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.

>>96363
Depends how old you are. If you were born in 1988 then it's inevitable that if you have 88 in a username you will inevitably be accused of being a white supremacist at some point, particularly if you post an opinion that's to the right of Jeremy Corbyn.

>>96364
So you thought there were reasonable odds he had been born in 1988, used only "88" in an online handle at some stage, engaged in a political debate in which he expressed right-wing or even centrist sentiment, and was then accused of being a neo-Nazi at which point he is to have assumed "it must be my username" and looked up the relavence of the number 88 in far-right subcultures? I think your logic subroutines are fried. It'd be better for everyone if we took you offline.

>>96365
We've established by now every poster is early to mid thirties, other than the lad who bought an MX-5 because of his mid-life crisis.

>>96365
I just know it because I know things. I know what an otherkin is too.

This has to be the least flattering photo I have ever seen of anyone. She looks like a puppet, like she might be helping Sooty bake a cake or being rescued by the Thunderbirds.

>>96368

She reminds me of this wojak.

>>96368
Truss has to be Labour's best hope for the next general election. I've no idea who the MPs whom supported the likes of Hunt in the last round will vote in this round.

>>96370
She's goofy, but Kemi and Suella the Despotic Duo have both been encouraged to drop out and "unite the right" behind Liz Truss. So even though she seems to be the "Boris's policies minus Boris" candidate, I can only assume she is also going to reveal herself to be a culture-war nutter fairly soon.

And Suella Braverman is the next one voted out of the Tory Big Brother house. We are down to only two of the candidates in the OP image still being in the race.

>>96371
>I can only assume she is also going to reveal herself to be a culture-war nutter fairly soon

Come on lad. We had a thread about this.
http://britfa.gs/pol/res/91877.html

I'm surprised nobody has brought up her being humiliated by Sergei Lavrov and the subsequent disappearance of her from public view for Boris and the bald bloke. If she had stayed with the trade portfolio then I imagine her chances would be much better than now where she's in dire need of a demotion and the party knows it.

Either way it looks like our next PM will be a white woman.

>>96373
Judging entirely on the results of the last two white women to lead the Tory party, that means we're either going for the world's shittest rendition of 1987 or 2017 with the top roles going to sociopaths rather than autistics.

>>96375
Is the joke here that he just has a face? In what way are they alike beyond that?

>>96376
When was your last eye test?

I have long been a Truss stan, but I'm pretty sure Mordaunt will win after Truss drop out.

There's something very sinister about Mordaunt. She just has the right vibe about her of being that kind of middle England, home counties, village green, "Place-upon-River" kind of loathsome cunt that the press and news media will fall over themselves to suck off.

She'll get away with murder because Radio 4 and the broadsheets won't be able to shove their nose far enough up her arse crack, no matter how much they try and pretend not to, because she is so deeply one of them.

Alright, fine, whatever, he looks like Roland Rat. You do know I'm the youngest person on Earth to know what that is and I'm not even very young?

But I've got something more niche that's bothering me. Yes, more niche than a puppet from the '40s. What exactly do the candidates plan to spend their massive defense budget on? A third aircraft carrier? More nuclear capable subs? An RAF so big it'll blot out the sun? A second wheelie bin for every squaddie and his family? I just can't stand how broad and vague all the campaigning is, and none of them will take questions, and the questions that do get asked will be as vague as the claims, not that it matters because the candidates will evade a real answer like Keir Starmer evades having an opinion on literally anything.

>>96379
Christ, mate, just stop listening to Women's Hour. There's almost a quarter of a century of In Our Time episodes to work through, or try The Grenfell Inquiry Podcast, it can't make you any more upset than those BBC Radio 4 lasses are.

>>96380

>What exactly do the candidates plan to spend their massive defense budget on?

If they have any sense, people. The number of active army personnel has fallen by more than 30% since 2014. Most of those cuts have come in the form of "natural wastage", i.e. experienced staff leaving the service and not being replaced, so the loss of skills is far worse than the numbers initially suggest.

More small drones would be nice, we need to replace a lot of kit that we've given to Ukraine, but the main problem with the British armed forces is simply a lack of manpower. Part of that is an intentional scaling-down of staffing due to the daft belief that we could fight wars with sci-fi toys rather than wellies in the mud, but it's mostly just shit pay and conditions.

