Many observers were taken by surprise at UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s decision to dissolve parliament and hold general elections on July 4th. Elections were not due until January and he himself had repeatedly said that he wanted to wait until later in the year, which observers had interpreted as October or November. So why move things up suddenly?
The reason to hold elections early is either because things are looking very good for you right now or because you think things will get worse as time goes by. The former seems unlikely to be the reason since both the Conservative party and Sunak personally are polling badly, with the party over 20 points behind that of Labour. So it must mean that he felt things might get even worse. But it is not clear why he thought that. Furthermore, by calling for an early dissolution, he has shut the door to getting things passed in parliament that he had promised to do when taking up the position, giving him even fewer accomplishments to run on.
Rishi Sunak has dropped flagship policies on deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda and banning smoking for young people on the first full day of his election campaign, leaving his legacy increasingly threadbare.
Ministers confirmed that key pieces of legislation that could be rushed through by MPs before parliament is suspended were likely to be dropped, including plans to end no-fault evictions and to introduce a football regulator.
…The prime minister’s admission that people who crossed the Channel in small boats will not be flown to Rwanda before 4 July was met with despair from Tory rightwingers, with many of his MPs already unhappy about his early election date.
…Another key plank of Sunak’s premiership, a promise to ban young people from ever being able to buy tobacco legally, was also left in doubt after it was not mentioned among the final business in the House of Commons before the election.
…The government also appeared unlikely to pass Martyn’s law, the legislation to tighten venue security named in honour of one of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing.
The mother of Martyn Hett, one of the 22 victims of the attack, said she felt misled by Sunak after he had promised to rush through the bill in her son’s name before summer, hours before he called the general election.
That the Tories are running scared can be seen by the large number of their MPs, 78 so far with some of them in safe seats, who have decided not to seek re-election, among them Michael Gove and Andrea Leadsom, both of whom had contested for the post of prime minister. This number is a record, beating the earlier figure of 72 in 1997 when the Tories were trounced, not a good sign for them. Others who have chosen to step down include former prime minister Theresa May plus a bunch of newbies.
There is one thing that you have to concede to the Tories. They have been far more successful in diversifying their senior leadership ranks than Labour. They have had three female prime ministers (Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, and the hapless Liz ‘loser to a lettuce’ Truss) and among the people being mentioned to replace Sunak if and when they lose the general election are three women, Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch, and Penny Mordaunt, the first two of whom, like Sunak, are people of color and the children of immigrants.
Contrast that with Labour which has as yet to have a leader who is not a white male, except when Harriet Herman was twice chosen to briefly serve as interim leader of the party in 2010 and 2015 after the party leader resigned and before new leaders were elected. Furthermore, I think that even when they were in power from 1997 to 2010, they did not have a single woman or person of color in high ranking cabinet posts like Chancellor of the Exchequer, foreign secretary, or home secretary. (UK readers, please correct me on this if it is in error.)
The knives are already out for Sunak, berating him for a weak start to the campaign in which he stumbled.
Rishi Sunak will retreat from the campaign trail on Saturday, spending the day at home in his constituency and in London after a difficult first few days of the general election campaign.
…Sunak’s decision to take a day away from public campaigning comes after an error-strewn start to the campaign for the prime minister.
He began by announcing the election in the pouring rain to the booming sounds of the 1997 Labour anthem Things Can Only Get Better, played by a nearby protester.
He then attended a public question-and-answer session at a factory at which it was revealed that two of the questioners were Tory councillors, before asking workers in Wales whether they were looking forward to the Euro 2024 football tournament, for which Wales has not qualified.
On Friday, the prime minister travelled to Belfast where he visited the Titanic Quarter and was asked by a journalist whether he was captaining a sinking ship.
Admittedly they were minor incidents but in politics, symbolism can play an important role and they added to the sense, after he was drenched by rain when he was making the announcement of the general election, that his campaign was inept.
Talking of trivialities, I have been a little puzzled by the sight of Sunak giving his dissolution speech outdoors in the pouring rain. Here he is shown going back inside after his speech.
Why did an aide not hold an umbrella over his head? Is it because that would make Sunak look like a wimp, because real men brave the elements? Or that it would look too feudal, a faithful old retainer sacrificing their own comfort to protect that of their master?
While he seemed unfazed by it (and by the music blaring in the background), it was just weird to see him in his soaked suit.
Sunak in a soaked suit no longer seems weird or surprising to me after I realized that to him it is just a DISPOSABLE suit. A disposable suit costing likely many thousands of pounds, true. But still, to him, disposable like yesterday’s newspaper. It was probably put in the rubbish bin in 5 minutes after he was indoors. Nobody donates a wet Kleenex tissue to charity.
Sunak realizes that nobody is poor, because they could always economize by eliminating their dry cleaning bills by just throwing out worn clothing. So they could live as frugally as he does.
😂😂😂
Here’s my guess as to why he’s calling this “snap election” so soon: he’s doing it to catch the opposition by surprise and give them less time to get their act together and organize a coherent national campaign. And it just might work: a clear majority of UK voters may oppose the Tories, but Labour have to speak to them in a clear coherent unified voice to get them to actually support Labour. And from what I’ve heard here in the USA, Labour are almost as incapable of doing this as our Democrats have lately been.
