Bojo
- Thread starter sufi
- Start date
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
I can't decide whether it would be better for him to go as soon as possible or to limp on and hopefully get wiped out in a general election along with the rest of his party.
On the one hand he's fucking terrible, a clown and an arsehole and doing a lot of damage, on the other the Tories might be able to limp on and win another GE if they ditch him sooner rather than later and pull their 'whole new party' trick like they did after May stepped down.
On the one hand he's fucking terrible, a clown and an arsehole and doing a lot of damage, on the other the Tories might be able to limp on and win another GE if they ditch him sooner rather than later and pull their 'whole new party' trick like they did after May stepped down.
shakahislop
Well-known member
I'm not following UK politics very closely, but one of the pluses with BJ is that post-brexit he doesn't seem to actually be trying to do anything in particular, which is preferable from my perspective to the Thatcher and Cameron periods
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm in the camp of hoping he stays till the election, precisely for the damage it will do to them. If he steps down now then anyone who could conceivably replace him would be just as bad morally and ideologically but perhaps more competent and less reckless, which could be even worse.
Last edited:
shakahislop
Well-known member
Oh look at me I'm Mr Tea the worst of all the Mr Men I've got links and evidence instead of wild speculation
Yeah, it's the party as a whole that's the issue, so Boris going and the rest of them staying wouldn't be much of an improvement.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Sounds like the start of Gilbert and Sullivan song:
I've got links and evidence instead of wi-ld spec-u-lation!
Don't come to me with claims that aren't back up by a ci-tation!
shakahislop
Well-known member
Mr Evidence Based Paradigm
But then they do populist gestures to generate headlines and fight the culture war, which arguably leads to worse policy than the normal callousness i.e. sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
shakahislop
Well-known member
This feels like possibly a new and good avenue of conversation. I think starting with the basic assumption that more or less positive is going to happen with the Tories in government its a case of hoping for the least worst outcome. The gestural stuff I think mostly takes place at the level of discourse / ideas / the public imaginary. Which is important. But in terms of direct immediate consequences of the policies themselves, less directly consequential than the reshaping of the UK that hapened under both Thatcher and Cameron. Rwanda is a good example because personally (and obviously with no evidence) I don't believe it's ever going to be a big part of the UK immigration / asylum system. Time will tell. But I think it's mostly a gesture, not a real policy
shakahislop
Well-known member
It's hard to seperate my feelings from a real analysis though. Coz I came of political age in the austerity period and it was something that was targeted at people like me. So I tend to still see things through that lens fundamentally, where the most important thing politically speaking is increasing or decreasing the amount of money the government has to spend.
shakahislop
Well-known member
It is for sure
I don't know if I agree with your argument here. A lot of Brexit is gestural - rhetoric, hot air and outright lies but where it collides with reality it makes a real mess i.e. the continual unresolved fannying around about the NI protocol. I guess what I'm saying is the gestural isn't consequence free. They can't admit they were just making shit up, so have to try and follow through and make the fantastical real.
Last edited: