These are the faces people trust to keep a lid on immigration.

Alright, sorry, everyone, I didn't know a weirdo would instantly appear when I made this thread. I should have, but I didn't.

>>96262

And that's a good thing. The conservative voter base might vote for a woman, but there's no chance they'll vote for a brown. Starmer will walk it.

Thank fuck for identity politics.

>>96264
I can assure you they will. Liz Truss can't say foreigners are all rapists and parasites, because that's not PC, but all these Uncle Toms who grew up in mud huts throwing spears at aeroplanes can say absolutely anything they want. Whitey will have to fight this election with one hand behind his or her back.

But of course, the next Prime Minister will actually be Ben Wallace, because he is almost entirely scandal-free and has so far only ever been on the news when he's been heroic and great. And his skin tone is like if Mumford & Sons released their own brand of milk.

Tom Tugendhat: Silly name, looks like a carpet-bagger, 20/1
Suella Braverman: Has the exact demeanour of a woman whose mid-life crisis involves Pascal White, 40/1
Liz Truss: Acts like a primary school teacher with a mild brain injury, 8/1
Steve Baker: Clever but weird, looks like a disgraced financial advisor, too Brexity for the Brexiteers, 20/1
Rishi Sunak: Has spent too much/not enough money, is ruining the economy by not cutting/not raising taxes enough, 6/1
Sajid Javid: Slightly brown goblin, 10/1
Nadhim Zahawi: Slightly brown Alan Sugar, 14/1
Jeremy Hunt: Wrecked the NHS, 20/1
Penny Mordaunt: Big tits, Backs Our Brave Boys and Brexit, slightly too sexy for her own good, 5/1
Ben Wallace: One of Our Brave Boys, wept for Our Brave Boys when the Americans betrayed us, reassuringly bald, 2/1
All the rest: 66/1 bar

>>96266
I always think of Nadhim Zahawi as Rishi Sunak's evil twin. Ideologically, they're pretty much the same. They're both slimy climbers of the worst possible sort. But Nadhim Zahawi is bald and has a goatee, like all evil twins.

>>96265

>I can assure you they will.

I don't think so. The conservative vote is facing a demographic crisis. I'm looking into the tea leaves a bit here, but I grew up amongst these sorts of people, and every time I talk to my mum it's like channelling the noosphere of Red Wall Britain directly.

Just imagine. The voters the Tories have been in power on the back of for the last ten years have been people who "wouldn't normally vote conservative", who were largely doing it for no other reason than the bellyfeels about immigrants (which is rooted in the real life supply vs demand effect of labour oversupply but that's a tangent we needn't necessarily go down in order to understand). They got what they wanted, they got Brexit done, the massive 2019 mandate Bozza kept banging on about was entirely rooted in the public's desire to just get it over with, and now it is over with.

So the Conservatives were going to have to pull something special out of the hat in order to actually keep those voters around regardless of any other circumstances. All that talk of levelling up and what have you- People would need to have seen they were actually getting something to stick with the Tories rather than just opportunistically siding with them until were were out of the EU's evil scheming clutches. That was always unlikely, even if the government as elected in 2019 had had the absolute best intentions of actually delivering on it- And look what's happened since then. Nothing but pissing directly in the faces of those very voters for nearly three full years.

HS2 northern leg cancelled. Not a single one of those 40 hospitals has appeared. Pisstaking parties, scandal after scandal. Massive inflation. Petrol prices through the roof. Heating prices through the roof. Everyone on strike. And after all that, if all of that wasn't already enough, they want to give us a laplander as PM?

These people will never vote Tory again.

>>96268
Oh, they're definitely not winning the next election. The Conservative Party, that is. But I would suggest that all the Red Wall voters who wouldn't normally vote Conservative probably aren't paid-up members of the party, so they won't be involved in this leadership election. You know them in real life and I don't, so perhaps I am wrong on that, but I think they will be largely ignored during the selection of the next party leader. This will probably mean more targeting of the traditional Daily Telegraph types; the candidate who best appeals to those people will be leader, because only those people will be voting this time. This was always Boris's quandary: he had to please everyone who voted for him, and so many people voted for him that he not only had to appeal to the leafy retired homeowners, but he also had to simultaneously be the man the traditional Labour voters wanted. He had to be Conservative and Labour at the same time, and this is why the party has descended into such massive internal conflict. Perhaps the Conservative membership will take into account their next leader's Norf appeal, but the demographics of the only people voting for the leader are far more Radio 4 than Talksport on this occasion.

>>96268

>These people will never vote Tory again.

They were never going to vote Tory again, regardless of the next Tory leader. The question is whether they're ever going to vote again. The kind of people who voted Tory for the first time in 2019 aren't necessarily aware that Labour and the Conservatives are different things, or that the Conservatives have been in power for the last 12 years.

Savile is probably coming back. He'll split the Tory vote, but I'm not sure that's a price worth paying to have to look at his odious face.