Margaret Beckett was briefly Foreign Secretary, 2006-2007 -- other than that I think you’re right, and your overall point certainly stands. Largely down to David Cameron, who whatever his other faults (and they are indeed many) made a concerted effort to promote diversity among senior Tories.
Actually, I don’t think they do: enough people are so sick of the Tories they will vote for whoever they see as most likely to defeat them, which in most constituencies is Labour. In an additional piece of luck for Labour, the SNP have been badly hit by scandal and division, likely givting them 20 or more extra Scottish seats. A straw-stuffed dummy could lead Labour to victory -- indeed it might more relaibly do so than Starmer, who has persistently negative approval poll ratings -- currently at -10%.
An additional oddness is Sunak’s decision is that there were signs of potentially serious divisions in Labour, over Starmer welcoming the defection to Labour of a hard right -- and ethically compromised -- Tory MP, Natalie Elphicke; it was by no means obvious these would die down quickly. So my hunch is that the Chair of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs had received something quite near the magic number of letters of no confidence in Sunak to trigger a vote among Tory MPs over whether to dismiss him, thus forcing Sunak to face either the national electorate, or his fellow Tory MPs, in short order.
Elections were not legally required until January. Slight difference.
Mo Mowlam. Now, admittedly, at almost any other time in UK history, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not as high-profile as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary -- but 1997 was not like any other time in UK history. It was Mo Mowlam who represented the UK government in the talks that resulted in the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland. Representatives on both sides of the Nationalist/Republican divide were effusive in their praise for her. It’s fair to call her a giant of UK politics in the late 90s, it’s a shame she and her role seem to have been forgotten.
She was also, fun fact that I learned today, a lecturer in political science at Florida State University, where she believed she narrowly avoided being one of Ted Bundy’s victims.
Yes -- they’ve done a great job in demonstrating that you don’t need to be a straight white man to be an evil, unprincipled bigot. Yay, I guess?
Going further:
So fucking what? That government oversaw (among much else):
-- the longest period of sustained low inflation of my lifetime, and accompanying low mortgage rates
-- peace in Northern Ireland
-- devolved power to Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland
-- the introduction of a national minimum wage
-- paternity leave for new fathers
-- SureStart centres
-- a 32 percent cut in crime
-- 85,000 more nurses
-- 32,000 more doctors
-- 36,000 more teachers
-- a million pensioners and 600,000 children lifted out of poverty
-- cleanest beaches, rivers, air and drinking water since the Industrial Revolution
-- scrapped Section 28 of the local government act and introduced civil partnerships for gay couples
That’s what that bunch of white men achieved.
And in the years since the ever-so-fucking-diverse Tory party have given us in quick succession five of the worst PMs this country has ever had. Cameron made the suicidally irresponsible decision to call the Brexit referendum, May might as well have the word “hapless” as her middle name (and never forget she was the architect of the “hostile environment” for asylum seekers and immigrants), there’s little to be said about Alexander Johnson that hasn’t been said already, and as for Truss, words fail. Sunak is only tolerated because he’s cleared the low bar of being better than Truss. Thank you, diverse and inclusive Tory party.
Austerity, an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor, an NHS in crisis, a botched response to the pandemic that lined the pockets of the government’s friends, we have the highest tax burden since WW2, double-digit inflation, punitive interest rates and plummeting living standards. Thank you, diverse and inclusive Tory party.
And Brexit. Oh, Brexit -- the greatest act of national self-harm in history. A nation voting to place swingeing economic sanctions against itself, a gift that will keep on giving, probably for the rest of my life. Thank you, diverse and inclusive Tory party.
Our beaches and rivers are full of shit, you can’t get a doctors appointment or even get on the waiting list for a dentist, victims of crime don’t bother calling the police because they know there’s no point, getting a passport or driving licence takes months. Thank you, diverse and inclusive Tory party.
I mean, it’s almost as if you’re trying to point out how much better the country did when it was run by a bunch of white men. You’re not trying to do that, are you?
All I can say is thank fuck there’s a general election coming and maybe, just maybe, we can put some white men back in charge. (And to be clear, I mean white men like Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves, Bridget Phillipson, Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Liz Kendall, Louise Haigh, Thangam Debbonaire, Anneliese Dodds, Jo Stevens, Emily Thornberry, Lisa Nandy, Ellie Reeves and Lucy Powell)
Keir Starmer will lead Labour to victory, and he *will* be a million times better than Sunak et al.
Having said that, he is a weasel. He welcomed Tory defectors -- one of them a far right MP- while purging Labour of lefty Corbyn supporters.
He used alleged anti-semitism as an excuse while ignoring islamophobia among his own supporters.
On top of this, he has made an U-turn on many important promises.
If you’re from the USA you might not know what a “Shadow” minister or secretary is, but imagine that the party who doesn’t hold the presidency, let’s use our current situation with Biden as POTUS and the Republicans having little power to stop a cabinet nomination, created an unofficial cabinet, where they designated one high-ranking Republican as “Fake Secretary of State” one person as “Fake SecDef” etc. The fake version of each cabinet position becomes the go-to person for critiquing the actions of Biden’s actual cabinet officers.
