The Tories are not fit for purpose, but will, I suspect, dig in with the denials and as to the new leader: I share your doubts about Badenoch, whom I have never fully trusted, but I think she'll be the shoo-in,as all boxes ticked.
Suella has already been abandoned by Danny Kruger and my hope is that she'll join Reform.
The dreadful Osborne once confirmed that there was no intention of reducing immigration,which just shows the contempt in which we are held by so many in the establishment.
Now we face the Starmeramas, as I call them : apparently hordes of young men are now awaiting their chance at Calais, convinced that the dinghy route will achieve even greater success.
Finally, we now have the likelihood of some serious parliamentary disruption and agitprop, as the 4 Islamist independents join forces with fellow traveller Worzel Gummidge-(Corbyn)- and the Green/ SNP sympathisers; a possible grouping of 18 hard Left/ Islamist MPs.
Will the 5 Reform MPs get a fair hearing and will they be at risk from attacks and death threats?Recall the fate of the late David Amess.
The Gallic political eruptions might well give our own troublemakers a boost.
Their objectives are revolutionary. The fact that they choose to pursue them within the system rather then with arms doesn’t alter that. As per Gramsci, their ultimate goal will be most effectively achieved by patience through “the great march through the institutions”.
Alright, that's pretty reasonable actually. Thank you for pointing out that "revolutions" are, after all, just big changes; they don't have to be achieved through violence. I would still argue against the Marxist label though. The SNP, whilst broadly "left of centre", contains within it a significant spectrum of opinion that most parties simply do not have (Take Kate Forbes for example, she is hardly a Marxist). John Maclean, THE Scottish Marxist, would not have joined the SNP today.
Who said it wasn’t? However, unlike the SNP and Greens it wasn’t a single issue front for any other mysterious or sinister venture in the way that the other pair manifestly are. It did what it said on the tin; indeed many people complained when UKIP campaigned for Westminster seats pre 2016 that they didn’t have anything much to say about anything else! I’d say that was their virtue rather than vice.
Erm: dangerous blokes gaming the system to be banged up in women's prisons; de facto Open Borders- yes just as bad in rUK; longest, hardest,most draconian and destructive lockdowns- for which we're still paying; transgenderism in schools; the repudiation of the Cass report ; freebies for everyone regardless of assets and income: similarities to what Jean-Luc Melenchon has in store for France; decarbonisation regardless of cost and consequences; a rather creative approach to fiscal and monetary policy.
This to me, is hard Left, but we shall disagree,which is still allowed at the present time.
Why should it recover? It has no god given right to do so. Its behaved so abominable it doesn't deserve redemption. Perhaps destruction and a rebirth is its only chance of salvation. Liberals were last official opposition in 1906. Why should tories be any different?
Interesting analysis. I accept the point about allowing the membership an equal vote in selecting the next leader, but there’s wisdom in the party hierarchy maintaining a degree of control.
Giving members unfettered ability to elect new leadership led Labour into the Corbyn years and the Tories into the Truss month-and-a-bit. I’m not suggesting the parliamentary party is any less fuckwitted than the members but they are somewhat more informed.
Unfortunately for the Conservatives there's a significant ideological gap between the membership and the parliamentary party. Tory members tend to be somewhat to the LEFT of MPs on economic issues, and a long way to the RIGHT on social ones. The same applies to Tory voters who aren't members, actually to a rather greater degree.
The Tories have got away with this for a long time, and it's clear people like Ellwood think they can get away with it again. Their problem is that now there's a party that's somewhat to the left of Tory MPs on the economy and substantially to the right on social issues - in other words, a party that's offering precisely what most Tory members and voters ACTUALLY WANT.
Truss' problem was that she was stitched up by the bureaucratic blob more than anything else. I'm not saying she was perfect or anything close to it, but the blob and their media allies absolutely hated her and leaked accordingly
Suella would be a great choice.
I wish the more right leaning members of the Tories would just defect and leave the party as the minor Labour Party.
Agreed
I was surprised that no red wall seats became reform seats to be honest. I strongly suspect that they will turn reform at the next election
I wrote a post yesterday that included some UK predictions - https://open.substack.com/pub/ombreolivier/p/nailing-my-colours-to-the-mast?r=7yrqz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I think it mostly agrees with you.
The Tories are not fit for purpose, but will, I suspect, dig in with the denials and as to the new leader: I share your doubts about Badenoch, whom I have never fully trusted, but I think she'll be the shoo-in,as all boxes ticked.
Suella has already been abandoned by Danny Kruger and my hope is that she'll join Reform.
