SteveS1
I heard that, pardon?
He wouldn't be alone. I find that a rather delicious prospect.
Baker is supporting Sunak, game over for the oaf sadly.
The Premiership ofLiz Truss. Sept 2022-Oct 2022. New PM time!
- Thread starter sideshowbob
- Start date
- Status
He wouldn't be alone. I find that a rather delicious prospect.
Baker is supporting Sunak, game over for the oaf sadly.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
I am using sophisticated here in the way regulators do. i.e. meaning the opposite of naive or inexperienced rather than to suggest the readers of the Guardian live blogs are sitting around eating foie gras while reading live tweets about the day's news. Like how under my annual FCA review I am considered a "sophisticated investor" by which they mean I understand how securities, derivatives, markets, etc. work not that I am battling with George Soros for control of the sterling interest rate future
Tony L
Administrator
Brexit ultra-gammon Steve Baker, who is now baking Sunak, has just been on Sophie Ridge’s Sky show effectively saying there is no place for logic or compromise in the Northern Ireland Protocol and that if his hard-line extremism fails he and the other ERG gammons will bring the government down. Really quite threatening to Sunak and it highlighted just what a bunch of thugs are operating unelected at the heart of government. He recognised the Parliamentary Standards issue would bring Johnson down, hence his support for Sunak. I’m impressed/disappointed Sophie didn’t do a CGM.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
For sure. But I don't think that was happening here. The basic fact "supporters of Boris Johnson are claiming he has the required 100 vote threshold" even made it into tonight's C4 News report on the latest developments in the ongoing saga. It is, after all, hardly a particularly sensational claim and indeed appears to be essentially true -- Johnson supporters are claiming he has 100 MPs.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
Not to defend Steve Baker but for all his faults he was definitely elected.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Oh I don’t know. It’s very similar to the Trumpian: ‘Some people are saying […] I don’t know but that’s what they’re saying’ schtick. It’s just a way to get a bare faced lie into the media, and they’re complicit.
CTank
pfm Member
On the age thing: I’m approaching fifty, and have recently become a homeowner. So in theory, ripe for a rightward drift. I do notice myself becoming more socially conservative (note the small C).
But politically/economically, all my reading, and the evidence of my own eyes, only entrenches my youthful left wing nature. The class struggle is real, and they’ll happily come for the middle classes next. The ruling class will only ever look after their own. Which doesn’t include anyone on a salary, even if a fairly generous one.
But politically/economically, all my reading, and the evidence of my own eyes, only entrenches my youthful left wing nature. The class struggle is real, and they’ll happily come for the middle classes next. The ruling class will only ever look after their own. Which doesn’t include anyone on a salary, even if a fairly generous one.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
It's not like Trump at all and to be frank I find the comparison somewhat ridiculous. It's also not a bare faced lie -- many people are claiming that Johnson has the required 100 MPs.
Tony L
Administrator
I mean the ERG. People like Baker, Cash etc were elected as members of the UK Conservative Party, not some unaccountable and dubiously funded UKIP-clone insurgency. These entities have infiltrated right to the heart of this government, as have the likes of the IEA, Tax Payers Alliance etc. They are all opaque, receive dark-money funding, and are entirely unaccountable to the electorate. They are all symptoms of corruption and a failed state.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
But the people claiming he’s got the 100 are most likely lying, and the media know they are most likely lying. But they print it, because news. It’s complicity in misdirection of the public.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
Of course as journalists they would know that not reporting it would be editorialising. Are you suggesting they just ignore these claims?
Here's the C4 News report on this. What exactly is so terrible about this?
Nic Robinson
Moderator
Surely if Boris scrapes 99 + 1, it's over as the membership would vote him in. ISTM the only way of avoiding him is getting fewer than 100.
Tony L
Administrator
In fairness it is news because a politician is saying it. Politicians lie. It is the duty of the press to first report the statements as recorded, and later expose any lies as hard evidence emerges. The failing we see in our press is in the latter stage as the news cycle is so fast moving/real time going back just seems like old news. Exploiting this cycle is a very much practiced alt-right propaganda technique and the press desperately need to adapt to a modern politics that thrives on deliberate lies, deflection and misinformation. They need to catch up, but not reporting statements such as “Johnson has >100” from Tory inside sources is not the issue, they should later doxx their source as a liar IMHO.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Well I’ve not watched all of it, but I watched as far as the ‘his backers are claiming he has the required one hundred…’ bit. What was striking was that, immediately after reporting that claim, the piece cut to a section about Stoke on Trent. That’s a typical distraction tactic: make an unsupported claim, then move quickly on so the claim is left in the air.
Responsible reporting could have, should have, repeated the claim, but added a rider that the available evidence suggests he’s actually far short of that figure. But they didn’t, preferring to drop in the claim, then distract before the claim can be critically examined.
Dishonest, and I’m disappointed that Ch4 would do this, I’m more used to it from the BBC.
SteveS1
I heard that, pardon?
Why would you not want him to win? Rip the plaster off. The result would be chaos but short lived. Giving them a long run with Sunak will be much, much worse for anyone wanting rid of this lot.
Tony L
Administrator
There is suggestion Sunak and Johnson are meeting and fighting it out. My guess is the party’s billionaire owners and donors have decided Johnson is too much risk, especially given he will likely be suspended over his endless breaches of Ministerial Code etc. As such I suspect Sunak will be coronated and Johnson end up as Party Chairman or whatever. The more I think about this the more I think Johnson won’t end up on the list. There is too much risk to those with the real money as the whole thing could come crashing down within months with Johnson. I am convinced the only way to look at the Conservative and Republican parties is as a criminal front for gangster oligarchs etc. As ever follow the money, look at the party funders, and see things from their self interests. That way Tory policy makes sense. The donors are the Tory owners, their voters the marks, the rest of us just the raw materials to be harvested.
Finnegan
It’s shite being Scottish!
If I were to be found lying on a Caribbean beach outside of any period of agreed annual leave, I would fully expect to be called to account by my employer. How come he will face no formal sanction?
If trade unions are legally prohibited from using online voting for strike ballots, how come it’s being used to elect the Tory leader?
If trade unions are legally prohibited from using online voting for strike ballots, how come it’s being used to elect the Tory leader?
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
The claim being made is a fairly anodyne one. It's literally a fact that people are publically saying this. It was explained in context as part of a fuller report on the subject.
You seem to have set yourself up as Mr Right round here. Starting any sentence with 'Of course ' just marks you out as a bit of a pillock beyond the contestable nature of some of your comments. I would say it is more reminiscent of Trumpian tactics than not btw. Your second sentence also does not necessarily back up your first.
- Status