This is the basic premise of a “Shadow Cabinet,” and so in a Tory administration, Labour will designate certain specific individuals as point on certain specific issues or sectors by designated them the, for instance, the “Shadow Health Secretary.”
It’s that fake Health secretary I want to talk about. Just this past week the Tory HealthSec came out for banning most medical care for trans youth. The Labour Shadow HealthSec is supposed to be the point person for criticizing the Tory position and distinguishing Labour. Instead the Labour Shadow HealthSec endorsed the official HS’s position that would introduce a law making much trans medical care illegal.
Think about that.
I’m not saying that Labour are the same as the Tories any more than Democrats are the same as Republicans. But holy shit this is an attention-getting issue on which Labour could stand for a revitalized NHS that serves the needs of its patients better. Instead they’re standing for a law mandating NHS provide fewer and worse services to a particularly vulnerable population.
Whatever you think of the morality of such a law (and I would expect most of you to be with me on it being horrible), the pure politics of the LSHS coming out in favour of the HS’s bill in this environment with an election imminent shows how horribly incompetent Labour really is.
And, of course, this isn’t the first time Labour has been fuckfaces to the queer community — not even just recently. Only weeks ago another Labour minister was called out for saying that it was bad to say that queer relationships were equal to straight ones, and that he wouldn’t want his children taught such equality in schools.
His grand hair-splitting defense was that gay PEOPLE are equal to straight people and deserve respect, but gay RELATIONSHIPS aren’t the same as straight relationships because queers don’t get pregnant by accident, and “same” is a synonym for “equal,” and this was all he was really saying.
But of course that’s not all he was really saying.
The Tories are bad. The Tories are worse than Labour. But holy fucking shit Labour is so bad if these are people they are willing to consider leaders. Even if they can convince queers and trans people that the harm they’re going to do to QT communities and individuals is less than what the Tories will do, the UK has a parliamentary system, which means that there are other parties queers can vote for and even among those who think Labour is the best among bad options, the party is still creating an enthusiasm gap likely to depress enthusiasm and thus turnout among their would-be supporters.
I don’t follow UK politics enough to know what will happen in the upcoming election, but I’ve seen enough to know why a completely shit party has been allowed to run the place for the last decade+.
sonofrojblake@8,
Among that list of splendid achievements, you somehow neglected to include participation in an illegal, immoral war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and left the invaded and devastated country under the influence of Iran.
“But holy fucking shit Labour is so bad if these are people they are willing to consider leaders.”
Yes. In Sir Keir Starmer’s plan for victory at all cost, there is no place for opposing prejudice -- that can repel former tory voters.
It is a winning strategy, but what happens after the victory? This is why I have more sympathy for his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
@KG,11:
I’ve said many times that every Prime Minister I can remember will be remembered, rightly or wrongly, for just one thing, just a couple of words that will be what their footnote in history says. You can argue what the words are or whether it’s fair, but I think the point stands. Here are my words:
Thatcher -- poll tax.
Major -- bastards.
Brown -- “bigoted woman”
Cameron -- Brexit
May -- “Brexit means Brexit” (possibly “strong and stable”)
Johnson -- “Get Brexit done”.
Truss -- lettuce.
Sunak…. fuck knows, help me out?
Anyway -- I omitted Blair from the list, obviously. Because I wanted to come down here and say yes, you’re right, of course. Eleven years of prosperity, social justice, financial probity and a measurable, sustained increase in the standard of living for the vast majority of the people he was responsible for looking after, and what will be the word Blair is remembered for? Iraq. Fucking Iraq. Nobody ever wants to talk about all the provably, demonstrably brilliant things he did, because he did what he had practically no choice but to do, and followed W into Iraq.
Blaming him for Iraq is like blaming Brown for the credit crunch -- a delusion that the UK has choices about stuff happening outside its borders. Brown didn’t cause the credit crunch, and Blair didn’t start the war in Iraq -- they were both shit sandwiches served to us by the Americans, that we had no choice but to eat.
But you keep on blaming him for it if it makes you feel better about wasting your vote on a Lib Dem in a marginal where the only realistic alternative is Labour. It’s people like that that have kept the Tories in power these last fourteen years. Well done.
Mano -- In England there isn’t really any stigma about using an umbrella in the rain. Given how much it rains, that would be very unusual. I think the main reason Sunak didn’t have an aide with an umbrella next to him is that it would reveal just how short he is. He already has the nickname “Prime Miniature” in online circles.
Crip Dyke -- do you mean George Galloway? He was a Labour MP back in the 80s and 90s, but he’s not been a member of the party for over two decades now. He currently stands as an independent MP. Which is not to say that the Labour Party doesn’t have a big transphobia problem, although that seems part and parcel of the current leadership’s fervent desire to chase Tory voters by mimicking the bigotry and economic illiteracy that attracts them to the Tories.
birgerjohansson -- “a million times better than Sunak et al.” is hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous. The whole point of the Starmer Labour Party is that it will be, at best, maybe 5% better than the Tories, but will continue with basically their whole programme of Neoliberal, Austeritarian, Thatcherite nastiness.
