British Politics Guide

[alynnidalar]

TIL Newcastle is in Scotland.

To much of the south it might as well be.

Actually, it's in Northern Ireland (and Australia, if you're feeling global). Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Newcastle-under-Lyme are in England.

In this particular case, it was Newcastle-upon-Tyne where Farage got milkshaked.

[Salmoneus]

Ministerial resignation #36: Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House.

So, the PM went into a little more detail on what will be in the withdrawal bill submitted to the House. Turns out, it's not the same as before. In order to get the bill passed, she has kept the things that Labour hate, while at the same time adding the things the Tories hate*. This is, we're told, compromise: make the bill the worst of both worlds, so that every MP from every party hates it, and it's certain to pass with a large majority.

Unexpectedly, this has provoked some disquiet among her own ranks.

Specifically, it's reported that the PM has lost (even the superficial pretence of) the confidence of Cabinet, and her closest allies are deserting her.

How bad is it? All day, the Prime Minister has been refusing to meet with any other ministers, in order, it's believed, to avoid being directly told to resign. [The idea is usually that top party figures tell the PM to resign, and she does so rather than suffer the humiliation of an official sacking. Margaret Thatcher, for instance, was never defeated as party leader - a leadership election was called, and she actually won the first round, albeit unable to prevent a second-round run off. But between the two votes, the Cabinet interviewed her one by one and told her to resign, which she did.] If May doesn't talk to anybody, she can truthfully say she has not been told she doesn't have the confidence of her Cabinet, and her Cabinet will feel awkward about sacking her publically without having privately given her the option to resign.

And we're not talking about avoiding meetings with minor apparatchiks. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, two of the four Great Offices of State (along with the PM and the Chancellor) have both demanded to talk to the PM, but she's remained indoors at Number 10 and refused to let them in.

One former minister has summed up today's situation: the Prime Minister is still in power because "she has locked the bunker from the inside".

One Tory MP compared her to Imelda Marcos. The Telegraph, the party's strongest supporters in the media, today ran with the morning headline "Desperate, deluded, doomed", and that was before everything got weird.

Oh, and the Leader of the House didn't bother turning up until the last few minutes of PMQs, because she was at a meeting of the Pizza Club, the secret not-so-secret organisation of top Tory leaders sworn to overthrow the government from within (they like pizza, so they order pizza at their club meetings). Later, she resigned, announcing that she couldn't in good conscience continue to support the PM at a time when her career prospects would be improved by stabbing the PM in the back instead. Well, she didn't use that wording, but that was the gist.

However, the bunker's walls are not impregnable. The PM has been commanded to appear before the 1922 committee on Friday, when she is expected to formally resign, or at least promise to do so on a specified date. The key question for her is whether she'll be allowed to continue in office for another week, in order to beat Brown, or whether they'll punish her by sacking her immediately. It may depend what happens on Thursday: the European elections. The Tories are expected to be in fourth place, but how bad might it get exactly? It's within the polling errors that they might end up with under 10% of the vote, in fifth place. [meanwhile, Labour are in trouble too, only one point away from losing second place to the Lib Dems].

What happens if she turns up on Friday and refuses to resign? Or refuses to turn up? Well, the immediate answer lies... in a sealed envelope!!!!!

Yes, the 1922 Committee have held a vote on whether to change party rules to enable May to face a new leadership challenge (as you'll recall, she can only currently face one per year, so is safe until December). But nobody knows what they decided. The voting slips have been placed in a sealed envelope at a secure location, and the Chairman has announced that the sealed envelope will only be opened if the Prime Minister refuses to resign voluntarily on Friday morning.

Sadly, he didn't promise to open the envelope live on TV, with a drumroll and a pre-unveiling light entertainment show, so the Tories haven't quite come to terms with modern media yet...

If she refuses to resign AND it turns out the 1922 refused to change the rules? Well, then the REAL chaos begins...




*everyone hated everything about it, but the key bits are probably:
- if parliament voted for the bill, in exchange the PM would give them a vote on whether to hold a second referendum
- the PM would be open to talks on a temporary customs union with the EU
- the PM would promise to ensure that Northern Ireland and Great Britain suffered no 'regulatory divergence' and never had a customs border between them. Since Northern Ireland would be staying in the EU under the 'backstop', that would mean the UK would have to too. Well, not officially, but we'd have to pass every new EU rule into UK law immediately.

These proposals have made Tories' heads explode. The PM knew they would - she apparently accepted she'd never persuade the ERG to back her. Instead, she needs to pass this with Labour support. Which is why there's a Tory uprising, because having a "Tory Prime Minister" who relies on Labour votes to ignore Tory votes is anathema to them. However, it's still useless, because Labour can't support this either. On the one hand, the promises don't go far enough (eg, they promise a vote on a referendum, but don't promise government support for it, and don't say what the question would be), and on the other hand, it's now just too late. Because we know the PM will be replaced in the next couple of months at the latest, her "promises" are worth absolutely nothing, since the next leader won't be bound by them.




