now. But Sunak was also terrible, a back-stabbing turncoat in the eyes of many.

Indeed. Something that Sunak and mates failed to recognise when they attempted to stitch up the vote by making the Truss the only other option on the ballot.

EDIT: The point I was getting at is that the reason the membership picked Truss is not because they're dribbling morons, as is so often asserted in this thread, but because they only had two choices, both of which sucked.

 

[wco81]

Farage is compromised by Russians?

Not to mention he's tight with the GOP.

UKIP a better choice? Than what actual fascists?

 

[Oelph]

We need a new political party. I have no idea what labour stand for any more. The tories have been in power for 12 years, yet they all claim there’s a need to fix things. Things they are responsible for.

Why do you have to join a party? Do you really think you have any influence other than your tick in the box once every 4-5 years?

 

[The Aloof Alot]

Also, experience with similar parties in other European countries and elsewhere has more than shown that whenever they get into power the result is a Conservatives-like shitfest at best, usually worse (read: disintegrating governments, self-destruction, chaos, and if you have bad luck a tanked economy and other serious damage). If your problem is that you don't want to vote for or be a member of a party that pulls shenanigans like the British Conservatives, extreme right populist parties should be last on your list, because they are much worse, right down to funding from dubious sources, being puppets for the Russians, and generally being only competent in pure incompetence.

Absolutely. UKIP in recent (last few years) form would probably have done similar had it ever succeeded... In part, actually, I can't speak for the continental parties, but UKIP absolutely has shot for the angry white male/grievance vote (and apparently still does... not that it's working). I got rather exasperated with all the RT-reading 'friends of Putin' but afaict no Russian money came to UKIP; rather, we got subsidised by Arron Banks and that Mercer guy (of Cambridge Analytica fame), on top of whatever funds it brought in directly from the membership. [Edit] - mostly, actually, it was the party's MEPs that funded the party. So, not really comparable to Front National in France. Orban, of course, actually came to power...

The problem with Mercer and similar sources of funding is that the things the parties they support publicly advocate are not actually in line with what Mercer and co. advocate in their own circles. Unless you're filthy rich and prefer to have very cheap labour with very few rights, voting for such a party is going to bite you in the arse if they ever get into power. But if you think you have enough influence to change that, try steering UKIP towards other donors.
Or start your own party. It wouldn't be the first time a new party that many see to be closer to the original ideals of an older party that got corrupted siphons most of the members of the old party.

 

[philj]

In other news, I, er... rejoined UKIP It's deader than a dodo, doesn't even feature in public polls any more and got about 420 votes total in the last two by-elections (another one coming up in Blackpool apparently).

If Sunak or any other neoliberal in suit ends up being PM, I expect UKIP or some other similar Farage backed vehicle will start polling again. Brexit was a symptom, not the disease.

 

[Tijger]

In other news, I, er... rejoined UKIP It's deader than a dodo, doesn't even feature in public polls any more and got about 420 votes total in the last two by-elections (another one coming up in Blackpool apparently).

If Sunak or any other neoliberal in suit ends up being PM, I expect UKIP or some other similar Farage backed vehicle will start polling again. Brexit was a symptom, not the disease.

But without Brexit where is their USP and without the EU where is their representation going to be? UKIP and its successors won seats in the EP but hardly ever made any inroads in the UK itself and the only reason UKIP got substantial press was Brexit. Now that this is done...whats left? Farage is still going on about "Remainers" but its laughable, the UK has left the EU, there is no Remain anymore. There might be a road to return to the EU but its going to be long and time consuming if it happens.

The Tory party will always have neo-liberals in charge, before or behind the scenes, thats their whole raison d'etre, I thought.

 

[Doomlord_uk]

Farage is compromised by Russians?

Not to my knowledge.

Not to mention he's tight with the GOP.