>>96379
I've barely heard her speak, and I certainly don't know anything about her policies. What I thought I knew, she now seems to be denying. She looks like she'd be a strident hard-Brexit flag-waving British exceptionalist, and I could have sworn that's exactly what she was a couple of years ago, but now everyone wants to unite the right against her insidious cultural Marxism and vote for a proper Daily Express candidate like the Remain-voting Liz Truss.

>>96380
We're going to need a bigger army so we can smash Russia. We're in the Phony War now, but they're going to try it at some point and we need the 100% employment of total war to save our economy and those of the European Union.

>>96380
>What exactly do the candidates plan to spend their massive defense budget on?

cup of tea. And some spare change for other stuff. Why would you want defence procurement decisions to be decided in an election?

If you really want to attack them then start asking questions about that dossier where Liz Truss was sleeping with Kwasi while he was going out with fellow Cabinet Minister Amber Rudd. Or where Penny claimed that Turkey was in the EU.

>>96383
That's a rather queer wordfilter but one I fully support my taxes going towards.

>>96380

Hit a nerve did we, homecountieslad?

You know as well as I do that BBC Radio 4 is a perfect distillation of middle class culture, and therefore by extension, everything that is wrong with British civil society.

>>96381
You seem smart, why aren't you running to be Tory leader. Don't respond, I just answered my own question. What do you think the desire to fight wars with sci-fi toys is motivated by? An earnest desire to save the lives of are brave boys? Sending a few quid to their mates in the defense industry? Absolute bullshit predicated upon nothing but hot air?

>>96383
If you're telling us you want to almost double spending on our miltary I expect you to have a rough idea what you want that money to go towards. I'm not expecting Napoleonic military cunning from Liz Truss, but the UK's spent ten years throwing billions away on the Ajax IFV, which is still little more than a sybian for a Godzilla that turns the crew's spine to soup. Ergo I get very sceptical about wild military spending claims.

>>96385
Please reread and reread again my post and tell me where I was sticking up for Women's Hour? Or Radio 4? And then tell me how you took my bit about the Grenfell Tower Inquiry seriously? You've not only got the wrong end of the stick, you're not even holding a stick. I understand how listening to Radio 4 could cripple your sense of humour, but don't take it out on me.

>>96386 You seem smart, why aren't you running to be Tory leader.

wait, what?

>>96386

I don't think you even know what a stick is mate, what a perplexing post.

Mordaunt is obviously the most beautiful major Tory, but Kemi is quite nice too. Proof that black don't crack. Truss looks like a spastic, and Braverman looks like a reflection on the back of a spoon.

None of the male contenders are very handsome. If I had to pick one it'd be Nadim, he looks kind of cool. Javid looks like the old pickled onion Monster Munch mascot.

>>96389
Steve Baker is handsome. Go with Liz Truss and he'll probably be Chancellor or something.

They are on Channel 4. How is transexual issues such a hot topic? Is everyone switching genders?

>>96391
They've got to pander to the Tory membership if they want to be leader, which means you've got to make a stand against wokeness.

It's easier to bang on about unisex toilets than it is to say how you'll fix the economy or sort out rising energy prices.

>>96391

Conservatives can't contain their disgust for Daisy Taylor's thick, juicy, mouthwatering cock. It's sickening how these transsexualists flaunt their engorged penises on perfectly innocent tractor websites. This is why we need the Online Safety Bill.

>>96391
It's the ultimate trap. haha, trap. Everyone wants to be tolerant and human, while at the same time cracking down on the rapists and child molesters that the other half of the party think shemales are. Whenever you want to make your opponent squirm, just ask them to navigate this ideological minefield and you've done it.

It really worries me how bad they all are. It worries me even more that I think the dreaded Kemi "Mugabe" Badenoch is playing the game best here.

Which one of them is coughing all over the microphone?

>>96395
Sounds like Kemi.

They are all just so terrible.

I've just realised who Penny Mordaunt reminds me of.

In an ideal world we will end up with Prime Minister Tugendhat.

We don't live in that world do we?

>Boris Johnson is threatening to set an “early test” for his successor by ensuring they have to face two early byelections as the new Tory leader, the Observer has been told.

>The prime minister is planning to elevate at least two current MPs to the House of Lords well before the next election, triggering two contests that will test public support for whoever replaces him in Downing Street.

