Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I agree she could be a threat but I'd argue that she still would be bad for the party, at least so far as getting the party to be something that is good for Britain.

But good for the party is winning and advancing their agenda for the country. I think she would be the most effective of the likely candidates right now. I'm on the left and I can't stand the Tories. So what I think is good for Britain is probably very bad for them and things they and their supporters would hate. I don't think the Tories will ever be good for Britain - but I don't think it's like the GOP, I don't think they're a threat to democracy.

And it may work - again with the Barbara Castle and Thatcher comparison. They'd both identified the same issue. Castle couldn't get her solution from the left through, so Thatcher got hers and it set the terms of politics for a generation (I think there was similar ferment during the war on "reconstruction" - and Labour won). I find it really striking how much the think tanks on left and right are converging on similar diagnoses about Britain. They're identifying similar issues that are root causes of problems - so again the think tank side of both sides are focusing on them from different angles. I supsect Badenoch will be the candidate of that wonky/think tanky/Gove-ish side of the right.

I don't think she is personally morally unfit to hold office like Johnson - or just incapable like Truss. I also think she's not playing to a radical politics in the way that Braverman is - or I think Patel does.

The one I'm not sure about is Cleverly because I've no sense of him. He seems fine as Foreign Secretary and gets good reviews from civil servants. But I don't really have any idea of his politics or what he'd want to do.

But obviously it all depends on the election results. I think there is a chance the party loses their mind and decides they just really want to be in opposition for a while - like Labour with Corbyn (or, arguably, Foot). I also think the worse the result is the more likely they'll go for someone who isn't a senior cabinet minister/associated with the ancien regime - I suspect they'll try to find someone from the next generation who is either quite junior or possibly even outside of cabinet so possibly skipping all the candidates we're talking about now.

[Josquius]

I think of the candidates likely running (with all those caveats), I think she's the one likely to present most of a threat to a Labour government.

Her leadership pitch was, I think, fairly coherent - and pretty critical of Johnson (people have been let down by platitudes and empty rhetoric, he came to symbolise the feeling that nothing was working etc). She also said she wouldn't get into a "bidding war" with, say, Truss on which taxes she wanted to cut because it was cakeism which is what people were tired of after Johnson. That was an unusual pitch in that leadership election when everyone was promising the moon - and especially bold for the most junior candidate. (Edit: Alternately, it's exactly the campaign the most junior candidate has to run to get any attention/have a chance? )

I've mentioned before but she's the one I worry could be the Thatcher to Starmer's Barbara Castle if he doesn't deliver on planning, building and growth.

I agree she could be a threat but I'd argue that she still would be bad for the party, at least so far as getting the party to be something that is good for Britain.

This sums up basically every competent tory ever.

[Gups]

She's awful and would be terrible for the Tory party. She has no vision, no charisma and no sense of humour. Your political antennae are picking up a rogue signal Shelf.

[mongers]

She's awful and would be terrible for the Tory party. She has no vision, no charisma and no sense of humour. Your political antennae are picking up a rogue signal Shelf.

Shelf is just trying to find the diamond in the rough; he's convinced himself there's one out there.

[Josquius]

I suppose the tories becoming convinced someone horrid is actually great is bad for them thus good for the country /world?

[Sheilbh]

She's awful and would be terrible for the Tory party. She has no vision, no charisma and no sense of humour. Your political antennae are picking up a rogue signal Shelf.

Oh it always is Whether Scott Walker or Lisa Nandy I cannot judge

That all seems fair. And as I say I think there's a chance depending on how the results go that it's someone very unexpected and I also think there's a real risk the party goes off the rails for a while.

But of the ones we know about - Braverman and Cleverly - I think she's the best (although as I say, I have no real sense of Cleverly) and might impress. I think Braverman in particular would try to lead the Tories into a pretty dark place, although I'm not sure if she'd manage. Also think the Tories should probably avoid charism and humour for a while for everyone's good

[PJL]

She's awful and would be terrible for the Tory party. She has no vision, no charisma and no sense of humour. Your political antennae are picking up a rogue signal Shelf.

Isn't that most of the leadership hopefuls in a nutshell (and arguably Sunak as well)? Still reckon Mordaunt would be the biggest challenge for Labour if she became Tory leader.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't that most of the leadership hopefuls in a nutshell (and arguably Sunak as well)? Still reckon Mordaunt would be the biggest challenge for Labour if she became Tory leader.