There is virtually no fundamental difference between the two parties, by design. They’re both committed to perpetuating the exploitative capitalist system we suffer under and doing the bidding of its beneficiaries. They’re both slavish lapdogs to US foreign policy. They both court the Murdoch press and have little regard for minority groups. Neither has any real plan for redistributing wealth, dismantling the class system or moving us to a more equal, more environmentally sustainable, economic model. Labour can’t even condone its MPs supporting the waves of Labour action we’ve seen over the last years, refusing to take the side of nurses, train workers and other striking workers as a true Labour party should. Just like the Republicans and the Democrats in the US, they are currently two wings of the same party -- the Neoliberal Capitalism Party. They have worked hard to make sure that whichever one of them is elected, the exploitation will continue much as it ever did.
This was the case under Tony Blair, who had the opportunity to reject and discard the baneful outlook and policies of Margaret Thatcher, but did not. It was the case under Gordon Brown. Indeed, when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader with massive popular support, almost the entire parliamentary party worked ceaselessly, and in coordination with the Tories and the entire media system, to oust him and return the party to being what it was. The Establishment feared a genuine alternative that might change things for the better.
Personally, I hold little to no hope that a Starmer government will make anything better. I had genuine hope in 2017 and 2019 that we would get the genuine socialist alternative we so desperately need, but Starmer has worked hard to crush that in the intervening five years. There may be a little rearranging of the deckchairs, but the fundamental rot will not be addressed.
Worse, the chances are that in five years when Starmer inevitably fails to put things right -- because his outlook, his sympathies, his economic model and his class interests mean he has no interest in putting things right -- the alternative will be what? An even more insane far-right, openly fascistic Tory party is a very real possibility.
On diversity of the Labour cabinets 1997-2010:
Just how diverse do you think the preceding Tory cabinets were? Major II had 2 women, Major I had none, only junior ministers. You point out the Tories’ 3 female Prime Ministers, but apart from Thatcher, who else in her cabinet? None.
(Apart from 2 years of Baroness Young as Leader of the House of Lords, a position not held by an elected MP (for obvious reasons) which comes with a separate appointment to cabinet. I’m unconvinced it’s entirely fair to count that position.)
So Blair I, opening with its 5 female cabinet members (8 over the first term) plus quite a few more junior ministers, along with the highest ever number of female MPs (and to get any of that you have to start much earlier with candidate selection) was quite rightly acknowledged as an unprecedented level of diversity. Ideal? Perhaps not, but massive progress with which to build on…
I suspect that then forced the Tory party and Cameron’s hands as “that is what the country now expects”, and that they wouldn’t have gotten where they are without that prod. You certainly can’t blame Labour for not having any senior government posts since then because they’ve not been in government, but their Shadow Cabinets since then don’t look entirely shabby, and the current Shadow Cabinet has all three Great Offices apart from Leader as non-white-dudes.plus the two other most senior posts, plus more in the junior cabinet.
Brits are a bit sheepish.
Remember that Brexit referendum?
It was legally non-binding.
It was passed by the veriest margin by the subset of the eligible voting population.
Ruling party pretended it was functionally a binding referendum, and that it was mandated to “obey the people’s will”.
Anyway.
“The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
(Time: Pink Floyd: Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way)
#13 Son
In what way was he constrained to follow W? I don’t think people generally blame Blair for causing the Iraq war (and those few who do are idiots), they blame him for supporting it.
Also: take a look at this. In particular Cabinet/Minister/Member in the Commons and Lords (but some of the others too). Sort by date appointed/elected. Look and when and for which party things take off. It’s not even subtle.
@ 8 sonofroj
This would be repulsive enough elsewhere and then you realise it’s on the blog of a professor of Sri Lankan ancestry.
*facepalm*
@ ^
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest it’s not just the 50% of the population who identify as women or the 18% of the UK who are not classed as “white” who “fucking care” but also their friends and family who would like them to have at least proportional representation in their governance rather than every single decision maker being a white man you absolute fucking plonker.
Nobody forced Blair to mislead the nation about the war.
And he absolutely was a neoliberal wanker, just like Sir Keir is.
Having said that, he provided a long period of improvements… that were promptly ruined by the tories, because Blair could not be arsed to introduce proportional representation. And as Brit politicians are as unwilling to learn from mistakes as Merican/Canadian* ones, it is perfectly plausible that Sir Keir won’t bother to introduce proportionate representation either.
* the same can be said about our Swedish ones, but they don’t have english-language media so they are ‘invisible’.
I mean… where to even start with this bullshit.
“Labour minister”. There are no Labour ministers. Labour isn’t in power, and hasn’t been since 2010. So… yeah, that.
Then it emerges that the “Labour minister” being referred to George fucking Galloway, a provocateur clown who was EXPELLED by the Labour party over 20 years ago and who famously BEAT the Labour party in the recent Rochdale by-election. (He also appeared on Celebrity Big Brother, and in a task where the housemates had to arrange themselves in the order of who was most famous, put himself at the head of the line ahead of Dennis Rodman, on the basis that a billion Muslims know who he is. He also dressed up as a cat and pretended to lap milk from the hands of Rula Lenska.)