>It is understood that he wants to hand peerages to Jimmy Adams, a cabinet office minister and one of his closest allies, and culture secretary Nadine Dorries, who has emerged as one of his most loyal cabinet colleagues. Both have large majorities, but the combination of a recent Tory poll slump and its disastrous recent byelection record could make the contests a close call.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/16/johnson-plan-peerages-early-byelections-nadine-dorries-Jimmy-adams

>>96397

A colleague of mine met Penny in the RN - she is, or at least was, a naval reservist. Apparently she came across as bright and on the ball, though he admitted his perception may have been swayed by the fact that to his eye at the time she bore a strong resemblance to Michelle Pfieffer.

>>96400
This is a picture of Mordaunt from ~15 years ago. There doesn't seem to be that many pictures of her online from before she became an MP.

Fucksake.

Kemi

Doesn't see skin colour as a privilege.

>>96401
A true English rose. Too beautiful to lead this stain of a nation.

>>96402
That's interesting, because when I saw her wearing that, I was actually thinking of something else and considered it very unlikely that anyone had tried dressing that way for a political debate ever before.

>>96402
It's very odd how Truss has pinned her entire political career on a prolonged, tragic, Maggie Thatcher cosplay. I know all the candidates are at it to some degree, but she adopted it long time ago.

Liz Truss has a decent arse for a skinny bird.

>>96407
Clear off, Dacre.

>>96408

You don't have to agree with someone's politics to think that they have a shaggable arse.

>>96409
It's not even true though! You sound like an alien desperately trying to pass itself off as a heterosexual human male, for reasons I can't discern, but I am forced to assume are nefarious. I'm onto you, Glorbax, and your mate Paul Dacre, you devious little shits.

>>96409
Priti Patel is a terrible human being with a tremendously thicc body.

Liz Truss is a terrible human being with the body of a village fête scarecrow.

No comparison.

>>96410

Liz Truss as a name is clearly a subliminal message to "Trust Lizards", which explains what's going on here.

>>96407
I'm surprised how she's changed over the past couple years. If you'd asked me in 2019 there would be no guilt at all in being one of her Parliamentary researchers IYKWIM.

I think everyone knows she's a bit mental too so, you know how it is.

>>96412
I wouldn't be surprised if some tinhat or other is rambling about that on a local Facebook page right now.

>>96412
In the last debate, I got the feeling she had been watching loads of old Derren Brown clips on YouTube and was trying to brainwash people into voting for her based on her name.

"I've spoken to lots of people around the country, and what I feelistheprimeminister should be trustworthy. What I feel, Liz, the Prime Minister, should be trustworthy. The Prime Minister should be Truss...tworthy. I want everyone who votes for our next Prime Minister to subliminally decide in the polling stations, I really want truss-t in Downing Street. Let's trust our leader. Trus' in Downing Street. Liz Truss, our leader. Let's trust."

I will probably watch tonight's debate too; I wonder if she'll do it again.

Seeing a lot of chatter and some articles about "Charter Cities" being brought in as a thing here, via Rishi. From what I'm reading, they're basically private jurisdictions run by the mega rich. Totally undemocratic. Very cyberpunk.
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20267661.rishi-sunaks-beloved-charter-cities-pose-huge-threat-democracy/
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sentinel/20220706/281646783841681
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-benefits-from-honduras-to-hull-via-hong-kong/
https://medium.com/@cormack.lawson/charter-cities-the-real-reason-for-brexit-and-the-bigger-picture-4de80dbb69fb

Drinking game (hardcore mode): Take a shot every time Tom mentions he was in the army.

Where are our Conservative-leaning posters? Which of these candidates would they vote for?

>>96417
It's all he's really done. The ones that really stand out to me are when someone gets asked a question that's completely unrelated to their CV, and the first sentence in the answer is name-checking their previous job.
>How important is trust in a leader?
>I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Trust is very important, etc etc

>>96416
Are these different from the freeports that they've threatened us with?

>>96418

Same thing as the Freeports.

Liz Truss is reading her closing speech! Everyone else memorised theirs, but she's reading it off a bit of paper. This is even worse than Tom Tugendhat saying he's "ready to serve" every three minutes.

>>96417
What the fuck has happened to his hand? It's like it got stuck in an animation loop as he gave his final statement.

Honestly the lad who wanted to shag Truss needs his fucking head checked, alien or not.

>>96418
>Where are our Conservative-leaning posters?

I was more under the impression that we had lefties who can't stand Labour/idpol mind worms rather than actual Tories.

I only caught the end, how many times did Truss say "unleash"? I'm watching the start now and she's so economically illiterate it's frightening, like she went to the Erdogan School of Economics.

