Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, ml1dch said:


I feel that there probably isn't much that I can say which will move you away from your "but racism" analysis, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why Truss:

(1) She's a nutter, and the people voting in the election to put her in place are nutters. But to be more analytical...

(2) History. She's been a figure in the party since the 1990s. You don't spend a quarter of a century rising through the ranks of a party without getting to know people and having a latent level of support behind you. She'll have been meeting with, chatting with and having drinks at conferences and events with those members and associations who decided who was going to be Prime Minister for many years. Sunak on the other hand, was nothing to do with the Tory party until he was selected for a safe seat a few years ago. Turning up for the first time ever at a load of local Tory groups and asking them to vote for you ahead of the person you've known and liked for 20 years is a pretty hard job.

(3) Right place / right time. SoS for International Trade was the dream job for anyone who wants to raise their popularity with this particular electorate. While she was always quite popular, a couple of years going around the world copying/pasting trade agreements and standing, smiling in front in front of a flag has sent that much higher. They were near-meaningless, sham victories - but there are never any (visible) defeats to the people voting here, they are still victories and evidence of her achieving stuff (see below for Sunak's achievements in comparison).

(4) Messaging. If the last six years of the Tory party (and the wider electorate, to be fair) show us anything it's that they are much keener on a positive message, however detached it might be from reality. Truss's pitch of "things are great, we just need to do more of the things that you, my potential voters, really want to make them even better" landed much better than Sunak's "things are on fire and we need to make things a bit worse to make them better in the long term".

Why not Sunak:

(1) Betrayal. Half the party still love Johnson, think he was ditched for no good reason and would have him back tomorrow. Sunak is viewed (rightly or wrongly) as the man who stabbed their hero in the back to take his job. And if half of your electorate think you're an untrustworthy traitor, you're not starting on the best footing.  

(2) Ideological differences. Because of who was Prime Minister and the events of his chancellorship, Sunak never got to deliver a "Tory" budget. His record in office is one of handing out huge amounts of money to people and increasing taxes. Sunak probably didn't actually WANT to do either of those things. But, he did them - so he is now seen as a wet, socialist Remoaner by the lunatics voting. 

(3) Electability. After his popularity with the public tanked, I think lots of Tories looked at Sunak and thought that the FPN-receiving, tax-avoiding, Green Card holding multi-millionaire with the thousand pound coffee cup and non-dom wife was more likely to give the opposition easier attack lines at a future election. I don't necessarily agree, but then I'm not a Tory nutcase. 

And much further down...

(4) Skin colour. The party are a bit racist.

Still, if you want to just stick with your version - feel free to do so.

1 - agreed

2 - hmmm - adds to the notion of the brown outsider, Johnson wasn't "stabbed in the back" by a blond white boy was he - perfect framing for the Daily Heil.

3 - she has not excelled at anything

4 - Sunak was Johnsons pick for chancellor, because he was no threat to Johnson, now he is a massive Judas. Agreed folks recently want a positive message but Sunak was repeating previous Tory mantra - it was very Tory, but maybe it's about the messenger.

Why not Sunak - seen as a socialist yet Truss has spent all the monies in two weeks. Seen as an untrustworthy Judas - handy he's not a blonde white boy then. His crimes? Nothing absolutely nothing that other tories accept as sensible practice. Then skin colour - it's not really important - well other than inherent racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

Dunno if any are, tbh. A few are deffo tories. But even if you take Tory MPs over 60, they might nearly all be whoppers, but they’re far from all racialists 

It's a big character trait - sort of essential to the description of racist. Dawn Foster was mistaken by an elderly Tory MP in the lift at the HoC, for a cleaner. Maybe they are explainable racists, but oddly enough growing up in a life of privvilege, surrounded by wealthy white folks (and this is the vast majority life experience of them) - makes you a bit tribal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With two young children, I'm seriously thinking about when it's time to get out of this **** country. 

I dread to think what it will be like in 20 years. Unfortunately I don't have the finances to ensure they never have to worry about it.

Edited by DCJonah
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

With two young children, I'm seriously thinking about when it's time to get out of this **** country. 

I dread to think what it will be like in 20 years. Unfortunately I don't have the finances to ensure they never have to worry about it.

Don't worry you can move to any european country of your choosing.

Oh wait...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AshVilla said:

Don't worry you can move to any european country of your choosing.

Oh wait...

Yep, they totally f'd us in every conceivable way.  I'm looking at leaving too, and our choices have gone from very many easily available destinations to points systems, most of which I don't qualify for.  I could get into the USA, but not interested in jumping from pan into fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'd have quite liked to see the end of his sentence to see his argument in context rather than some hamfisted loop to make a point. I have no idea if it redeems him or not, it's hard to see how it does, but I suspect there's a good reason they cut him off mid sentence.

Here you go.

Spoilers

Spoiler

I don’t think you’ll much care for it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, I don’t know how hard you’ve been hit by inflation in the UK, but our central bank is now making my life fairly f***ing miserable raising interest rates so I’ll spend less money, because inflation. Yet your government is handing out massive tax cuts? Has the BoE raised interest rates recently? If so, tax cuts to the rich coupled with raised interest rates must be the worst kind of ‘f*** you’ to working people? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seventh worst day for the pound since 2004. 

Beaten only by the days following the 2016 referendum (x2), the announcement of the first Covid lockdown and three of the worst days of the financial crash. 

If your "budget that isn't a budget" is seen as that bad, people clearly don't want to buy what you're selling. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'd have quite liked to see the end of his sentence to see his argument in context rather than some hamfisted loop to make a point. I have no idea if it redeems him or not, it's hard to see how it does, but I suspect there's a good reason they cut him off mid sentence.

He's the director of the opaquely funded, Tufton Street based, think tank the IEA; he has no redeeming features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â