Holding him up as a “Labour minister” accused of homophobia is the equivalent of me holding up Donald Trump as the sitting Democrat president.
With that level of knowledge, probably less embarrassing if you don’t pontificate about British politics, eh?
There are two reasons I can think of for him calling the election early:
1. He can currently claim to have succeeded in bringing inflation (nearly) back to target. (Note that the announcement was made on the same day as the latest inflation figure was released.) Based on the data we already have, it’s highly likely that headline inflation is going to go back up again later in the year.
2. It avoids actually having to deliver on his promises about the Rwanda scheme, which were almost certain to fall apart on contact with reality (again).
As for the number of Tory MPs standing down: if they stand down without contesting the election, they get their pension. If they contest the election and lose, they don’t.
“if they stand down without contesting the election, they get their pension. If they contest the election and lose, they don’t.”
I did not know that. Thanks for the update. It’s… interesting.
A suitable postscript to the era of tory governance:
“Have I Got News for You S67 E8. Phil Wang. 24 May 2024”
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=LgbBPfvEI2g
We learn that water at a place in Britain got polluted by cow manure… instead of the government-tolerated pollution by human sewage.
I agree with sonofrojblake @13 on this: blaming Blair for the Iraq fiasco is utterly fucking stupid. That was OUR war, waged by AMERICA’S SPECIAL GENIUS (Reagan’s words), and NO ONE ELSE gets any credit for it. WE’RE NUMBER ONE to blame for that, thankyouverymuch.
Seriously, Bush Jr. and his neocon Kissinger-wannabee chums launched that invasion, after making it painfully clear that they were determined to go ahead with it and never listen to anyone trying to tell them it was a bad idea. I’m not sure why Blair chose to join us in it, but whatever his reasons, stated or unstated, none of the farcically-disastrous consequences of that war were his fault. There was nothing he could have done to prevent, stop or improve it in any way.
PS: As for Blair’s reason(s) for joining our Iraq escapade, my guess (giving him some benefit of doubt here) is that he knew fine well he’d be totally frozen out of the loop if he questioned Bush Jr. (because he, like his entire party, despised competence and only wanted consistent loyal suckuppery); so he decided instead to play the loyal ally in the hope that Bush Jr. would be more likely to listen to helpful advice and thus wage a more competent campaign — which would have been good for just about everyone. His gamble failed miserably, but it wasn’t an implausible bet to make, especially since…what the fuck else could he have done?
Of course he had a choice: not to do it. Incidentally, while it stands out, the Iraq invasion is by no means the only blemish on Bliar’s record: the idiocy of PFI (the “Public Finance Initiative”) was another, handing over vast sums of money and scads of vital infrastructure to private companies for no better reason than an accounting trick. And while the UK government didn’t cause the crash of 2008, they most certainly contributed, by relaxing banking regulations; and completely failed in the aftermath, to make the greedy and irresponsible bankers pay for the damage they did.
Simple: refused to join in an illegal and immoral war, based on lies -- of which he himself told many in an attempt to justify it. Most other European and NATO countries rightly refused to join Bush in his crimes. There was no way of making that war anything other than a vile and hideous mass-murder.
The explanation could be as simple as, he knows he is losing and is sick of playing the game anyway; so he up-ended the table. In his mind, being seen as a cheat is not as bad as being seen as a loser. It would hardly surprise me if he had not even checked the weather before dashing outside to make his announcement. Anyway, an umbrella would be showing weakness. He could always rationalise a way to blame his enemies for the ruined suit. And never mind looking like a pillock — come the morning after the election, he would be on his way to a new life in California, and they would surely look even bigger pillocks.
Sorry: the second quote @29 is from Raging Bee, and PFI is the Private Finance Initiative -- privatisation by another name:
Then there are the repeated, and botched, “reforms” to the NHS, the ludicrous decision to commission Trident nuclear-armed submarines, the introduction of university tuition fees… And some of the achievements you list had fuck-all to do with Bliar: the low inflation and the fall in crime were global phenomena, which would probably have happened even under the Tories. As for devolution, he hoped and believed that would put an end to the Scottish independence movement -- which it most certainly has not.
I’m not claiming Bliar did nothing worthwhile: in addition to the points you list, he took climate change (relatively) seriously, and his intervention in Sierra Leone was legal (it was at the invitation of the internationally recognised government), successful, and saved many lives. But it’s as a liar and war criminal he will be, and deserves to be, primarily remembered -- although the chances of him facing justice are remote.
Another, shall we say interesting, take on the snap call.
THE REAL REASON SUNAK CALLED AN EARLY ELECTION IN JULY -- ANDREW BRIDGEN MP
jrkrideau, what is it you imagine is interesting about that silly opinion piece?
(You always allude to stuff, but when it comes to even attempting to sustain your allusions, you never ever ever deliver)
Bah.
jrkrideau: That claim is at least a little plausible, though I gotta say Andrew Bridgen has no credibility at all — he’s a pro-Russia anti-vax lunatic stooge, and I see no reason to think he has any sort of inside knowledge of Sunak’s thinking.