>>96422
I think there was at least one Tory voter, but it was boiler plate "I don't like taxes" stuff that motivated him.

>>96419
In that case, I don't like them. Not only are they handed out to Conservative constituencies to effectively bribe them to keep voting blue, which I don't really like, but they focus the local economy into those areas in a way that actually reduces the economy of surrounding areas. So they don't make more money, and given that they are tax havens, they actually lose money. But then, I support regulation for businesses, and taxes, and all that, so of course I wouldn't approve.

>>96422

A little bit of that, but we do have a couple of honest to god right wingers here too, who I assume to be the same couple of lads who are wealthy enough to post about the stock market and shit.

I suspect they might be LibDems though (ie Tories in denial).

>>96418
Penny although by all accounts I think she's now fucked it and her prior whinging hasn't helped matters.

Captain Tom is an intelligence service asset.
Kemi will enjoy her new role as SoS for health and social care.
Rishi Rich will be eaten alive when the membership votes.

>>96421
I'd give her one. She's like someone's mum (or auntie) at a garden party who after one two many glasses of wine starts getting handsy.

>>96426

>I think she's now fucked it and her prior whinging hasn't helped matters

I've been too busy enjoying the fruits of climate change too keep up, what has she said/done?

>>96425
>wealthy enough to post about the stock market and shit

Everyone became a retail investor in 2020 - if the stock market is the barrier dividing Labour and the Conservatives then you're in for some tough times ahead.

>>96427
She's been caught out lying about her position on evangelist christian korean youtuber rights and yet continues to deny it rather than just accepting a libertarian position that can play off Kemi's evangelist christian korean youtuber bashing.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leaked-documents-call-penny-mordaunts-gender-self-id-claims-into-question-g07ch5ptt

That and it turns out she's completely useless without her speechwriters.

>Pundits often puzzle over the identity of today’s Tory party. It claims to be rightwing but has imposed Britain’s highest tax burden since 1950. In fact, it’s an old people’s party. That’s a winning strategy in a country where most voters are now over 55, estimate Joe Chrisp and Nick Pearce of Bath University. Ballot-box Britain is much older than the rest of Britain.

>Once you’re an old people’s party, you’re free to ignore many things: the dearth of new homes, record low birth-rates, the threat to funding for British university research through the EU’s Horizon scheme, reduced opportunities for Britons to work or study abroad, not to mention climate change. Even the economy hardly matters to many pensioners, because they aren’t in it. Instead, an old people’s party takes the geriatric side in culture wars, keeps house prices rising, and redistributes not to the poor but to pensioners, who last week got a 10 per cent raise just as rail-workers were offered 2 per cent. An old people’s party imports a non-voting workforce while encouraging geriatric grumbles about immigration. In effect, the Tories side with wealth — held chiefly by the elderly — against incomes, and then cast that stance as “anti-elitist”.
https://www.ft.com/content/37b43960-2a83-4c8b-bead-4bf84beae5b9

It's almost a satire the kinds of issue dominating the leadership contest. Maybe instead of banging on about class we should start the discussion about age?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL2GPPuxjn4

>>96430
To add - it is pointless to televise all this bollocks. Since I can't really vote for any of them unless I was a Tory.

Is it possible that this sort of thing adds to the fact that voter turnout is generally low for elections?

>>96429
I wonder, back-of-a-fag-packet style, how much would be left over if the government grabbed all the pension funds (turning them into a sovereign wealth fund) and then jacked up the state pension, because it occurs to me that one of the worst parts of our favoring the old is that a lot of the transfer is taking place in the private sector (wages are squeezed while shareholders are rolling in it, and who holds shares? pension funds.), and while the state pension is doing much better than the dole it's still crap compared to european countries, so you wind up with a situation where a lot of old people are doing very well (with their houses and private pensions), but you can't go "well, bugger the coffin dodgers then" because there's a subset of them who're just as fucked as the rest of us, stuck with a state pension and an unheated rental flat.

Such a wealth grab would never happen, obviously, but I'd be interested to know whether it would be a case of "All of our problems would be solved, with retirement now comfortable and egalitarian and the public finances capable of supporting whatever whimsy you may please", "The nature of inequality is such that all the wealth in pension funds wouldn't even be enough to give everyone over 65 a dignified existence, let alone fund wider public spending.", or somewhere in the middle.

>>96432
>wages are squeezed while shareholders are rolling in it, and who holds shares? pension funds

I don't know if you've noticed this but pension funds aren't exactly flush with all these retirees around and a generation of young people who can scarcely afford to pay into the system because they're still aiming for a house.