>>96269

Follow the posts back ladm9, the original claim was about how the public won't vote for a brown in a GE, not that the conservative membership won't choose a brown as leader.

>>96268
>The voters the Tories have been in power on the back of for the last ten years have been people who "wouldn't normally vote conservative"
This seems slightly idealistic. If you look back before Blair, the natural state of the country is to vote Conservative. People who don't normally vote Conservative are, traditionally, irrelevant unless they do something mad like vote SNP, or unless Conservative voters go Liberal or Labour in sufficient numbers to let Labour slip in. The government might've annoyed the red wall, but the whole point of the red wall seats was that they were places Labour tended to have held since Chamberlain was going on about peace in our time and that didn't stop Churchill or Macmillan or Thatcher or Major.

Now on the flipside: Maybe there's a demographic I'm overlooking, the of cases like Kensington-going-Red that Labour've been building up, which means we've quietly broken with our traditional distribution of votes in a way that stands to Labour's longer term advantage. If that happens (or, indeed, has been happening) then the Tories need to pick up traditional Labour seats to offset the losses.
(Actually, it'd be interesting to know which traditionally blue seats, if any, went red in 1997 and stayed that way from then on.)

>>96272

>This seems slightly idealistic. If you look back before Blair, the natural state of the country is to vote Conservative. People who don't normally vote Conservative are, traditionally, irrelevant unless they do something mad like vote SNP, or unless Conservative voters go Liberal or Labour in sufficient numbers to let Labour slip in.

The traditional logic of elections has been completely upended, but not everyone has realised it, least of all people in the media.

In the 1980s, you could reliably predict how someone would vote based on what their dad did for work. There were exceptions of course, but if your dad was a brickie you'd almost certainly vote for Labour and if your dad was an accountant you'd almost certainly vote Tory. That's no longer true - there's now almost no connection between traditional markers of social class and how people vote.

The biggest predictors now are age and level of education. Young people with degrees overwhelmingly vote Labour, older people without degrees overwhelmingly vote Tory. That creates a cities/towns split based on human geography - young people who go to university in a city tend to stay there. Dominic Cummings figured this out years before most people in politics, which was key to winning both the 2016 referendum and the 2019 general election.

Corbyn gets blamed for Labour's defeat in 2019, but he is much more of a symptom than a cause. It wasn't that Corbyn alienated core Labour voters - he represented what is now the core Labour vote, namely younger people with degrees. He alienated people who might have been core Labour voters twenty years ago but are now leaning heavily Tory. Setting aside the problems specific to Corbyn, Labour failed to recognise this shift and campaigned with the wrong messages in the wrong places, winning votes they didn't need and losing votes that they did. Cummings recognised that places like Workington and Leigh weren't Labour strongholds any more and would be easy pickings for the Tories if they just put the bare minimum of effort into trying to gain them.

The inverse of this is that a lot of wealthy suburbs in the south east are creeping towards Labour's demographic. They might have been solid Tory seats since time immemorial, but young professionals moving out of London are starting to make those seats look more like Islington. If Labour catch on to this and the next Tory leadership doesn't, they could pick up dozens of seats easily by simply recognising that they're now winnable.

That electoral strategy might not be very appealing to die-hard socialists, but that's the point - you can't win an election by making yourself even more popular amongst your hardcore loyalists, because everyone only gets one vote. You can only win an election by having broad appeal and the easiest people for Labour to win over are educated, cosmopolitan, pro-European voters who are small-c conservatives, always used to vote Tory but feel alienated from a party that is increasingly populist and nationalist. Labour are looking very strong going into the next election, but they have a clear path to a landslide if they recognise that their key battlegrounds aren't where everyone thinks.

My dark horse is Tobias "Westminster Attack Hero" Ellwood, but I'm hoping it's Mordaunt for obvious reasons.

They've both got better military credentials than baldy.

>>96276
Is he even running? I guess most of them are. A quick a scan doesn't reveal him to be a complete loon, which is all I'm hoping to avoid. I've no idea how the Tory leadership contest actually works, but I think they can the no-hopers as it goes along, right? I don't think one of the nuttier ones can win with 8% because the field's so packed, but Christ knows right now. We're hurtling towards a financial crisis, caused by an already present cost of living crisis, no matter who wins, the least we can do is avoid some culture war shitehawk or religious freak presiding over it all. If anyone thinks I want to talk about the council's bogs while my diabetic nan's worried about turning the central heating on I'll glass them; .gs poster, prime minister, I'll get them.

Ben Wallace has decided not to run for leader after all: https://twitter.com/BWallaceMP/status/1545732698567737344

I'd just like to admire his 4D chess move to pull out and leave only nutters to ruin the party in the long term. What a great man he is.

>>96266
You might want to look at the whole 'lemon curd' connection with Jeffrey Archer. Nadhim Zahawi won't be PM.

>>96268
>HS2 northern leg cancelled. Not a single one of those 40 hospitals has appeared. Pisstaking parties, scandal after scandal. Massive inflation. Petrol prices through the roof. Heating prices through the roof. Everyone on strike. And after all that, if all of that wasn't already enough, they want to give us a laplander as PM?