I was pretty underwhelmed by Mordaunt's leadership bid - it didn't seem like there was much there there. And at a certain point you slightly wonder about repeated PMs choosing not to put her anywhere near a serious department in cabinet.

[Tamas]

It's cute from all of you to pretend it won't be Lizz Truss.

[Gups]

I think you guys are mistaken in thinking any of these twats are interested in becoming the next William Hague. They are trying to build their profiles to monetise them.

[mongers]

It's cute from all of you to pretend it won't be Lizz Truss.

 

Never a truer word said in jest. 

[Josquius]

It's cute from all of you to pretend it won't be Lizz Truss.

I live in hope.
Just the right level of shit the tories guarantee they're no longer a threat.
She embodies, taken to 11, the main reaso why the past 13 years were so horrid.  Perfect opposition for a new government.

[Josquius]

HS2 cancelled.
"yeah but we will invest every penny. All 36 billion. In new transport projects in the north".

1:look at the source. Trust worthy? Not remotely.

2: transport projects. Not rail. Not transit. Transport. Look at the details and a chunk of this is for road upgrades which in 2023 we really shouldn't be doing no matter what.
Roads rarely have trouble getting funding as things are.


3: the problem wasn't hs2 in concept. It was the tories handling of it. Surely scattering this money over multiple projects multiplies the chances for fuck ups and overruns?

4: if they are recognising 36 billion is needed to improve transport in the north... Why not spend 36 billion to improve transport in the north? Why do you need to destroy another vital infrastructure project to do this?


And the fucker has the cheek to go on about how he is making a break with short termism and thinking long term.

[Sheilbh]

I've no issue with some road projects and think the Welsh governments approach of blocking basically all road upgrades or new roads is not helpful. But they also have issues - for example one of the projects they'll invest in is the dualling of the A1, first proposed in 1990. Promised and scrapped numerous times.

Another is Bradford train station - announced by George Osborne, scrapped by Boris Johnson in 2021, reinstated by Liz Truss in 2022, scrapped by Rishi Sunak in 2022, reinstated by Rishi Sunak in 2023.

This is part of why infrastructure is so expensive in this country - and, as you say, striking for a "long term" PM.

Broadly agree on it being the Tories fault - but I think one big criticism I would make of Labour with HS2 was that it was positioned as being about "high speed" rail rather than capacity. From what I've read that appraoch, which I think was a conceptual flaw started under Brown (possibly Lord Adonis or Geoff Hoon). I read a piece about the proposal put together by the team behind HS1 (delivered on budget and on time) - and apparently at some point under Adonis the Transport Department became fixated on speed and some projection someon had done that each minute of journey time reduced would create £600 million of economic value (can't help but think - and Tamas was right and I was wrong on this - about the behavioural scientists on covid coming up with some projection that guides policy but turns out to be bs).

The Tories are on the hook for implementation but that framing and focus on speed was really important. The other big impact aside from framing is that again apparently the Transport Department became fixated on speed so the route is designed to hit 400kmh which is very high speed, given that we're a small island. It requires basically a straight line which cuts through countryside areas like the Chilterns, which is why about 60% of the route is in cuttings or tunnels (which is a lot more expensive). Apparently the initial proposal was to build it next to the M40 to minimise environmental and planning concerns - but that could only hit speeds of 200-300kmh. The other recommendation which I've always thought should have been done is starting the building in Manchester and Leeds - that's where most of the economic benefit is in cbrs prepared by the civil service (and, cynically, I think if something finishes in London it will finish; if it starts in London it might not). Obviously they're an interested party but it seems fairly coherent (they also attacked the model of delivery and the budget not being made available to bidding parties, which meant everyone inflated their bids).

The other slightly mad thing is that because of the scaling back of Euston changes and I think current plans to terminate in Royal Oak, even if it were completed it couldn't operate at full capacity because there isn't enough platform space at the London end. It takes a very special type of incompetence to end up spending tens of billions of pounds on a high speed rail that connects Birmingham to London zone 3

[Gups]

It was all Adonis, Shelf. He really pushed the poject.

The issue with it being high speed is not primarily positioning, it's design and cost. THe requirements for high speed mean that the line had to be straight with very limited/gradual gradations in levels. THat meant no flexibility in design and vastly higher costs that would have been the case with a 150 mph railway, which would have delivered virtually the same benefits (and still could for phase 2 if there was a redesign).

The Euston leg hasn't been cancelled (but has been postponed for two years).