I'd put good money that a period of prolonged stagnation in property prices would cause a good few good pension funds to collapse.

>>96432

There's probably way too many interconnected issues here to really just rob Peter to pay Paul in that manner. It's more of a generational thing than a pensioners thing; once the current crop dies out their kids and grandkids will just inherit it, but never have quite the same opportunities to exploit the situation.

It's true that for all the whinging about benefits scum and what have you over the last 15 years, the largest recipients of benefits are and always have been pensioners. And if you look at it we do spend a big fucking whack on them- The state pension alone cost us 101.2 billion pounds in 2020/21. That's a full 1/10th of the government's spending.

But that also makes it clear that even if we abolished the pension and just left old people to die, the only thing it would really achieve is slashing the deficit. That frees up money to go elsewhere but it's not the be all end all. I think the middle ground would have to be making the state pension means tested. It's the only benefit that isn't, if you think about it- You don't get to claim jobseekers when you're working, but pensioners still get their £200 a week even when they're cashing in two private pensions, renting out 4 houses, and earning from a stocks portfolio.

Pensioners get to have their cake and eat it. We should be making the state pension conditional and taxing the ones who are still earning.

Of course if it were really up to me to implement some loony lefty solution to all this it wouldn't matter, because the stock market would have been nationalised to fund UBI and owning more than one home would be punishable by genital electrocution, but I digress.

>>96431
Do you think this is all just guerrilla advertising for the Conservative Party? "Have a say, join today! Penny Mordaunt needs your help! Save the country from Liz Truss, for just £5 a year!"

>>96435
Possibly? I don't even know. I know it cost twice as much to be part of the Labour party.

"TITS FOR JUST 2 QUID A MONTH"

>>96436
I will admit I guessed the membership fees. But I have since looked them up, and you can be a Conservative member for £5 a year if you're under 26, or it's £25 a year for everyone else. Armed Forces get a discount and can join for £15 a year.

Anyway, I came here to say that Tuesday's leadership debate has been cancelled. I think Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss both pulled out, which wasn't very leaderly of either of them.

>>96437

Not another one of those "Bring Boris back" nutjobs.

I bet Kemi has nice feet.

>>96438
That's fair enough, but I would nevertheless like to state for the record now that we will absolutely miss Boris a year from now. Every candidate is a long way to the right of where he was, and we can kiss any of that levelling-up investment goodbye. And I won't be surprised if our next Prime Minister is also a blustering degenerate just like Boris was.

>>96440
>Every candidate is a long way to the right of where he was, and we can kiss any of that levelling-up investment goodbye

I think I warned you lot about this. Rishi and Johnson didn't just start falling out last year because of a popularity contest but because of fundamental disagreements on spending with the Treasury taking a much more cynical tone to net zero that delayed government strategy:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/16/treasury-leak-reveals-rift-between-johnson-and-sunak-over-costs-of-zero-carbon-economy

Johnson's mistake was not defecting to the Labour party when he was messing about with London. From then on it was a deal with the devil where he would bring majorities and the Tories might chuck a couple quid north.

>>96440
He was lying, you nimrod. Jesus Christ, there was far too many people in this country who'd believe Johnson if he told them "I'm not actually fucking your wife, this is all a dream, go back to sleep".

>>96440

>we can kiss any of that levelling-up investment goodbye

That assumes any of it ever existed in the first place. How many of those 40 "new hospitals" have been built?

It was quite fortunate of covid to come along and force them to spunk £400 billion directly into the pockets of business owners, or else we might have had to see them attempt to actually deliver on any of that, which I'm sure would have been hilarious.

>>96443
I like that my local hospital's roof is held up with Acrow props, cable ties and bits of 2x4, and I won't hear a word said against St Boris and his promises.

Boris ranting like he was coked to the gills during his remarks in Parliament today.

Skipping work, LARPing in fighter jets, planning a leaving do at Chequers this weekend.

Man is an utterly contemptible cunt.

>>96445
As little effort as he made before, he's hardly going to go straight after being essentially sacked.

What would it take for Lord Lebedev's peerage to be revoked?

>>96447
I'm too busy GAMING to look into it myself, but when was the last time a peerage was revoked?

Action Man's canned.

>>96445
>LARPing in fighter jets

The deal with Japan is absolutely huge ladm9. I know .gs is full of limp-wristed girly-men but we've gone from a project rumoured to follow the Loyal Wingman Project into the dustbin of history into a project that will deliver far-before the continental monstrosity with the resulting export potential across Europe.