The dreadful Osborne once confirmed that there was no intention of reducing immigration,which just shows the contempt in which we are held by so many in the establishment.
Now we face the Starmeramas, as I call them : apparently hordes of young men are now awaiting their chance at Calais, convinced that the dinghy route will achieve even greater success.
Finally, we now have the likelihood of some serious parliamentary disruption and agitprop, as the 4 Islamist independents join forces with fellow traveller Worzel Gummidge-(Corbyn)- and the Green/ SNP sympathisers; a possible grouping of 18 hard Left/ Islamist MPs.
Will the 5 Reform MPs get a fair hearing and will they be at risk from attacks and death threats?Recall the fate of the late David Amess.
The Gallic political eruptions might well give our own troublemakers a boost.
The SNP are by no means “hard left”.
The SNP, together with the Greens, are outright nutcase Marxist revolutionaries who have built their support bases on separate single issue platforms.
And was UKIP not also a single-issue party?
Their objectives are revolutionary. The fact that they choose to pursue them within the system rather then with arms doesn’t alter that. As per Gramsci, their ultimate goal will be most effectively achieved by patience through “the great march through the institutions”.
Alright, that's pretty reasonable actually. Thank you for pointing out that "revolutions" are, after all, just big changes; they don't have to be achieved through violence. I would still argue against the Marxist label though. The SNP, whilst broadly "left of centre", contains within it a significant spectrum of opinion that most parties simply do not have (Take Kate Forbes for example, she is hardly a Marxist). John Maclean, THE Scottish Marxist, would not have joined the SNP today.
Who said it wasn’t? However, unlike the SNP and Greens it wasn’t a single issue front for any other mysterious or sinister venture in the way that the other pair manifestly are. It did what it said on the tin; indeed many people complained when UKIP campaigned for Westminster seats pre 2016 that they didn’t have anything much to say about anything else! I’d say that was their virtue rather than vice.
Explain how politicians working within the parliamentary system are “revolutionaries”?
Agreed
Erm: dangerous blokes gaming the system to be banged up in women's prisons; de facto Open Borders- yes just as bad in rUK; longest, hardest,most draconian and destructive lockdowns- for which we're still paying; transgenderism in schools; the repudiation of the Cass report ; freebies for everyone regardless of assets and income: similarities to what Jean-Luc Melenchon has in store for France; decarbonisation regardless of cost and consequences; a rather creative approach to fiscal and monetary policy.
This to me, is hard Left, but we shall disagree,which is still allowed at the present time.
We'll have to differ on this
Why should it recover? It has no god given right to do so. Its behaved so abominable it doesn't deserve redemption. Perhaps destruction and a rebirth is its only chance of salvation. Liberals were last official opposition in 1906. Why should tories be any different?
Interesting analysis. I accept the point about allowing the membership an equal vote in selecting the next leader, but there’s wisdom in the party hierarchy maintaining a degree of control.
Giving members unfettered ability to elect new leadership led Labour into the Corbyn years and the Tories into the Truss month-and-a-bit. I’m not suggesting the parliamentary party is any less fuckwitted than the members but they are somewhat more informed.
Unfortunately for the Conservatives there's a significant ideological gap between the membership and the parliamentary party. Tory members tend to be somewhat to the LEFT of MPs on economic issues, and a long way to the RIGHT on social ones. The same applies to Tory voters who aren't members, actually to a rather greater degree.
The Tories have got away with this for a long time, and it's clear people like Ellwood think they can get away with it again. Their problem is that now there's a party that's somewhat to the left of Tory MPs on the economy and substantially to the right on social issues - in other words, a party that's offering precisely what most Tory members and voters ACTUALLY WANT.
Truss' problem was that she was stitched up by the bureaucratic blob more than anything else. I'm not saying she was perfect or anything close to it, but the blob and their media allies absolutely hated her and leaked accordingly
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/08/the-low-key-lunacy-of-britains-new-ruling-class/
BON at his best in Spiked,one of my favourite publications.
While the Tories pick over the corpse, the lunatics are now in charge.
https://youtu.be/7aItpjF5vXc?si=hVjJrJJHfIVMGFaL
https://www.freespeechbacklash.com/
Interesting site; encouragement perhaps for those of us trying to cling on to sanity and hope for and to the lunacy.
an end to the lunacy-typo
If they wanted to be like Reform, they would be in Reform.
Quite so. I came to some very similar conclusions, with added institutional analysis.
https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/its-not-the-deep-state-its-just-bureaucracy