You're nearly there. They know people so desperately want things but they also know they would be fools to actually let the donkey have the carrot. I do question how much wasn't delivered simply because of arguments between No10 and No11 over the balance sheet but in the grand scheme of things you really have to wonder why anyone votes.

>The conservative vote is facing a demographic crisis

Never heard those words before.

>>96277
Why is your diabatic nan flicking the heating on during a heatwave?

>>96280
>Why is your diabatic nan flicking the heating on during a heatwave?
Do you think the leadership contest will be over within a week or something? I'm talking about the future of government.

ARE Priti has started to lay out her policy successes on twitter
https://twitter.com/pritipatel

Imagine it, our American friends will surely celebrate a woman of colour becoming Prime Minister as a victory against racism and the patriarchy.

>>96281
1.5 weeks.
>The Conservative Party committee overseeing the contest to select British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's replacement will look to whittle it down to two names by July 20, one of its members said on Saturday.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-conservative-party-looking-speed-up-leadership-contest-committee-member-2022-07-09/

>>96283
>"I think that we will be able to frame a process to actually come up with two names by the time parliament goes down on the 20th of July," he said. "We should have an answer by the time of the party conference in October and maybe before that."
I've sent texts longer than that article, you clown. The least you could do is finish reading it before acting like you can inform anyone about what's going on. On the plus side you have displayed the required intellectual rigour to secure a mid-level cabinet position, congrats.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tory-leadership-election-when-contest-start-how-long-contenders-explained-1730986?ico=in-line_link
>It is thought that the timetable, agreed by the 1922 Committee and Tory Party HQ, could see Mr Johnson replaced as leader by early September, despite initial suggestions that he could remain in place until October.
>i reported that Sir Graham is likely to recommend a quicker timetable, with a six-week leadership contest that would finish when Parliament returns from recess.
>This would mean the election is a similar length to the process to replace Theresa May in 2019, which took about 40 days.

Zawahi looks like an evil professor from a Marvel film, and for that reason I shan't be voting for him.

>>96283
Is it just me or does Liz Truss look like a bit Thatchery in that picture?

These people look more like the cast of a low effort ITV knock-off of The Apprentice than rulers of a country. I really can't imagine how they're going to cling to power after this.

Has there ever been a faster turnaround from overwhelming majority to absolute shambles in British politics?

>>96286
She certainly looks absolutely nothing like Liz Truss, although I don't really get Thatcher vibes. If she looks like anyone, it's Fanny Cradock.

Wallace is out, so it looks like our next PM will have big knockers and an air of sexual intrigue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62106884

>>96287
Gordon Brown if you do some creative accounting with inherited majorities, but that's about it. He's managed to underperform May, Callaghan and Heath.

Zahawi's under investigation for dodgy tax dealings. It's all falling into place for Mordaunt.

Are any of our intrepid newsheads asking Shapps about all that bullying-until-suicide he enabled and the scams he used to run, pretended he didn't, and then copped to it anyway? You'd think the Conservatives would be able to have at most one two-bit crook currently sitting as or competing to be the next PM, but remarkably that's beyond them.

I'm going to say it: I don't fancy Penny Mordaunt. She's oddly wide, not like she's fat but just like she's been stretched sideways somehow.

But then, Suella Braverman pronounces her own name wrong, and Kemi Badenoch isn't fit at all, so I guess that only leaves Liz Truss among the lady candidates.

>>96293
It's ultimately a vote on whether the nation prefers tits (Mordaunt) or arse (Patel).

The Tory leadership process is a bit weird: the MPs whittle it down to the top two candidates, and then the party members get to vote on them.

This leads to some odd incentives, as this article in the Spectator points out:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-the-tories-can-avoid-a-leadership-election-stitch-up

Everyone agrees that Jeremy Hunt has no chance, which means that everyone wants him to be on the ballot, along with their preferred candidate.

So it's really not that much about who will be popular with the gammons in the shires - it will come down to whoever the MPs choose amongst themselves, plus a no-hoper.

Why do the all keep mentioning woke? Is it some massive issue that I am not aware of? And what does it really mean? Just stuff like toilets for transsexuals and that sort? I'm so confused that I started suspecting that I am in a comedy simulation.

>>96296
Woke is the latest version of PC gawn mad. Why come up with anything of substance when you can stand against something as nebulous as woke nonsense? It's not like they can outright say "there's too many black people on the TV these days."

>>96296
They can't say they've worked wonders with the economy, because they haven't. They can't coast to victory on having Got Brexit Done™, because the centrists won that one and it changed absolutely nothing. Nothing has been levelled up, and yet taxes haven't gone down. There was some Prime Minister many decades ago, possibly in the 1960s, who was reelected basically by asking, "Are things better now than when I was first elected?", and it worked, because for a lot of people, they were.