EDIT: oh, that make-or-break withdrawal bill in June? Yeah, nobody thinks that's happening anymore. That's SO last week...

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

June 7th.

It's about fucking time she quits.

[alice]

Looking back over the past couple of years, when would have been the correct time for her to resign? We now await Sal's in-depth analysis of all the candidates who want to replace her.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Looking back over the past couple of years, when would have been the correct time for her to resign? We now await Sal's in-depth analysis of all the candidates who want to replace her.

To me, her second attempt to have her deal accepted. After that second attempt, she appeared to be clinging to power in a way that made her seem beyond ridiculous.

[zompist]

So, some weeks to select a new PM. The PM goes to their desk at No. 10, and there's an envelope labeled "Secret instructions for my successor." Inside are her heartfelt words: "You must secure acceptance of my plan."

The new PM tosses it aside angrily. They then try a bunch of stuff that doesn't work for three months. Then, deeper in the office, they discover another envelope, labeled "When all that didn't work." Inside are the same words.

This was long overdue, but I guess it's marginally better than if she'd resigned or been kicked out in December? Because then, there were only 3 months left. By mid-June, there will be 4.5 months left. A 50% better result! Only, well, that's not really enough time to get any actual alternative.

[Salmoneus]

Looking back over the past couple of years, when would have been the correct time for her to resign?

9th of June, 2017. The day after losing her majority.

I mean, in hindsight, she should have resigned the moment she became leader, because once she was allowed to run the worst election campaign in British history the damage had been done: we we stuck in a position where there were no solutions.

But failing that, she should have - as people expected! - resigned after the election. [actually, as it happened, the party would have been best served by her resigning a week later, after the Grenfell disaster, but of course she didn't know that was going to happen, so from the point of view of what she knew at the time she ought to have resigned the morning after she lost her majority].

Would that have solved everything? Probably not - but maybe! It would have given us a new prime minister in the summer of 2017. They could then have laid out their Brexit strategy, and on the basis of that and their own recent selection as PM, gone to the country again to seek a secure mandate (presumably in autumn 2017). They'd probably have done better than May - who could do worse? - and thus won at the very least a one-party majority. Take the DUP out of the equation and a Tory leader could probably squeeze through a hard Brexit that screws over Northern Ireland (i.e. keep the backstop only for NI, and if necessary put customs checks down the Irish Sea). Hardline Tories wouldn't like that - they're the Conservative and Unionist Party, after all - but in exchange for a clear, clean break hard brexit I think enough of them would have accepted it. It was certainly a clear possibility, at least.

Alternatively, this putative leader and their Brexit policy might have been rejected by the public - not impossible given the trajectory of polling, as Labour would have been ahead by then in the polls. [downside: if they were too far ahead in the polls the Leader wouldn't have risked an election]. And then... well, nobody knows, since Labour don't have a policy on Brexit (or rather, they have ALL the policies), but at least Corbyn would have been required to come up with an alternative.

Instead, the election left May so weak that there was no deal she could get through Parliament. And she knew it, which is why she spent 1.5 years of the 2 year period avoiding having any policy more concrete than, to quote (endlessly), "Brexit means Brexit".



-----


It's now very hard to imagine a way to avoid No Deal. It's hard to imagine the Tories electing a leader who hasn't promised to keep the deal off the table, and likewise who hasn't sworn to block a referendum at all costs. Tory MPs could get one such candidate to the membership vote, but once the ERG coalesces around one candidate, it'll be very hard to keep them off the final ballot, and if they're on the ballot they'll beat any Remainer. [and 'Remainer' in Tory minds now means virtually anything other than No Deal. Some of them still do lip service to the idea that once the EU removes the backstop we can do a deal, but nobody really believes that's going to happen, so...]

[chris_notts]

It's now very hard to imagine a way to avoid No Deal. It's hard to imagine the Tories electing a leader who hasn't promised to keep the deal off the table, and likewise who hasn't sworn to block a referendum at all costs. Tory MPs could get one such candidate to the membership vote, but once the ERG coalesces around one candidate, it'll be very hard to keep them off the final ballot, and if they're on the ballot they'll beat any Remainer. [and 'Remainer' in Tory minds now means virtually anything other than No Deal. Some of them still do lip service to the idea that once the EU removes the backstop we can do a deal, but nobody really believes that's going to happen, so...]