British conservatives have traditionally been 'tight' with the Republican Party - think Reagan/Thatcher lovefest. Farage was more of a Trumpist than a GOP fan, doubtless influenced by Mercer (who of course also funded Trump's original campaign) and, I would presume, Bannon. At least via Breitbart's London office. I was pretty annoyed with Farage jumping into bed with that lot, and especially later on with Trump, because of course obvious reasons. But there WAS a common cause that both men recognised and believed they were fighting against - the political establishment. Trump simply saw opportunity in populism, and being a master grifter, played it very well (he had the audience ready made by years if not decades of republican/libertarian grifting already, of course). Farage recognised - and here I think he was on the money - that the UK political establishment was blind to EU reality (it truly was) and inflexible in its approach, to the detriment of the UK's interests. That is, he saw the establishment itself as the problem. So there was this common cause/enemy, and the response was heavily populist. I suspect also perhaps Farage either actually believed Trump would win, and thus was for pragmatic reasons cultivating a positive relationship with the next President, or at least felt he could extract some benefit for his cause with that alignment. Sad to say, Farage was and still is I think worshipped by his followers so of course, Trump became an icon here too on the right. The UK is not without its own angry and dispossessed proletariat, looking for a voice that they feel represents them.

UKIP a better choice? Than what actual fascists?

The comparison isn't with 'actual fascists' whom UKIP actually avoids (as best it can, given Batten/Robinson's poisonous membership legacy), but with the (*ahem* other...*) mainstream parties. For me, the appeal is the notion, however abstract or remote, that I might have some actual say. Because I won't in the Conservative party. It's the advantage of a party that's small, and being on the point of either having a 'moment of clarity' that I could exploit, or dying.

The problem with Mercer and similar sources of funding is that the things the parties they support publicly advocate are not actually in line with what Mercer and co. advocate in their own circles.

This is a fairly universal problem with donors.

Unless you're filthy rich and prefer to have very cheap labour with very few rights, voting for such a party is going to bite you in the arse if they ever get into power. But if you think you have enough influence to change that, try steering UKIP towards other donors.

To be clear, I'm totally anti-libertarian. I would certainly steer UKIP away from such donors (and influences - eg the IEA) if I could. Towards which donors, I cannot say; my instinct is that donors are inherently malign in as far as they use their wealth to support their own cause(s) and not the greater public one. UKIP would first have to justify its claim to be a greater public cause, and to make clear that donors are supporting that cause, and not theirs. I dare say that approach would not bring in wads of cash...

Or start your own party. It wouldn't be the first time a new party that many see to be closer to the original ideals of an older party that got corrupted siphons most of the members of the old party.

In the literal sense, I don't think I could nor even if I could do I think I should. You're not wrong, though, that a new party can steal the membership (and donors and funds) of an older party. I'm not sure there are any good examples in modern British history though. Closest, ironically, would be The Brexit Party - founded by you know who and which did leach considerable membership from the former bearer of the Brexit standard. I guess that has survived, at least, under its new cognomen of Reform UK but whilst its membership (and funding?) allow it to actually poll at least (3%, last time I saw it listed in a poll) it's hardly setting the world on fire. Bad politics, of course. My desire, in contrast, is to take the organisation and a few of its key sentiments, and argue for a wholly new political outlook and vision, and a strategy that might actually work. But as I said before, I'm only one guy. I just want to do more than be a loyal foot soldier, serving the status quo, because the status quo sucks.

I expect UKIP or some other similar Farage backed vehicle will start polling again. Brexit was a symptom, not the disease.

I can tell you that UKIP, Reform (and apparently, the SDP...!!) all smell Tory blood in the water, and attempts are being made to join forces. Not successfully, egos and fiefdoms (and, I dare say, obvious political differences) seem to mean that won't happen.

I disagree that Brexit is just a sympton. It was very much a result of symptons, of EU membership. But the ongoing rightwing parties and groups that have emerged post-Brexit do speak to an underlying public and political malaise in this country. Just not - IMO - one that being in the EU would ever fix. I'm also fairly certain that the current political establishment could fix things, or even wants to. But that lack of ambition and vision is a great opportunity for the right party, and leader...

 

[CommanderJameson]

I disagree that Brexit is just a sympton. It was very much a result of symptons, of EU membership. But the ongoing rightwing parties and groups that have emerged post-Brexit do speak to an underlying public and political malaise in this country. Just not - IMO - one that being in the EU would ever fix. I'm also fairly certain that the current political establishment could fix things, or even wants to. But that lack of ambition and vision is a great opportunity for the right party, and leader...

"Symptom".

This is the part where I ask you to articulate a single demonstrable benefit of Brexit. Not abstract ideological shit, something that is clearly and quantifiably better for me as a UK citizen.