As for the claim itself, I think it can be read two ways. One way is: “Sunak doesn’t want to be a wartime PM” (Bridgen’s words); but if that was all he meant, Sunak could just resign. (And if he thinks there’s a war coming, has he done anything to organize a government response?)
Another way to read it is: “Sunak doesn’t want his country to go to war under a discredited minority party, therefore he called the election to get a fresher, more credible and cohesive government in place ASAP.” If that’s Sunak’s thinking, this could well be the most sensible and decent thing he’s ever done as PM — if not in his whole lifetime.
I’d say Andrew Bridgen has negative credibility: if he says seawater is salty, that would at least create enough doubt in my mind to check. He has a record of, to say the least, dodgy lobbying dealings, was expelled from the Conservative Party for absurd lies about Covid vaccines, and joined the “Reclaim” party, a previously one-man far-right racist operation led by the mediocre actor Lawrence Fox, but left it after unspecified differences and sat as an independent MP until Parliament was prorogued in advance of the election -- he won’t be back (I can’t recall whether he’s standing, but if he is, he’ll lose). He quite certainly has no more information about Sunak’s motivations than I do; he’s simply shoe-horned the surprise of Sunak calling an election now into his pro-Putin narrative -- just like jrkrideau.
@Holms, 18:
I don’t have the time or inclination to explain the essentially subservient role Britain has in relation to the US, and if you don’t understand it, no swift explanation would work.
Blaming Blair for the Tories’ actions long after he’d left power? Good one, very funny. Blaming him for not changing the system that put him into power? Good one, very funny. You must irrationally hate Blair to an amazing degree, to do these sorts of mental gymnastics to blame him for things that are so obviously not on him.
@Raging Bee, 28: I fully agree with you -- Blair had the combination of success at home and tendency to think the best of people that would have made him think he might be able to penetrate the armour of righteous stupidity the US cloaked itself in post-9/11. Deluded and wrong, but at least somewhat justifiable at the time. He shouldn’t have lied to support it, though -- the “sexed up” dossier was a Bad Thing. What he should have said was “we’re allies, this is what allies do. Now shut up.” I’d have respected him more if he did that, even if I didn’t like it.
@KG, 31:
I shall remember him as, objectively and measurably, the PM on whose watch quality of life in the UK improved the most it had during my lifetime, for most of the people in the country, of whatever race, age or sexuality.
You just remember him as a war criminal if you like, but it absolutely requires you to deliberately and obtusely ignore the massive good that was done for this country during his time in power.
(Aside: if someone told me Andrew Bridgen was Sacha Baron Cohen behind some makeup and an AI filter… I’d consider it. That’s how credible he is. He’s George Galloway-level ridiculous.)
Blair had the … tendency to think the best of people that would have made him think he might be able to penetrate the armour of righteous stupidity the US cloaked itself in post-9/11.
I don’t think we have to consider Blair naïve or overly trusting. He may have simply calculated that: a) he had to join the war just to get Bush Jr. to listen to any potentially helpful advice from the UK; and b) refusing to join the war wouldn’t save any lives anyway.
He shouldn’t have lied to support it, though…
He may have believed, rightly or not, that he had to publicly support the lie just to convince Bush Jr. that he could be trusted as an ally. “We’ll be joining your campaign, even though we don’t agree with your stated rationale” probably wouldn’t have flown with righteously stupid US Republicans.
Yeah, possible. But there’s publicly supporting Bush’s lies, and there’s making up some lies of his own (the “sexed up” dossier). It’s the latter I think it’s fair to pin on him. Doesn’t stop me thinking of his premiership as the best of my lifetime, mind -- he wasn’t perfect, but who is? You’d have to be astonishingly obtuse to claim he wasn’t much, much better for the country than a continuation of the previous government would have been.
@sonofrojblake, @raging bee
Why do you’ll feel the need to attempt to redeem Blair ? In public he was an enthusiastic cheerleader of the a war that caused > 100,000 innocent lives lost -- Your attempt at guessing his motivations and assigning altruistic reasons are simply not supported by the public record.
@sonofrojblake @8
Yeah yeah British lives matter.
“Was This Election Called to Save Sunak?”
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=N9m-F2irBfY
@ 33 John Morales
Thank you for your kind words, sir.
sonofrojblake@36,
Harold Wilson refused to join in the American war in Vietnam. So you’re talking through your fundament, as you so often do.
As I pointed out @31, while joining in an illegal war of agression based on lies was Bliar’s worst action, it was by no means alone in having serious negative effects. I also noted good things he did. But in any case, even if a mass murderer is also an animal-loving philanthropist, it’s as a mass-murderer they will primarily be remembered. Evidently, you don’t think Iraqi lives matter much.
#43: they
willshould primarily be remembered.Your gratitude is duly accepted in exactly the same spirit as in which it was offered, jrkrideau.
Still, your evasiveness is quite informative, no?
This is the question you are evading: “what is it you imagine is interesting about that silly opinion piece?”
Evidently, it was an empty claim, one which you had the opportunity to attempt to sustain instead of being evasively insincere.
(Such a character, you are!)
[meta]
KG — ‘But in any case, even if a mass murderer is also an animal-loving philanthropist, it’s as a mass-murderer they will primarily be remembered.’