Agreed. Even if Parliament tries to stop it, a no deal exit is the default, and revocation has to be done via the PM. The only way Parliament could block it would be by removing and replacing the new Tory pro-No Deal PM. More likely, if a mini-revolt from the few pro-EU Tory MPs deprived BoJo of his majority, would be a general election. And even if an election were called, and we managed to hold it before exit day, what is the route to a PM who would revoke? It's not clear that Corbyn would. So that means, to remain:

1. The almost certainly pro-No Deal Tory PM must lost a confidence vote, or at least be blocked enough for governing to be impossible
2. They must then lose a GE, before exit day (assuming said PM wouldn't request an A50 extension until after the election willingly)
3. Either:
i. Corbyn must firmly commit to a referendum or revocation in the GE, and request more time to hold the referendum, and the EU must grant the request
ii. Labour must need a coalition partner or third party support to govern, and be forced into a second referendum by the coalition partner, and the negotiations must be complete before exit day
iii. A third party committed to remain must beat both Labour and the Conservatives

It feels like there's too many moving parts and potential points of failure here for remain to be the most likely option.

[Moose-tache]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. No Deal is unlikely. A do-over referendum is unlikely. A suicidal revocation of Brexit is unlikely. The only option that is likely to happen is Permanent Faff.

Permanent Faff involves moving the deadline back every six months or so while pretending to work on a deal that cannot exist because of reality. There might be an election in there, and a leadership challenge or two, but this is the New Normal for Britain for at least the next two or three years.

Think about it. What else can happen? No one is going to allow No Deal. That's truth number one. No one is going to bend space-time to allow a deal that provides racist pensioners with a cake for eating as well as a cake for having. That's truth number two. So the only remaining option is delay. Europe will always agree to a delay because they're in the same dilemma: there's no Brexit deal that's good for them, and creating a humanitarian disaster isn't on their bucket list either.

[Salmoneus]

No, that almost certainly won't happen. Extending Brexit indefinitely is politically impossible for both the EU and the UK.

[zompist]

No, that almost certainly won't happen. Extending Brexit indefinitely is politically impossible for both the EU and the UK.

I think you underestimate the power of kicking cans down roads.

Is No Deal politically possible? Despite that being the default option-- what will happen if nothing else is agreed to by everyone-- when it came up for a parliamentary vote on March 27, it lost 400-160. That was in the context of voting among many alternatives. On March 13 they had rejected No Deal by 321 to 278.

Now, the new Tory PM is likely to support No Deal. And, as the article says, they're likely to have problems getting it.

So far as I understand, however, to stop No Deal, Parliament has only one option: a vote of no confidence in the (new) government. That would mean a rebellion of (not many) Tories and/or DUP. How likely is that? (Genuine question. I can't see the Tories more united under New MP than under May, but I have no idea if the moderate Tories are more terrified of No Deal than they are of a general election.)

[Salmoneus]

No, that almost certainly won't happen. Extending Brexit indefinitely is politically impossible for both the EU and the UK.

I think you underestimate the power of kicking cans down roads.

I think you overestimate the extent to which the French and Germans give a shit.

I'll ammend my earlier, too hasty claim: it's politically very unlikely in the UK, and virtually impossible in the EU. No Deal will be a blow to the EU... but continued uncertainty is a bigger blow. If a new leader can't sort things out, we're not going to be able to get all 27 member states to consent to yet another extension with no resolution but No Deal in sight. They'd far rather just bite the bullet now. Indeed, if a No Deal leader comes to power, the EU may take the break option and not even give us until October.

In the UK, let's assume we get at best a 'pretend to deal' PM, or even an outright No Deal PM (that being the most popular position in the party, and the position of the most popular candidate).

To get No Deal, that PM just has to... not do anything. Not doing anything comes naturally to Parliament. [and don't forget to factor in Parliament's summer holidays here!]

How could that be avoided? As you say, one way is a general election. Will Remainer rebels bring down their own government in order to put "Marxist" Jeremy Corbyn in power? It's very unlikely. Even if they wanted to, which they don't, they would know that doing so would end their political careers, and possibly destroy the Conservative Party. That's a lot of backbone you're asking for. Look again at that vote: No Deal lost 321 to 278. 22 people change their vote and that goes the other way. Are there at least 22 anti-no-dealers who either a) hate Corbyn or b) like their careers? I think so.

If there's an election and the Tories win it... well, that crushes the hopes for a deal. And if Labour win it... well, Corbyn doesn't particularly want a deal either. Labour's proposed deal is basically the same as May's, and a third of their voters are Leavers. Could Corbyn get a deal through? I suspect not - but it also probably doesn't matter. The EU have said they won't renegotiate, so Corbyn's stuffed. He certainly can't get May's deal through, and apparently that's the only deal on the table.

So a deal by that route requires an unlikely Tory rebellion, followed by a Labour win, followed by the EU agreeing an extension, followed by the EU agreeing to renegotiate the deal, followed by Corbyn managing to get an unpopular deal through Parliament despite presumably having a tiny majority or indeed a minority government.

