Zompist Bboard Again

Truss has resigned.

And there's reports that they might plan to shorten the usual succession process?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:45 am And there's reports that they might plan to shorten the usual succession process?

I haven’t seen that yet, but it makes some sense to me. It’s not like a respectable political party can be left leaderless, after all.

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:50 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:45 am And there's reports that they might plan to shorten the usual succession process?

I haven’t seen that yet, but it makes some sense to me. It’s not like a respectable political party can be left leaderless, after all.

I haven't done the maths yet, but I have the impression that, if they'd use the usual procedures, Truss might end up being a PM-who-has-already-resigned for longer than she was a regular PM.

Anyway, what kind of person would run in a Tory leadership contest right now? I mean, for a chance to win what?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:53 am Anyway, what kind of person would run in a Tory leadership contest right now? I mean, for a chance to win what?

Good question. Apparently Hunt has already indicated he has no interest in the role, which in my opinion shows a considerable amount of common sense.

So there are now reports that Boris Johnson will try to make a comeback?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 9:37 am So there are now reports that Boris Johnson will try to make a comeback?

Oh yes; he's the most popular choice with the Party membership, and the only one with a proper mandate, even if it's gone a bit mildewy by now.

It's been assumed for weeks that his game plan was to destabilise Truss and then replace her.

But will he have to come home from his holiday to participate?

I find the lack of fresh elections at this point rather scandalous.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:33 pm I find the lack of fresh elections at this point rather scandalous.

The Conservatives don't have to have an election till January 2025. If they called one right now they would almost certainly lose in a landslide. You don't need a degree in punditology to see what they'll do: wait it out, on the theory that two years from now things will surely look better.

When they're already removing the bottom of the barrel and scraping below that to find PMs, that theory is hard to believe. But a ray of misguided hope still beats a historic loss.

I feel like there ought to be a legal requirement that a leadership change requires a fresh mandate, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the Nasty Party trying to struggle through.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:18 pm I feel like there ought to be a legal requirement that a leadership change requires a fresh mandate, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the Nasty Party trying to struggle through.

Well, the one plus side to the way the UK is run is that if someone as mind-bogglingly incompetent as Truss becomes PM, they can be thrown out, and quickly. How many times would that have been useful in the US? (*)

The minus side is that someone as mind-bogglingly incompetent as Truss can be chosen as PM.

(*) OK, it's not as great as it sounds. California has that for governors, it's done in a way that favors challengers, and it just encourages shenanigans.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:01 pm The minus side is that someone as mind-bogglingly incompetent as Truss can be chosen as PM.

Is she really more mind-bogglingly incompetent than, say, George W. Bush? Or any standard right-wing politician, really? I mean, the thing that ultimately lost her her job was an attempt to pass tax cuts for the rich. How many of today's right-wing politicians wouldn't try to do that when given the chance?

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:01 pm (*) OK, it's not as great as it sounds. California has that for governors, it's done in a way that favors challengers, and it just encourages shenanigans.

A lot of states have a process for recall elections with varying degrees of difficulty and/or pain and suffering. I remember going to university in Cow World Wisconsin during the 2011 recall, and it's still a process prone to shenanigans. (I think California's might be easiest to launch...)

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:18 pm I feel like there ought to be a legal requirement that a leadership change requires a fresh mandate, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the Nasty Party trying to struggle through.

In looking at semi-recent history, it's gone both ways in terms of new PMs after leadership spills calling elections, but normally there's a wait of some kind, probably so people at least know what the new person stands for.

• John Major, after winning the 1990 spill against Margaret Thatcher, only had a bit over year left until an election was due, so no need to call one ahead of schedule. Notably, Thatcher called all her elections ahead of schedule.
• Gordon Brown didn't call an election early after taking over from Tony Blair in 2007, but that was more a "transfer of power" rather than a leadership election, and Brown waited until he had to for calling the 2010 election. Blair also called all his elections early.
• After Teresa May became Conservative leader in 2016 after David Cameron ran away, she waited a year to call an early election, but this was due to Brexit (and her call for an early election backfired).
• Boris Johnson was perhaps the "exception" in that he had an election four months after taking charge, though that was due to the circumstances of Brexit and not having a majority in the House of Commons to enact his will (plus the prorogation controversy so soon after taking power!).

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:28 am

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:01 pm The minus side is that someone as mind-bogglingly incompetent as Truss can be chosen as PM.

Is she really more mind-bogglingly incompetent than, say, George W. Bush? Or any standard right-wing politician, really? I mean, the thing that ultimately lost her her job was an attempt to pass tax cuts for the rich.

Not at all-- as you say, what politician loses their job due to tax cuts? She lost her job for tanking the economy and the Tories' electoral prospects.
* The pound crashed to its lowest value ever.
* The stock market was starting to plummet.
* UK bonds were sold off so quickly that the Bank of England had to step in, buying £65 billion. This also threatened certain pensions.
* Mortgage rates went from something like 2% to 6%; new homeowners or those with adjustable rates would pay significantly more.
* Electoral Calculus, a UK poll of polls, predicted if an election were held today Labour would have 500 seats (up from 203) and the Tories less than 50... the official opposition would actually be the SNP.

Add to that the existing crisis: inflation at 10%, high energy prices, the ongoing shrinking of the UK economy due to Brexit.

And add to that Truss's clumsy treatment of her own party: filling her cabinet with cronies, firing Kwarteng, clinging to and then reversing her mini-budget, pushing fracking for oil that was enormously unpopular. You have to be especially incompetent to become the shortest serving PM in UK history.

Now, it's a fair question to ask why the markets hated Truss but loved Reagan and Thatcher. I can't say for sure, but all in all, it's not 1981 any more. One thing Reagan had going for him was Paul Volcker's painful anti-inflation measures. He basically sent the economy into a recession, but inflation plummeted from 15% to 3%. That helped Reagan do a bunch of other things: cut taxes, break labor unions, lower regulation. It's also worth noting that all this did not make Reagan popular: his approval rating plummeted from over 60% when he took office to under 40% two years later. But the economy started improving, well enough to give him a second term.

Truss had no such victories to point to, and no good case for increasing public debt and inequality during a time of high inflation. Truss, who worships Thatcher, obviously thought it was 1980 again, but the markets didn't agree; her tax cuts looked simply fiscally irresponsible rather than solving any problem the UK currently has.

I would rather like to see how a Labour supermajority with an opposition SNP would go. If I were in Charles's shoes, the temptation to try and dissolve this clearly dysfunctional and unpopular Parliament would be sore.

My sources at Westmister tell me that the following ad will be placed with all major news sources:

Do you have unconventional ideas about the economy ?
Do you want to stick it to the experts?
Do you want to test how resilient the United Kingdom is?

Congratulations - you may qualifiy for our "Revolving Prime Minister" program!

Attractions:
- A meeting with His Majesty the King
- Sleepover at No. 10 Downing Street (One night guaranteed)
- Nominate your buddies to cabinet

Interested? Apply at the Conservative and Unionist Party forthwith!

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments ... _original/

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:55 amI would rather like to see how a Labour supermajority with an opposition SNP would go. If I were in Charles's shoes, the temptation to try and dissolve this clearly dysfunctional and unpopular Parliament would be sore.

Would that the Labour Party hadn't veered back to center.

I'd also like to see a Labour supermajority with opposition Lib Dems, which would likely happen not long after the former scenario ends with Scottish independence.

Fakir Dog is now sole candidate for Leader of the Conservative Party.