William Shakespeare — ‘The evil that men do lives after them;The good is oft interred with their bones.’
Why do you’ll feel the need to attempt to redeem Blair ?
Why shouldn’t we? What’s wrong with remembering he wasn’t all bad, or that that whole stinking war was OUR (minority) President’s fault, not his?
As an American who was opposed to the Iraq war from the minute it was suggested (around 9/12 IIRC), I knew our Dear Leader was hellbent on doing it no matter what anyone said, and was CLEARLY not listening to anyone questioning it (and probably not even understanding our objections), so it was obvious from day one that Blair couldn’t stop or prevent it. So I figured, WTF, it’s gonna happen anyway, so maybe the British — who had already had at least some experience in that “thankless desert” — just might be able to help us do it a bit more competently. So why not give him at least a little benefit of doubt on that issue? Sure, you can blame him for choosing to parrot lies to justify the war; but if he really felt he had to do that to get Bush Jr. to listen to him, that’s entirely Dear Leader’s fault, not Blair’s. He certainly wasn’t the only person, in or out of America, who understood Bush Jr. only listened to people who showed sycophantic personal loyalty to him.
@ 45 Morales
Fuck you’re a tedious buffoon Captain Hyperliteral. It’s an idiom you idiot. Here’s three random examples I found with a 30 second Google:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SingleParents/comments/j72aoi/this_guy_had_a_shall_we_say_interesting_opinion/
https://medium.com/@PeterAttiaMD/what-can-you-prove-d9570341c8b3
…
https://x.com/RealDaveHunt/status/1793978455253725607
When someone says “shall we say… interesting”, it is ironic -- it usually means “batshit”.
Now please tell I don’t have to laboriously explain to you I have made no reference to the fecal matter of actual bats, FFS.
Maybe learn to understand how humans communicate before trying to participate, especially while putting on such a condescending air.
Wow, you’re really losing it, ain’t ya?
Heh.
Your supposed snipe is taken as the capering of a fool.
<smirk>
Could have saved yourself the trouble.
jrkrideau is a Russian (Ruzzian) stooge, at least functionally.
I got his number.
(Note how he runs, runs away? Like you do when you try to dispute me on anything of substance or that is verifiable)
mmm. I think you are furiously wanking.
(It is not that disturbing to me, I’ve had worse fanbois)
<snicker>
Oh, I would not want to condescend, perish the thought!
You are truly the exemplar of restraint, when it comes to condescending airs.
—
Of course, were I truly hyperliteral, I’d note that ‘con descend’ means to lower oneself to another’s level.
(Oh, wait! The irony! 😉
You do get it’s about disinformation, about polluting the information space, about the narrative that there’s no true narrative, right?
It took you to claim it’s an idiom, of course.
(I remember how you also endorsed the underpants gnome, because he was antagonistic towards me)
The actual poster using the nym ‘jrkrideau’, well. They did not make that claim, did they? You did.
Anyway.
Tell me more about how “Fuck you’re a tedious buffoon Captain Hyperliteral. It’s an idiom you idiot.” is how one avoids “putting on such a condescending air”.
(You are fun, I will give you that much, BabblyBob)
—
So much for ‘dishy Rishi’, I am the subject again
@KG,43:
“Harold Wilson refused to join in the American war in Vietnam”.
Gosh, really? No, not really. Two of the men who delivered my infantry training served in Vietnam.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/britains-secret-role-in-the-brutal-us-war-in-vietnam/
Yes, but remember the context of that line in the play: Mark Antony, whose line it is, is lying: he comes not to bury Caesar, but to stir up violence against his killers!
sonofrojblake@52,
Interesting, but feeble as a response. As you’ll no doubt know, Johnson wanted open participation by sizeable British forces. The political benefit that would have given him was probably more important than the military contribtion itself.
sonofrojblake@52,
From your own link:
Clearly, if the UK had no choice but to be subservient to the USA, Wilson would have openly deployed British troops, instead of giving Johnson a public rebuff. He didn’t, so your claim that Bliar had no choice is refuted, unless you can establish that the UK was considerably more dependent on the USA in 2003 than in the 1960s.
“unless you can establish that the UK was considerably more dependent on the USA in 2003 than in the 1960s.”
You’re kidding, right?
sonofrojblake@55,
OK, clearly you can’t.
@Raging Bee @47
Because you are trying to find excuses for the actions of a white male ex-leader of an erstwhile imperial country , which caused numerous innocent darker skinned people to be murdered. Also its not as if Blair gets some of the blame implies that George Bush Jr’s (And Cheney and Rumsfeld and the American public) share of the blame is reduced
Also as mentioned, you are guessing at his mental state and reasons -- there is no evidence that your reasons are why Blair took the position he did , when he took it. Look at this for e.g. years later -- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/tony-blair-deliberately-exaggerated-threat-from-iraq-chilcot-report-war-inquiry#:~:text=Tony%20Blair%20has%20rejected%20the,made%20in%20planning%20the%20conflict.
@56: if it is your considered opinion that the UK’s global influence and independence from the US was greater in 2003 than it was in 1962, then I’m satisfied that there’s no point talking to you about… well, anything, really.