The alternative is for the Commons to take control of its own business, and put through a bill forcing the PM to agree to a deal. This is even less likely. It would be constitutionally novel, and it would require some sort of agreement on what deal was wanted. And the PM can be forced to go to Brussells and 'ask' for an extension, but he can't be forced to be persuasive...

[Salmoneus]

I thought I'd summarise some contenders. Starting with people who have actually admitted they're running:


Boris Johnson
Who? Former Foreign Secretary, former Mayor of London
Why? He’s the 2nd-most popular politician in the country. He says a lot of very Hard Brexiteer things. He’s sometimes funny. He’s not been in the limelight for months.
Why not? He’s a lazy, incompetant buffoon who struggles to reliably button his own shirt. He is also a duplicitous egotist who changes policies in a heartbeat and lies to everybody at all times. His entire career has been nothing but self-serving manipulation of others; he literally flipped a coin when deciding whether to be a Hard Brexiteer or a Remainer (everybody knows he’s ideologically a Remainer, but has been leading the calls for No Deal, even though he thinks it would ruin the country, because it would be good for his career). Brexit is primarily (though certainly not entirely) his fault. He is overwhelmingly unpopular - over 50% of the population is already certain he would be a failure as PM. As Foreign Secretary he was a humiliating failure, and Tory MPs mostly hate him. Even his own siblings refuse to support him. He once suggested solving the Northern Ireland Border Question by just building a big bridge across the Irish Sea. Once spent £35m on a project to build a ‘garden bridge’ across the Thames that was abandoned before it ever got started, and proposed solving the airport expansion question by simply building a new island off the east coast. Repeatedly in the papers for his private life – a serial and seemingly uncontrollable philanderer he’s often the subject of some scandal story about this abortion or that sexual harrassment of an underling or the other illegitimate child, or just him wandering drunkenly through the streets at night; a confessed heavy drinker, he’s strongly rumoured to be a cocaine addict – he admits attempting to take cocaine in the past, but claims to have been too incompetant to actually ingest it effectively. He used to attack Labour for “promoting homosexuality”, and he once described the response in other Commonwealth countries to royal visits as “cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies... break[ing] out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief”; he’s said that the best fate for Africa would be being re-conquered by European countries. Has repeatedly been chastised by Commons authorities for his failures of financial transparency.
Chances: Overwhelming favourite to be the next PM. Bookies have him at 10/11 on. Most likely way he fails is if MPs organise to ensure he doesn’t make the final ballot – presumably by arranging a head-to-head between a Remainer and an Anyone-but-Boris Brexiteer; if he does, polls show him crushing it. 54% of Tories have him as either their 1st or 2nd choice. The only candidate who’s polling (just) over 40% in a head-to-head with Johnson is Raab; it’s possible that if he makes a total fool of himself in the campaign he MIGHT lose to Raab, but it’s unlikely.
[Boris’ stock was badly damaged by his ineptitude in government and the rise of Rees-Mogg. However, as Brexit has gotten worse and worse, opinion has swung further in his direction, while his early departure has made people forget how rubbish he is, and helped to avoid him being tarred as the one who brought May down.]
The only thing standing in his way, other than the contempt of his peers, is the time-honoured observation that the leading candidate in Tory leadership elections never wins.
Career Highlight: Accidentally condemning a British woman to be effectively tortured in solitary confinement in an Iranian gaol for potentially decades, as a result of not being too lazy to read the briefing notes he was given... and then not even apologising for it.
In his own words: “There are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters.”
Others say: “People always ask me the same question: they say, 'Is Boris a very, very clever man pretending to be an idiot?' And I always say, 'No.'” - Ian Hislop