But also, the intense reactionary disapproval towards letting a man in a dress go in the women's changing rooms at the swimming pool with your daughter is pretty much the only thing that all Conservative voters can agree on now. It's the base level of Conservatism. Start there, and worry about actual policies later, preferably once another candidate has announced their policies, and you've been able to gauge how popular they are. Don't act; react. It's exactly the level of leadership I would expect from these professional bootlickers.

>>96296
It doesn't really mean anything while gesturing at all sorts of things. Arrogant trendy uni students and their fancy diets. Gender neutral bathrooms. That one headline you half remember about "birthing persons". Labour councils not giving you black bin bags because it's racist. (I remember when that one was called political correctness.) The BBC letting people with comedy interpretations of regional accents speak. The highway code changing to give cyclists right of way. People being sacked for their tweets, not that you've ever had it to happen to anyone you personally know or moderated your own insane tweeting in response, but you know it's out there. Black Lives Matter. Keir Starmer's stupid voice. Women wearing trousers. The way all those adverts have weird multi racial families. When they made you wear a mask in the shop. 20 something women with an inflated sense of self-worth. That stupid corporate artstyle all the websites have nowadays that looks like a shit version of the deformed clipart people from Word 2003. That sickly feeling you get when you look at some hobby and find some gay bloke half your age but twice your skill level because you never really put the effort in.

Unless, of course, you like any of those things, or you don't think they fit with your personal interpretation of a general vibe, in which case that's not woke. Stare into the inkblot and tell me about your mum and dad, then vote for me to be Tory leader and I'll legislate so that you can fuck and kill 'em in whichever order you so please.

>>96296

It's the term adopted a few years ago by the intersectional liberal post-left. Like every other term they have adopted over the years, it quickly turned into a pejorative, because absolutely nobody likes them.

When used by a conservative, it's just a vague reactionary gesture towards fisherpersons (but not the TE flavour of fisherperson), trans people, BLM supporters, and so on.

>>96297
>Why come up with anything of substance when you can stand against something as nebulous as woke nonsense? It's not like they can outright say "there's too many black people on the TV these days."

Woke comes from the left though. The clue is in the positive term itself, to be 'woke' as opposed to asleep (and ignorant). It's not without good criticism as many 'woke' things are just a weird uncomfortable form of, if not racism then something else. And I quite like a good kip.

There's now a whole industry of people who spend all day coming up with this bollocks and popularising it. Terms like 'equity' replacing equality in a kind of slow unpicking of the enlightenment that normal people resent. It's easy to tap into this for political ends and relatively cheap to push against as it's almost entirely vacuous and melts under a microscope - for example when unconscious bias faced pushback and everyone realised it's a pseudoscience that called innocent people racists and whose creator never wanted it to be imposed in the workplace.

I'm losing my thread but when pitching to the Conservative Party you obviously want to be 1. Tax shy (although Rishi seems to be more pragmatic) 2. Willing to piss off vegan cyclists that want to nationalise your bathroom.

>>96298
What does any of this have to do with winning a party election?

>>96301
All of this. The thing people forget is that the candidates are being whittled down by the current crop of Tory MPs, and the final decision between two will be made by fully paid-up Tory members.

Basically, in order to understand the forces involved, imagine that the head of the Department of Health was up for election, but only meth addicts get to vote. Suddenly, most of the candidates promising free meth makes sense.

>>96301
I could have sworn that "woke" was, for at least a time, some weird conspiracy thing. I remember videos on YouTube of the rapper Vinnie Paz, who is roughly on a par with David Icke once he gets going, and all the comments were praising him for being woke to how the world really is, while so many other rappers were depressingly "slept". This might have been his song about "the skeletons on the moon, and how they cloned Barack Hussein Obama in a test tube".

Here's the song, if you'd like to scroll through thousands of YouTube comments by mentally ill people:

Anyway, to answer your question about how these things matter in a party election, remember that the last vote gets handled by the party members, who probably won't be as involved in the tactical grappling that MPs worry about. There's also every possibility that there will be a general election soon even if the Conservatives don't want that, just because Labour are going to start calling for one every week once we're all taking orders from World King Saj. And World King Saj would like to start his campaigning early.

>>96303

I think it started out as just meaning enlightened, in the sense of being educated (usually self-educated, so applied to conspiracy theorists as much as anything).

I'm going to bash together a theory out of thin air: The type of people "woke" is mainly used to describe never called themselves woke. It's used to describe what were called "SJWs" until that went out of fashion, but conveniently it went out of fashion during one of BLM's peaks. Since many BLM activists would call themselves "woke" and many "SJWs" would support BLM (and equally: many "Anti-SJWs" would oppose BLM), it was very easy to slam the two together even though SJWs, who did describe themselves with the language of "social justice", never actually used "woke" to describe themselves. (Which would've been both profoundly awkward and cultural appropriation from AAVE.)
Maybe "Woke SJWs" was the intermediate evolutionary stage.