I note you made absolutely no apology or acknowledgement that you were dead wrong when you said “Wilson refused to join in the American war in Vietnam”. Rather you obfuscate and say “yeah, well not OPENLY, so I’m right because reasons” as though sending men to war doesn’t count if you don’t tell anyone. Wilson sent troops to Vietnam. You said he refused to. Your knowledge is lacking, and your attitude on being called out is entertaining. I think we’re done here.
@Deepak Shetty, 40:
Er… to the British Prime Minister? I should fucking hope so. I should hope that they absolutely do matter more than any other lives… that’s literally the PM’s whole job. In fact, there’s a word for putting other nation’s citizen’s lives above the lives of your own people -- treason.
/eyeroll
If there is misinformation circulating about a person, then it ought to be corrected. Right?
Depends on one’s ethical base.
Hey, if someone is saying that I lack self-esteem and that I am fragile, ought I to correct that misinformation?
(Just checking, Holms)
John: Are you questioning some “one’s” “ethical base?” If so, whose, and on what grounds?
…Sunak….fuck knows, help me out?
Gerald Ford, only dumber and less affable?
Raging Bee, not in the slightest. Mine is a much more general statement.
Depending on the meta-ethics, there are several schools of thought as to whether or not such correction should occur. So, it depends.
That is to say, different ethical systems will yield different ‘oughts’; some, such as mine, need a referent before such an ‘ought’ becomes meaningful; that is, ‘ought’ to [something] in order to achieve a [goal].
Different premises, different evaluation protocols, different levels of pragmatism.
(You know the classic three, of course)
So. Subjective, are these things. Depends.
So, no. Not questioning anyone’s particular ethical disposition — though, of course, as is evident here, some people profess one thing though their very actions demonstrably and evidently achieve exactly the opposite of their claimed goal.
(That’s perversity)
A lot wealthier.
Ah, right.
I asked the question of Holms because, depending on the response, I can make some sort of determination regarding his stance on this matter.
(He did ask a question, though not of me. And yet, I responded. Of course, each of us being familiar with the other, there is no need to be all that discursive or to set context. He knows to what I refer)
@sonofrojblake @59
Er… no since we were talking about your response , where you assign a high weight to the welfare of the British people , not so much to others.
So now you think Blair is guilty of treason ? Because he put American wants over the lvies of British soldiers ? About 150 British soldiers died If i remember correctly for a war fought on false premises and which you think Blair went along with just to appease his non British counterparts ? Sounds like treason by your definition.
@Holms @60
Sure . But the so called “correction” may itself be misinformation. The culpability of Bush was never in question.
This tactic of pretending that you are so obviously right that it’s beneath you to provide any evidence or argument is a favourite of yours -- you used it against holms@36 -- but I doubt whether it really convinces you, let alone anyone else. Of course the UK’s global influence declined between 1962 and 2003, but the same is not obviously true of ability to act independently of the USA in particular circumstances. For one thing, the UK in 2003 was (as you may remember) a member of the EU, the most important other members of which (France, Germany, Italy…) were opposed to the illegal war. Of EU countries, only Poland joined in. How do you suppose Bush would have punished the UK if Bliar had said no?
Weak sauce. My “Interesting” was an acknowledgement that I had not known about the covert aid. And what I actually said was that: “Harold Wilson refused to join in the American war in Vietnam”. Which he did, in the terms Johnson wanted, that is, by openly sending troops. He gave, per your link, a public rebuff to Johnson.
Sentence 1: I’m pretending I’m right.
Sentence 2: you saying that of course I’m right.
Eh?
I’m sure Johnson was seething about that bit of political theatre clearly intended to distract the public, as in private he decided how best to use the SAS. (That’s sarcasm, btw -- Johnson would hardly have cared about what the British public thought, as long as the British boots were on the ground -- which they were. So yeah, Wilson “refused”, sure, whatever you say.
@63: I was mostly going for things they actually said or did, rather than a general impression. And I know Truss/lettuce isn’t a thing she actually did or said per se, but I still think it’ll be the thing she’s remembered for, partly because the rest of her car crash of a premiership was such a shitshow it’s hard to know where to begin or to sum it up in a soundbite. Omnishambles?
Typical dishonesty from you. Your claim was that the UK was not only less influential globally in 2003 than 1962 (true, of course), but also less able to act independently of the USA (false, because the UK’s EU membership gave it a clear political and economic alternative to dependence on the USA, particularly in situations such as the lead-up to Iraq, where the EU, like the UN, was almost completely united in opposition to the illegal war). And you have simply ignored the question of how you think Bush would have punished the UK if Blair had refused. That’s because there is no sensible answer, and you know it. What would he have done? Nuked London? Blown a raspberrry at the Queen? What?
What ridiculous nonsense. As in the case of Iraq, what the USA wanted of the UK was political cover far more than actual military assistance.
Incidentally, I know of absolutely no evidence that Bliar was reluctant to join in Bush’s crimes; nor that he did so with the intention suggested by Raging Bee@28, of giving “helpful advice” that might be listened to. (BTW, Raging Bee@38, refusing to join in would certainly have saved the lives of the British troops who died in the illegal war -- and as UK PM, he had a special responsibility for those lives.)