Jeremy Hunt
Who? Foreign Secretary, former Health Secretary
Why? Hunt, having repeatedly fended off attempts to sack him by both Cameron and May, and instead being promoted to one of the top jobs, has shown that he has staying power. He campaigned for Remain, and although he’s now strongly Leave (comparing the EU to the Soviet Union) he would be a voice for the more brexit-moderate part of the party. As he has no beliefs or principles, he gets along with a wide range of Tories, and he’s largely stayed out of the most contentious debates. Unofficial headcounts put him in the lead among MPs at this very early stage. With 13% of the population saying they like him, he’s one of the most popular leadership contenders. Speaks some Japanese.
Why not? He’s an oleaginous shitweasel with a dangerously punchable face. Although he hasn’t had time to fuck-up as Foreign Secretary, his reign as Health Secretary (and before that Culture Secretary) was variously inept, sadistic and capricious – highlights include slashing overtime pay for junior doctors by redefining evenings and weekends as no longer ‘anti-social’ working hours (while himself refusing to do MP work at weekends) and pushing for a greater proportion of NHS funding to be spent on homeopathy, while fighting against spending on cancer medication. In general, his preferred policy appeared to be privatisation of as much of the NHS as he could get away with; before that, he was attempting to abolish or severely restrict the BBC. As a result, he’s one of the most unpopular politicians in the country, with 48% of the country already disliking him (a truly impressive like/dislike ratio, suggesting that most of the rest of the country will also dislike him once they’ve remembered who he is). This is actually an improvement for him – back in the distant days of 2016, he was polling as the most hated politician in the UK. As Health Secretary, his campaign against female genital mutilation consisted of him googling a relevant campaigner, inviting her out for a drink and exclaiming to her, “What I really want to know is whether girls like you can have an orgasm!” He was also criticised for violating anti-money-laundering laws and making huge profits through property speculation as a result of large personal “discounts” given just to him by developers. His private life is stable, with a marriage to a woman a decade younger than him, but even this has caused some embarrassment – his wife is from China, but it emerged he has referred to her as Japanese in conversation (with Japanese diplomats who were unimpressed that he seemed not to realise they were different places).
Chances: Low but credible. He’s probably the favourite to go through to the final ballot against Boris, though he’s headed for a mullering when he gets there. That said, if Boris implodes, and Hunt can bring together the moderate vote, he does have a viable path to the premiership.
Career Highlight: Probably that time when when the Red Cross was forced to officially declare the NHS under his stewardship to be a “humanitarian emergency”. Or maybe when he provoked the first doctor’s strike for four decades.


Esther McVey
Who? Former Work and Pensions Secretary. Before that, breakfast TV presenter.
Why? She wants the job. A lot – she declared her candidacy before May even declared her resignation. Liverpool Irish, and having spent her earliest years in foster care, she stakes a claim to represent “Blue Collar Conservativism” (blue collar, but not poor – her father owns a construction firm). She has also had a career outside politics, making her authentic and entrepeneurial. She’s engaged to another MP, so can hopefully count on at least one vote. Spent a brief time as a Deputy Whip, so has some connexions among MPs. She’s a woman.
Why not? Described by a Labour MP as “a stain of inhumanity”. The only things she’s known for are her brazenly self-serving behaviour around Brexit (plotting, leaking, strategically resigning) and her stewardship of the Universal Credit scheme – a terrible idea, but turned into a humanitarian crisis through her stunning ineptitude in managing the execution. She was strongly chastised for lying to Parliament, usually a resigning offence (a quango report demanded that UC roll-out immediately be halted until the gross failures were ironed out, and she ‘misread’ it and reported to Parliament that the report advocated rolling out the scheme faster than originally planned). She has something of a reputation for... well, it’s unclear if they’re “gaffes”, “lies”, or “delusions”. She recently claimed that the EU was forcing all member states to adopt the Euro by 2020. Explaining why it was OK that her policies were forcing families toward starvation, she claimed that poor people only use food banks because they choose to spend all their money on “new phones” rather than on food (ironically, under her policies poor people are not allowed to claim welfare benefits unless they have access to the internet). She has been a constant advocate for homophobia, and consistently voted against same-sex marriage. She only came to Parliament in 2010, and spent 2015-2017 out of it, having thrown away a 2,500-vote margin in an election where her party as a whole increased their seat count, and had to be parachuted in to a safe seat to get re-elected.
Chances: Virtually none. Unless she’s delusional, this is just a play for greater attention, angling for a better job in the new leader’s cabinet.
Career Highlight: Lying to parliament.



Matt Hancock
Who? Health Secretary.
Why? Isn’t a total mess on TV. As Health Secretary, has avoided mass hatred, partly due to the government giving the NHS more money this year, but mostly because our focus is so fixed on Brexit. He used to be an economist at the Bank of England, so presumably isn’t a total idiot. Also appears to have a backbone, and isn’t outrageously right-wing – he’s advocated higher VAT and a higher minimum wage, emphasising that studies have shown that small increases in the minimum wage don’t increase unemploymen, and even pushing to make it easier to enforce minimum wage laws. Campaigned for Remain, but supported May’s deal; he’s said it’s important to recognise there must be ‘trade-offs’ between sovereignty and market access and that it’s important to push a deal through quickly – so he’s clearly aiming to appeal to the soft Brexit wing. He wears a rainbow lapel pin, and has refused to rule out banning unvaccinated children from schools. He’s a fresh face (only 40) who has less baggage than many other contenders. First MP to launch their own smartphone app. He’s got one of the best net favourability ratings of any contender, at only minus two.
Why not? Economic facts and an interest in improving the lot of the poor aren’t exactly popular commodities in the modern Conservative Party, and nor is trading away sovereignty. Somewhat punchable on TV.
Chances: Virtually none. I think he needs Hunt to wither under scrutiny, and then emerge as the younger, less contaminated, less odious Hunt, pushing an electability argument. But then he’ll get wiped out by Boris in the final round, or indeed by anyone harder on Brexit than he is, so he needs everyone else to fall over.
Career Highlight: Managing to reach the post of Health Secretary and remain there for a year while somehow remaining completely anonymous. Only 30% have heard of him, and half of those who have don’t have an opinion on him, which is actually perversely impressive in a job as controversial as his usually is.