>>96303
>just because Labour are going to start calling for one every week once we're all taking orders from World King Saj

I'm not so sure about that, we've already had one two changes of leadership and a new GE hasn't been front and centre of Labour's messaging. You can last point to Brown but that was quite exceptional as the party didn't vote and he cancelled his own election.

That's not to say that Labour won't call for one on Wednesday but it would be a very brave half of the Conservative Party who would have to defy the whip for it to pass.

>>96303

The original meaning of woke before white middle class people on Twitter started calling themselves it, was a quite specifically black thing. It originated in the 70s/80s with the old guard Black Panther types, about being aware of things like the CIA selling drugs in black communities to fund their South American operations. So ironically enough, you could say it was culturally appropriated.

>The phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in a recording by Lead Belly and later by Erykah Badu. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#Origins_and_usage

It's an Americanism and therefore automatically wrong. What we need is our own British form of racial awareness, one that represents the unique cultural experience of minorities in Britain - I propose S-Clubbers.

>>96305

>The type of people "woke" is mainly used to describe never called themselves woke

Yes, they did, and they always say this too. You'll notice they've finally figured out it's best not to stick to any consistent label though, because every one they've tried so far (SJW was the one before woke) has been turned against them.

The really interesting thing about it is that genuine, honest to god card carrying wokies are pretty rare. Much rarer than the reactionaries who rely on them as a bogeyman to build a platform around, certainly- But they do exist. It's just that where they do exist, they tend to be well connected academics, journalists, and PMC social climbers. They carry an outsized influence within their sphere, and while their effects on the world outside that sphere may often be overstated, the dichotomy between the ingroup and the outgroup is certainly something that contributes to the sense of polarisation in modern social/political discourse.

I mean, just read an American rag like the NYT or WaPo. It's hard to imagine that's at all representative of the average American's views. Much like our own Graun opinion section, it's full of total waffle it's hard to imagine the everyday person giving a fuck about, but in the social circles these people come up in (journalism being one of those fields still entirely absent any reliable way for working class people to break into) presenting oneself as progressive is essential, their own way of reckoning an opposition to the dominant centre-right establishment without confronting the uncomfortable fact they're all exactly the same kind of spoiled trust fund brats.

But I digress.

Overall my point is that in real terms, "woke" people are a very small niche cultural demographic, but they tend to constitute a segment of society that wields disproportionate influence, with the ultimate outcome that we simultaneously have it pushed down our throats constantly, despite the fact none of it is really all that commonplace in reality; and that it frustrates the effort of more grounded materialist opposition to the status quo to have its voice heard.

>>96309
>Yes, they did, and they always say this too.
It's a prick move, but I'd like you to produce proof: Go dig up some white acrobat accounts circa 2018-20 calling themselves "Woke" without irony. Maybe as a cheap second best, dig up a newspaper or magazine article doing it before it became a term of abuse. If you want to play on hard mode: do so in a context independent of American racial issues. Find a white girl saying she's woke on gender. I can't say I actually expect you to do either (I'd probably tell you to fuck off if you asked me) but it's what I'd need to see to believe it - I've seen an countless cases of people who came close enough to calling themselves SJWs (usually just "social justice", the 'warrior' part being less common but not an unreasonable extension) but not a single 'woke'. I've a passing familiarity with most types of digital nutter and that's just one I've never seen.
It's not even a phrase that carries very well for that sort of self-identification. "I'm a social justice advocate" is something I'd still find half acceptable in a bio today. "I'm a social justice warrior" would be very antiquated irony, but I can run with it. "I'm Woke" doesn't really work. "The Social Justice Community" perhaps, but "The Woke Community" is a band name.

Though I'd like to propose an alternative candidate on the etymology: Via the phrase "Woke capitalism" or "Corporate Wokeness". A similar flow though: BLM > Awkward Pepsi Advertising tries to solve racism > Woke Capital > Woke. Never once passing through a white mouth without irony on the brain or dollar signs in the eyes.

>>96305
The biggest, and maybe only, difference I see and hear between "woke" and "SJW" is that I don't remember mainstream, national, politcians arguing back and to about who was more of an SJW. It's very insidious how this bollocks goes mainstream. Almost no one, and I mean that literally, in the UK would have used the term to describe themselves. Now the future PM is likely wielding it as a weapon against his or her rivals.

ARE YOU BACKING BRITAIN?

>>96310

I'm obviously not going to jump through your ridiculous hoops but I will give you my word that I distinctly remember a brief period where online nutters would put it in their bios and what have you. It was always in that context of how like, they have three or four bullet points about themselves with emojis, you know, like how girls on dating apps put:

homeowner 🏘️
dog mum 🐶
cocktails 🍸

I distinctly remember matching a girl on Tinder around 2016 who had it in her bio. Previously I had assumed it was a more general term meaning someone was skeptical of authority/mainstream media; I remember this instance clearly because the conversation I had with her was the specific moment I realised it actually meant someone is a wanker.