To make things better it's setting up joint UK-Japan defence collaboration at a time when it's own budget is ballooning and there remain bad feelings with working with the Americans after the F-2 project.

(A good day to you Sir!)

Will Mordaunt cling on or will she lose out to Truss? Sunak's almost certainly in the final two.

>>96448

1917. A bunch of lesser Royals got shitcanned for being Nazis innit?

>>96452

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917

It's quite a formal process. In most former as well as extant European monarchies, all you have or had to do was commit serious crimes in order to lose your titles automatically.

The Party has regained their confidence in Dear Leader.

I'm starting to think that this lot are all a bit to emotionally labile to run a cuntry in a time of crises

>>96451
When Badenoch drops out her votes will go to Truss and put her over by a large margin. I suppose it's fitting that the PM will sound like a primary school teacher right up until the next GE when Labour will eat her alive.

>>96457
How dare you besmirch primary teachers like that? Truss is far more like the awful secondary school teacher her superiors give a glowing reference for just to get shot of her.

>>96456
I was reading about Tobias Ellwood losing the whip over it, but this was what struck me the most.
>Other Conservative MPs cancelled foreign trips, left poorly relatives and one MP’s mother died on the morning of the vote and still attended and voted, the source said.

Fucking animals.

Another leadership candidate will be voted out in around an hour's time. It'll probably be Kemito Badenussolini, but I'd rather see Liz Truss go out to be honest. She is an establishment figure whose experience and connections seemingly aren't helping her, so what's the point?

>>96462
As someone pointed out earlier, Truss is the most likely to pick up supporters when Badenoch drops out so she's likely to leapfrog Mordaunt into the final two.

Mordaunt has lost of all the momentum she had when people didn't know who she was.

Mordaunt had it all, brains, beauty, respect. And she spunked it all away by being a boring cunt and for not hating evangelist christian korean youtubers until everyone dragged her for not hating evangelist christian korean youtubers so she decided to hate evangelist christian korean youtubers.

>>96464
But still, she hasn't made an impression on foreign governments yet. She's still unknown. Liz Truss is probably a household name in the Bundestag and whatever the French government is called, and it's got her nowhere. She is pretty much at her political ceiling. And it's shit. We know she's going to be bad; why not take a chance on a new face who will only probably be bad? But I suppose that sort of gamble is the very definition of unconservative.

Beautiful Nubian goddess Kemi out.

>>96460
But if I didn't go and vote they'd have [checks notes] withdrawn the whip for a couple of months until it inevitably became politically necessary to give it back, like they've done for fraudsters, wife-beaters and literal child rapists.

>>96462
>Kemito Badenussolini
I can't believe I have only thought now, once it is too late, to call her Kemi Bad-enoch Powell.

The party is over.

Pm Liz Truss.
God help us.

Look, I know it's looking grim, but maybe Boris Johnson with a fanny with be a better Prime Minister than Boris Johnson with a knob. We probably could have saved ourselves loads of time by just pinning Big Dog down in the commons and slicing his off, but we've committed to our present actions and now we've got to finish them.

>>96474

This is great news, Labour will walk it with a mong like her in charge. We're saved.

>>96476
I can't wait for Kier to absolutely wreck her week in week out at the box, then for the country to vote for Cons anyway because they don't like him.

Why does nobody think Rishi can be Prime Minister? Sure, he's a slimy careerist who stands for nothing and is guilty of everything Boris was guilty of, plus he has an American green card and seemingly wants as little to do with this country as he can get away with, but Liz Truss got tricked by Sergei Lavrov live on TV and it wasn't even a particularly clever trick.

>>96474
God no, please.

>>96479
We've had the Churchill-cum-clown impressionist, now it's time for the tragic Thatcher tribute act. Plus, just imagine the kinds of wankers she's going to put in her cabinet. It's going to look like closing time at a psychiatric prison.

>>96478
I don't think anyone likes him, that's why. Sunak horrified libertarian types by spending money and raising taxes to stop the economy shitting itself inside out (for a time), and while he might have wanted to leave the EU before it was cool, he isn't the kind of singing-two-bombers at the Germans, red-meat-and-a-pint bloke the Brexit-Ultras like. Culturally, personally, he might as well be a remainer.

Apologies if I've gone hyphen mad, but I can't be arsed agonising over it any longer. It's as readable as I can make it.