Rory Stewart
Who? International Development Secretary. Has been for, oh, weeks now.
Why? Again, he wants the job – not only did he declare his candidacy before May declared her resignation, but he declared his candidacy on the same day that May promoted him into the cabinet. Born in Hong Kong, spent part of his childhood in Malaysia; spent his gap year in the army; his part time job at uni was working as private tutor to Prince William and Prince Harry; appointed the United Kingdom’s Representative to Montenegro at the age of 26. Worked as a diplomat, particularly as an occupation official in Iraq, where his compound was besieged by militants; worked as an Afghanistan expert for Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. Founded a charity working to promote traditional Afghan arts and architecture. Columnist for the New York Times. Had no medical assistance available for his wife’s first childbirth, so delivered the baby himself. Member of the Athenaeum, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Scottish Geographical Society. Seems like a nice enough bloke, level-headed in interviews. Extremely popular in his constituency (over 60% of the vote in a constituency that had been 51% Tory under the previous MP). Critically-acclaimed, bestselling author – the New York Times hailed one of his books (detailing his solo walk across Afghanistan in 2002 (as part of a larger walk from Turkey to Bangladesh), during which he was shot at, attacked by wolves, and rediscovered the Minaret of Jam (obviously locals knew it was there but the West was unsure whether it still existed)) as a “flat-out masterpiece” and one of the best books of the year. Has written and produced well-received BBC documentaries. Admits that his fluency in Serbo-Croat, Urdu and Nepali is “rusty”, but still has good French, Indonesian and Dari – he also speaks to varying degrees Latin, Greek, Russian and Chinese. Is, in terms of net favourability, the most popular contender for the leadership, with an astonishing +1 favourability. He’s the only Tory who is liked by more people than dislike him.
Why not? See almost every single sentence in the preceding paragraph. He was (relatively speaking) a May loyalist, in that he followed the traditional rules on accountability and collective responsibility, which can’t have made him many friends. He was a Remainer; he now says it’s necessary to leave, but that No Deal would “doom the nation”. Has slightly too large upper teeth, and a little on the thin side. Most importantly, nobody’s heard of him.
Chances: Ordinary reason says, absolutely zero. However, he’s SO unknown that you never know. Maybe he’ll surprise us. His pitch would be that he’s a steady pair of hands, a compromise candidate who would do well in a general election and who hasn’t made enemies. If the rest of the field implodes, he could make it to the final ballot, but he’d need either a sudden wave of viral memes or Boris being found in flagrante with an Arabian racehorse painted with the EU flag and coked out of his gourd to actually win the thing.
Career Highlight: Having become famous enough that when he declared his candidacy for Prime Minister, some of the media bothered to report on it.

[Frislander]

Jeremy Hunt
...Speaks some Japanese.

Haha I see what you did there. You of course failed to mention his endlessly mockable surname.

Matt Hancock
...

Gee with qualities like that and if we weren't in such economic and environmental shit right now I might almost be happy with him as PM.

Rory Stewart
...

I will admit I only know who he is because I used to live in what is now his constituency, and he also did a program once about Anglo-Scottish border region which was pretty decent. I probably wouldn't necessarily want him as PM, I kinda think he's better off being a likeable MP.

In general I think this list shows quite plainly why the Tories are as bad as they are - they may have some nice individuals, but the party as a whole is too favourable to the worst people.

[mèþru]

Apparently JRM and Zac Goldsmith have already endorsed BoJo. I would have imagined JRM to launch his own candidacy or support someone with a harder line, and Goldsmith to endorse a more conventional Tory.

[Frislander]

Apparently JRM and Zac Goldsmith have already endorsed BoJo. I would have imagined JRM to launch his own candidacy or support someone with a harder line, and Goldsmith to endorse a more conventional Tory.

Well, that just kinda proves that Bozza is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the Tory party.

[Salmoneus]

Matt Hancock
...

Gee with qualities like that and if we weren't in such economic and environmental shit right now I might almost be happy with him as PM.

To be honest, he kind of gives me the impression that he's a colossal arsehole who's just putting on a show of being a decent human being. People say he's "charismatic", but on TV I think he looks oily (although of course not on the Hunt scale). On the other hand, even if he is an alien wearing a skinsuit, at least he recognises he should TRY to look like he's not evil, which is a step ahead of most of the other top contenders.