>>96310
The rabbit hole deepens: https://splinternews.com/how-woke-went-from-black-activist-watchword-to-teen-int-1793853989
>"Woke" can also refer, mockingly, to (white) people whose perspectives on race change suddenly after learning about historical injustice. (e.g. "You talked to Brad recently? He read some Ta-Nehesi Coates and now he thinks he's woke.")
Circa 2016!
You've even got SJWs doing using it as an insult! https://jezebel.com/world-weeps-in-gratitude-for-woke-hungarian-who-did-7-t-1751448258 It's "political correctness" all over again!

Then you've the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/earning-the-woke-badge.html which is interesting because it starts with the implication it's something people want to be, but pretty quickly catches on to that negativity. (My current explanation for never seeing it used unironically: For the 15 minutes it was a positive, it was like "cool" - you don't say how cool you are if you're actually cool.)
>Defanged of its political connotations, “stay woke” is the new “plugged in.” In January, MTV announced “woke” as a trendy new slice of teen slang. As Brock said, “The original cultural meaning of ‘stay woke’ gets lost in the shuffle.”
>And so those who try to signal their wokeness by saying “woke” have revealed themselves to be very unwoke indeed. Now black cultural critics have retooled “woke” yet again, adding a third layer that claps back at the appropriators. “Woke” now works as a dig against those who claim to be culturally aware and yet are, sadly, lacking in self-awareness. In a sharp essay for The Awl, Maya Binyam coined the term “Woke Olympics,” a “kind of contest” in which white players compete to “name racism when it appears” or condemn “fellow white folk who are lagging behind.”

Go back before 2016 and it's practically dead. You get https://blavity.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-woke where a black woman writes about what it means and that's about it. Disappointingly, a look for acrobat pages only gave me "Woke up this morning..." type posts. I wanted some mid-2010s nostalgia. (And I can say: I am woke to how depressing that phrase is.)

>>96314

We've no evidence aliens didn't build the pyramids either lad, stop embarrassing yourself.

People definitely called themselves woke, it was very brief and almost immediately become uncool as soon as the other side (mainly /pol/ in those days) got hold of it, but it happened. I don't know why you're so obsessed with this. What point are you trying to prove?

SJW was more likely a pejorative from the very start, and likewise with the counterpart label of "alt right", I don't think anyone ever went up to Alt Right Headquarters for their membership card (it had a picture of Pepe the Frog on it). But people certainly did call themselves woke, once upon a time.

>>96312
Jesus wept.

>>96316

It is absolutely fucking mental, but I think it might just be perfectly attuned to the target audience.

Also this:

>>96315
"People" is too broad a category. Of course people did - black people. The unicorn I'm hunting is a white person doing it without irony, running along with the idea that "Woke" becoming a near synonym of "SJW" owes more to confabulation and misinterpreted jest than to actual self-identification. (Although Black SJWs could call themselves woke, the archetypal SJW is white.)
Another part of is trying to see how the term became deracialised over time. Not everything is about making some deep intellectual point - sometimes it's just an excuse to dig back through the rubble of the last 5 years doing something stupid like looking at how people you'd never have anything to do with were using words you'd never say.

"Social Justice Warrior" was ( https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/12387-live-hope-at-the-hideout/ ) and still is ( https://law.duke.edu/news/mcallaster-leaves-legacy-transformative-clinician-social-justice-warrior-and-policy-advocate/ ) occasionally used as a straightforward lionisation. I suspect it came to be an insult through some degree of ironic usage (self-describing yourself as a warrior is a bit self-aggrandizing) but the "social justice" part of it was original - people would definitely go around saying they were into social justice. That's why I find it interesting.

>>96315
No; I'm with him. I was reading well-known iconic bastion of wokeness cracked.com every day throughout the entire 2010s. If anyone was going to promote wokeness, they would have. They might have done it ironically a few times once it became a negative ("Yes, I am one of those woke people you keep hearing about, just because I believe that love is love and rights for Latinx BIPOC folx are human rights!"), but there was never a Top 10 Woke Things You Must Embrace. There was a Top 6 Reasons Why Everything In History Is The Fault Of White People which certainly caused a fair bit of outrage, but the word "woke" was largely invisible.

Pioneering underground female rapper Snow Tha Product was signed to an indie record label called Woke Records, and she namechecks them in the opening lines of her best song:

That came out in 2015, and clearly "woke" was still a black thing rather than a social justice thing back then.

>>96318

Well, if I could find you that Tinder profile, you would have your unicorn mate. It was a white lass who had dreads and wore yoga pants with tie-dye patterns on them and she had mandalas up on the wall in her pictures. Her bio read something like "hippy, yoga instructor, psychedelic enthusiast, woke".

100% genuinely, she was not the only one I saw during that time period.

>>96318
Here's another one: does anyone ever call themselves a leftist? In theory, it's a neutral term, and it probably even gets used on the news sometimes to describe Panamanian guerrillas and Bolivian paramilitaries and so on. But whenever I hear the word "leftist", it is always, always in a negative context. You could make the same point about "lefty" too, come to think of it.

>>96321
Not >>96320 but I can snapshot you a woman's bio right now who is looking for a lefty bloke if you want. It's not an uncommon identity people adopt.

I've not said anything because she goes on to talk about taking a critical lens to society and is quite clearly very political.

Rehman Chishti (who?) has also entered the race. I have never heard of this man in my life. He was born in Muzaffarabad, laplanderstan, and was an advisor to Benazir Bhutto from 1999 to 2007. In December 2007, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. So I guess he was giving her pretty good advice, at least.

There'll be no PAAG PM this year, lads.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2022/jul/11/rishi-sunak-criticised-footage-no-working-class-friends-video

It seems to be turning into quite a bloody campaign, at least against Rishi. I suppose the advantage of being so junior and posh is you don't have as many skeletons in the closet.

>>96325
There are so many levels of weird conspiratorial tactics in this kind of situation that I almost support Rishi purely by virtue of the fact that the rest of his party hates him. Same as Boris, in fact.

>Priti Patel rules herself out of contest
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/12/rishi-sunak-tory-leader-penny-mordaunt-next-pm-boris-resign/

What the fuck, she probably could've walked it if she wanted to be PM.

>>96327
Mediocre feet. 6/10.

>>96327
Ben Wallace could have too. I think the ones with proper aspirations would rather be Prime Minister at a time when they aren't going to be a despised figure of ridicule presiding over a recession and economic catastrophe. We're getting a new Theresa May from this one, not a new someone-good.

>Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has branded the net zero climate target “unilateral economic disarmament” and vowed to axe it if elected.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/kemi-badenoch-net-zero-tory-leadership-b2121209.html
>No gender neutral toilets allowed at Kemi Badenoch's Tory leadership launch - masking tape signs were stuck on the loos turning generic facilities into those for “men” and “ladies”
https://tinyurl.com/yvz9fswk
>Penny Mordaunt and Kemi Badenoch are the top choices among Tory party members to take over as leader from Boris Johnson, new polling suggests.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/07/12/penny-mordaunt-kemi-badenoch-tory-leadership-contest/

There's going to be a severe culture war cunt-off between her and Penny over trans rights. I suspect Kemi will next attack fat women and pictures will reveal 'live, laugh, love' signage in her home.

>>96330
Kemi Badenoch is clearly an absolute psychopath. And yet we all know that any sort of social media abuse or watermelon emoji would send her scurrying to cry for tolerance and kindness. She sounds awful.

>>96330>>96331
Is she likely to get the 20 nominations she needs from other MPs?

It's gonna be Dishy Rishi vs. Marvellous Mama Mordaunt.

>>96332
I can see her getting 20, maybe 30 on Thursday but will need to make a lot of noise to get anywhere. She's got the backing of Gove though so it's almost certain he will knife her and make a show of it being about LGBT rights.

This new LotR series is going too far if you ask me.

>>96333
Rishi is very small. We can't have a small leader.

There are more versions of Mordaunt's campaign launch video than there are Blade Runner edits.

Penny's feet also mediocre, but not as good as Priti's. 5/10. Need to see Kemi's to make a fair overall judgment. Have no interest in seeing Truss' feet, thanks.

>>96334
He towers over the other four in the OP picture. It's like we're being governed by gnomes.

>>96337
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage

The elimination has started! We have gone down from eleven hopefuls to eight:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62142894

So the current selection, in alphabetical order, is Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman, Rehman Chishti, Jeremy Hunt, Sajid Javid, Penny Mordaunt, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Tom Tugendhat, Ben Wallace and Nadhim Zahawi.

They just spoke to two high-profile endorsers of Liz Truss on the BBC Ten O'Clock News, and they were Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg, so I don't think she'll last. As it stands, I guess my favourite is probably Tom Tugendhat because I don't know much about him but he seems to hate a lot of his party just like I do. So his campaign will probably end tomorrow as well. Hopefully Kemi and Suella's campaigns will end too, since they're competing with each other to be the most mental fascist possible.

>>96339
If Nadine Dorries is behind you, watch out for whatever's in front of you.

>>96339
The problem with Tom Tugendhat is that everyone hates him as well and his career and policy positions can be boiled down to 'I was in the army once'. This includes amateurish ideas like using 'army experts' to slash waiting times.

I can't wait for the custard round.

You know I'd have expected Rees Mogg to go for it. He's a bastard through and through, but he's apparently the only person left in the party with more than six brain cells. You might say that's exactly why he knows better than to become leader, but surely he realises it's his duty to save the party from the certain oblivion it faces in the hands of any of his utterly useless colleagues?

>>96342
JRM has too much respect for Parliament and its customs and conventions to take on a position where he'd now be expected to defy them so flagrantly.

>>96276>>96277
It's a good job Ellwood didn't stand for PM because his campaign would be over now that he's been accused of running over a cat and driving off.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/tory-mp-accused-running-over-cat/

Apparenly a slight bump in economic growth means we've dodged an official recession, I wonder which one of these plonkers will reverse that?