Rory Stewart
...

I will admit I only know who he is because I used to live in what is now his constituency, and he also did a program once about Anglo-Scottish border region which was pretty decent. I probably wouldn't necessarily want him as PM, I kinda think he's better off being a likeable MP.

I think he's someone who might be a future PM, and that might be why he's running. [he's not in it for immediat promotion like most no-hoppers are - he's already sworn not to serve under Boris, or any other pro-No Deal leader]. He has gravitas (sort of - he's physically a bit weedy, which shouldn't matter but probably does) and could probably appeal to the public if they knew who he was. But he needs a lot more exposure, and he probably also needs more experience in the shark pond if he doesn't want to get eaten alive.

In general I think this list shows quite plainly why the Tories are as bad as they are - they may have some nice individuals, but the party as a whole is too favourable to the worst people.

Ugh.

I was thinking this the other day when watching Greg Clark give a statement. I don't know much about Clark (who does?), including how to spell his surname, and he's probably got horrible opinions. But watching him, I realised: there's a guy I can watch talk for 60 seconds without wanting to punch! He wasn't gurning or grinning or playing to the audience; he was being asked some serious questions, and he gave serious, respectful answers with gravitas, making his points look reasonable and credible. I don't think he actually said anything with actual content, and what content there was may well have been false, but even so he was clearing a very low bar that nonetheless soars over the heads of most famous Tories. The Tories do still have politicians who aren't odious or stupid - they even have some relatively young ones. But the ones who get into cabinet and are spoken of in connexion to the leadership are all utter tossers. I mean, visibly and viscerally tossers. People who make even David Cameron look substantial.

Part of it may be real life vs cameras. My experience with politicians has taught me that you'd be surprised who has charisma in person - it's not always clear from the TV screen. Maybe people like Hunt and Gove are less skin-crawling in person.

Part of it is that hacks favour other hacks, and help each other up the greasy pole while people with a shred of integrity get left at the bottom.

Part of it is the media, who love politicians who are controversial, and turn their cameras away when someone comes on screen who isn't going to make their audience shout abuse at the TV.

Part of it is the gradual intellectual and moral decline of the Tory party. Just look at, say, Tory Foreign Secretaries. Johnson and Hunt are no Hammond and Hague; Hammond and Hague are no Rifkind and Hurd. Rifkind and Hurd were arguably no Major and Howe, and certainly Major and Howe were no Carrington and Pym. Carrington resigned for failing to predict the invasion of the Falklands, despite having no way to have known about it - can you imagine Johnson or Hunt resigning on a point of honour in ANY circumstances? I don't agree with the policies of someone like Hurd, but he at least gave the impression of being competant, knowledgable, dedicated to his job, and mentally stable. When you met him, it was hard not to instinctively think "yeah, this is a guy who probably can handle positions of national responsibility". With people like Hunt and Johnson, it's hard not to instinctively think "this man should not be left alone with a choking hazard".

Part of it is the gradual shift to the right. Being right-wing doesn't automatically make someone a conniving, egotistical wanker. But I think the gradual acceptance of unfettered, individualist right-wing-ism, and the decline of One Nation and traditional conservative values (honour, probity, dignity, duty, and of course snobbishness and elitism etc) has allowed a procession of cads and bounders into office, who previously would have been kicked right back down again by the Old Guard. Sure, older Tories may often have been hypocrites. But younger Tories don't even have to be hypocrites (which is fortunate, since they're incapable of persuasively lying - Johnson and Hunt and Gove and the rest look like they're lying even when by sheer coincidence they're not).

Part of it is a more specifically recent thing with the rise of, should we say, Reddit Tories. I'm reliably informed this is recognised as an annoyance even within the parliamentary party itself. This brand of Tory isn't necessarily more right-wing in policies (although they do tend to be to the right of the party), but they tend to eschew discussion for one-liners, compromise for purity tests, responsibility for photo ops, and appeal to the public for appeal to the party faithful: they're louder and simpler than previous kinds; a bunch of them arrived in 2010, but apparently the 2015 and 2017 intakes were even more tilted that way. They aren't in positions of power yet (although Javid and McVey might qualify), but they're cheerleading 'their' guys, and their guys don't have to have gravitas or credibility so long as they shout very loudly the assigned slogans. Behind the MPs, these guys are steadily taking over the grassroots of the party.

And part of it is Brexit. Modern issues - Brexit, immigration - seem to favour extremists who say eye-catching things to whip up the frenzy of the mob, and to disfavour people with some connexion to reality. So politicians who are either conniving bastards or delusional idiots tend to be favoured. [Greg Clark, for instance, wouldn't be taken seriously in this race because he's a Remainer].