>>96341
>amateurish ideas like using 'army experts' to slash waiting times.
It's quite amazing how devoid of ideas any of these people are. Honest Tommy's supposed to be the clever one too, and his brightest idea is "what if a hospital was like a tank?".

>>96345
My understanding is that a recession would utterly smash the inflation, and to avoid a recession now is to perpetuate the high inflation for longer than necessary. I saw somewhere that they were looking at triggering a recession on purpose in America as a potential answer to the inflation. So whatever governments do right now, it can be argued that it was the wrong decision.

Mordaunt is now favourite to win and its easy to see why.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swGdVIbbm2c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72TopWbXJg

>>96347

You're about three days late to the punch on that one.

Mordaunt is my favourite for at least two reasons.

I'm starting to kind of think that I've somehow willed this into being by posting about how lovely looking Mordaunt is for several years.

Anyway, what's happening with this no confidence vote?

>>96349
I do not understand the point of this no confidence vote at all. It's not binding so it quite literally doesn't matter, it probably wouldn't pass anyway and so the whole point is Labour telling everyone "we don't like this shambolic Tory government", as best as I can tell at least. If anyone has a better grasp of it's purpose do tell me.

>>96350
>I do not understand the point of this no confidence vote at all. It's not binding so it quite literally doesn't matter
It is binding. If the motion passes, the government has to resign.

>>96349
>Anyway, what's happening with this no confidence vote?

Labour wanted it to name the PM to bring some confused Tory rebellion so Kier Stammer could in turn make a fun quip. This was dumb because the government just changed the wording next week to a more general test which they'll obviously bury the opposition on.

Obviously there's nothing better you could do at the moment where you might otherwise get a wing of the Tories to vote on a given issue. Nothing that could get a quip anyway.

>>96352
If Starmer's supposedly a hotshot lawyer why didn't he use his legal brains to stop the Tories pulling a fast one on him?

Was he actually a top lawyer? I know he was Director of Public Prosecutions, which sounds fancy and everything but it's still the public sector. I can't imagine the best lawyers work in the public sector.

>>96353
It's not really a fast one; it's just how it works. You need a majority to do basically anything in parliament. He doesn't have one and the Conservatives do, and that's why they're in charge. You can, if you want, call a motion of no confidence in the government, but it will only be voted on if the government itself agrees to allow it. If the polls looked like they'd win a new election, the government could allow it, call a new general election, and effectively reset the clock until there has to be another election. But the polls say they would lose, so instead, the government refused go allow the confidence vote. But that looks bad, so now they're calling their own vote of no confidence in themselves, so they can pass it and tell everyone it's them who support democracy really. If Labour had called it, that would make the Conservatives look weak, and therefore some MPs would vote against their own party and potentially force the election they don't want. But this way, MPs are less likely to rebel and so the exact same vote is effectively harmless now.

>>96354
>You can, if you want, call a motion of no confidence in the government, but it will only be voted on if the government itself agrees to allow it.
The rule is that if the Leader of the Opposition puts down a motion of no confidence, the Government will rearrange its business to hear the motion on the next sitting day. The Government business people have invented some artificial rule that it needs to only be about the Government, despite confidence motions in the past being taken up with direct criticism of the PM in them.

>therefore some MPs would vote against their own party and potentially force the election they don't want.
Typically when your party's in government, you'll get a three-line whip to vote down a motion of no confidence. You will have serious questions to answer either way - if you don't vote no, you'll have to deal wtih the whips and the constituency party (who may deselect you); if you do vote no, you'll have your constituents to deal with (who may vote for someone else instead). You need to remember that the people with direct agency here are not the voters at large but party insiders and paid-up members, who are currently seem to be somewhat detached from the rest of the population.

They may be pressed on what their position actually is, since 140 of them voted against him at the '22, over 60 left the Government, but now they're being asked whether they have confidence in the very same government. On any conventional reading, whether the PM is in the motion or not, the Tories are surviving this, but optics matter.

And the first round of votes are in!

Kemi Badenoch - 40 votes
Suella Braverman - 32
Rehman Chishti
Jeremy Hunt !!!
Sajid Javid
Penny Mordaunt - 67
Grant Shapps
Rishi Sunak - 88
Liz Truss - 50
Tom Tugendhat - 37
Ben Wallace
Nadhim Zahawi

Two more votes for Penny, and she'd have had 69.

>>96356
I'd certainly give her one.

>>96356

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Tory shit sandwich.

>>96358
No need to be racist, lad.

>>96359

That's what you are reading into it. I would never insinuate that an ethnic minority candidate is shit because he or she's an ethnic minority. But candidates who are shit can by sheer coincidence, and without any relevance to their quality of being shit, also be a member of an ethnic minority.

>>96360

>>96360
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)#In_white_nationalism

>>96361>>96362
You can't really make fun of him for not knowing about mad neo-Nazi shite.