[Moose-tache]

Part of it is a more specifically recent thing with the rise of, should we say, Reddit Tories. I'm reliably informed this is recognised as an annoyance even within the parliamentary party itself. This brand of Tory isn't necessarily more right-wing in policies (although they do tend to be to the right of the party), but they tend to eschew discussion for one-liners, compromise for purity tests, responsibility for photo ops, and appeal to the public for appeal to the party faithful: they're louder and simpler than previous kinds; a bunch of them arrived in 2010, but apparently the 2015 and 2017 intakes were even more tilted that way. They aren't in positions of power yet (although Javid and McVey might qualify), but they're cheerleading 'their' guys, and their guys don't have to have gravitas or credibility so long as they shout very loudly the assigned slogans. Behind the MPs, these guys are steadily taking over the grassroots of the party.

Oh, hi, The Recent Past! It's me, The Near Future. Listen, you really shouldn't bother yourself about the impending end of democracy and the disintegration of your country into ungovernable tribes, because there's no way to stop it. Trust me, we tried. You should really just cue up some Netflix original about a Spanish cruise ship or something and drown out the screams and explosions you'll be hearing outside your window soon. And if Jeanette Beckworth offers you a cup of coffee, she's not talking about coffee, you idiot. Say yes.

[Salmoneus]

So, results in the EU elections coming through.

It should be said, only something like 50% of the vote has been reported so far, and things may still change. But highlights so far:

- the Tories have been sledgehammered. Currently on 8%, in 5th place. (a drop of 15% since last time, which was already seen as a bad result)

- but Labour have been womped as well. 3rd place, on 15%. This includes historic losses in some of their heartlands - this looks like being the worst performance for Labour in Wales in history, down to 3rd place and only 1% ahead of 4th place.

- needless to say, the Brexit Party won (31%). They took most of UKIP's vote, and then got a bit more as well.

- also a fantastic night for the Lib Dems. They beat Labour into third, getting (current projection) 21%. They actually won overall in London, where the Tories lost all their seats and Labour lost half of theirs.

- and perhaps an even better night for the Greens. They only came fourth, around 12%, but that's still a huge improvement on their previous performance.

- UKIP managed to avoid annihilation in terms of votes counts (currently 3.3%). I doubt they'll get any seats, though. After all, what's the point of them? They're the Nigel Farage party without the Nigel Farage. [particularly because Farage's new party is so policy-free that it's hard to outposition them on policies]

- probably a death knell for CHUK/TIG, who are currently on 3.6%. CHUKA himself, the Taishang Huangdi of the party, says only that he wants an 'election pact' with the Lib Dems, where the two parties agree not to run candidates against each other. [since there's nowhere where CHUK are more popular than the LDs, the LDs will just laugh at this]. However, the notional leader of the party says that what really she took away from tonight was the wonderful energy of the party and how this really feels like the start of something... but that she wants to be inside "the same vehicle" as the Lib Dems. Asked whether that meant being in "the same party", the leader decisively explained, "yeah, probably, I don't know". But she has ruled out calling herself a Lib Dem, since the priority has to be that her party must be "new". Policy issues and leadership are negotiable, but the name will have to be new. However, I'm not sure the Lib Dems will bother negotiating with them. If they can't get more than 4% in an EU election, they won't get anything at all in the general. The main function of CHUK this election turns out to have been to take at least two MEP seats away from the Lib Dems and give them to non-Remain parties. (the election is PR, but it's d'Hondt, so it's not very P).

- gains for the SNP, and I think also Plaid.

Overall, this will be seen as a resounding call for No Deal Brexit. Although numerically, the pro-Remain protest votes (Lib Dem, Greens, CHUK) will be greater than the pro-Leave protest votes (BP, UKIP).

In particular, the Tories will be scared shitless by the thought of losing all their votes to Farage.

At the same time, Labour now have a really serious decision to make: they can continue to sit on the fence and take a massive hit, or they can commit to Remain (which will result in taking a massive hit). In particular, the big losses in London are a real issue for Labour, who have been repositioning toward London and away from, eg, the Northeast. They're currently in danger of losing both their traditional supporters (to Farage) AND their more cosmopolitan voters (to the Lib Dems and Greens).

[Moose-tache]

Just like after the ho-hum results of the US election last year, the media is now full of claims that Brexit and the Tories are as good as cancelled. Since the Lib Dems and the Greens together got as many votes as the Brexit Party, one commentator at the Guardian insisted that Remainers Won This Election. This is true, if you assume that Labour and the Conservatives cancel out, and Plaid/SNP are just faithful manservants to the London (i.e. real) Remainers. But last time I checked, as far as Brexit deals are concerned, the European parliament vote is largely symbolic. And if a general election yielded the same results, a five party coalition would be needed to create a pro-Remain majority government. Not nearly as bright and rosy as most left-wing commentators would have us believe.