You must log in or register to comment.

N8CCRG t1_itl31re wrote

Any UK folks want to fill the rest of us in on if this is a great/terrible/meh result?


StupidMastiff t1_itl51t8 wrote

He's a near billionaire tax dodger who bragged about diverting funding from deprived areas to wealthy areas. He's an utter cunt.


leo_aureus t1_itl5krd wrote

I am honestly so amazed that we cling to the vestiges of a liberal democracy and pretend we don't notice how every single politician is either insanely weathly or becomes such after a little while in office. Totally not an oligarchy, though!


WatchandThings t1_itlanzv wrote

I keep thinking the world is entering a new feudalism where the new nobles are just company owning(whether directly or by investment) oligarchs instead of land owning lords. Having you describe it on the nation of actual monarchy and nobility, kind of really drives that new feudalism idea home.


BabySuperfreak t1_itmt00o wrote

Honestly the only missing component is that corporations are still barred from having private militias and the govt would give them a HARD side eye if they asked. Modern politicians might be whores, but they aren't dumb enough to write themselves out of relevance.

Should that ever change, however...


sunflower_love t1_itwg714 wrote

This is a good point I think. Private militias would take it that much closer to a complete cyberpunkish corporatocracy


LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_itn3a9i wrote

I mean, just look at the dynamic of Elon, Ye, and Trump supporting each other in their celebration of owning social media companies and Ye complaining about Biden not meeting with Musk because for whatever reason billionaires should be at the head of the table.

So, yup.


Superb-Antelope-2880 t1_itmxyp1 wrote

Where was that never the case in some forms?


WatchandThings t1_itn1ocj wrote

I guess, the difference from where we were and where are now is that I'm seeing is the class gap widening. The class gap is starting to look more and more like the lords and serfs with blatant protection of the rich and the companies(the people that avoid all legal troubles and companies that pay the 'cost of doing business') making them another level of citizenry.

I think the new feudalism would be complete when they actually lock the voting powers away from the public, and only allow company ownership to existing oligarchs and their descendants.


Superb-Antelope-2880 t1_itolrqb wrote

I think it's no wider than it ever was, on a practical scale.

How much class mobility were there when colored people couldn't vote or women can't own land?

Atleast in America, people simply throw a segment of society under the hustle on purpose so white working men had a bigger slice of the pie.

The rich always had the biggest share regardless.

Now the slice for the common people are simply shared among more individuals so it appear there are less.


WatchandThings t1_itpwppm wrote

That's a fair point. What I was picturing was the early 1900s with Rockefeller and the crew being the top end and the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Company workers on the bottom end. I feel like we are heading towards that level of class separation, but we felt like we haven't fully arrived there.

But maybe the Bezos and the crew are the new elite and maybe we are not seeing the Triangle Shirtwaist Company workers because they are overseas.


moeburn t1_itlcgve wrote

> I am honestly so amazed that we cling to the vestiges of a liberal democracy and pretend we don't notice how every single politician is either insanely weathly or becomes such after a little while in office

It's a FPTP democracy, the least democratic of democracies.


musicantz t1_itll5qg wrote

His wealth isn’t from his time in office. He married rich.


mr_schmunkels t1_itm8spp wrote

Does that change anything in regards to the idea that being in office usually requires a huge bank account?


TheCrowsSoundNice t1_itmgv10 wrote

We've got to do something about billionaires. They are the worst people for humanity (Putin, Trump). And before you say there are some good ones, what made them good? - the fact they GAVE their money away. Let's just go ahead and do that for them.


SlightlyAngyKitty t1_itmp6jd wrote

If billionaires didn't exist and we had a functioning and fair society, there probably wouldn't be a need for the charities rich people donate to as tax write offs.


jwm3 t1_itxav3v wrote

Blame the gutting of the inheritence/estate tax by Reagan. It make oligarchies possible in the US. In the past, if you wanted your wealth to live on you had to build a museum, or charity, or found a university. Basically billionaires had to find a public good to invest in before they died.


utopianmessiah t1_itmo4hy wrote

We most definitely need to move towards a meritocratic leadership with academic + industry experience. Not the usual bullshit, she/he read classics at Oxbridge, became a local MP, and then suddenly fit to run the country (which has the 6/7th largest economy in the world).

Even Labour's rhetoric is a load of horseshit: eh, i'm a local geezer son, worked as a canary in the mines (and survived) and me daddeh was a bricklayer. Vote for me, I understand the working man!

ffs! We need a new model, new approach, new leadership...


empfindsamkeit t1_itlfr95 wrote

Politicians are generally not all that rich actually. And when they are, they usually earned it before entering politics. At least in the US. Richest congressman is Senator Rick Scott at $259 mil, whose company IIRC engaged in Medicare fraud, but he acquired all that wealth before becoming a senator. By the time you get to the 50th richest (out of 536) you're down to $10M. Median net worth is only $1M. With a salary of ~$175K and things like book deals/speeches for the more popular ones, it's not crazy to reach that level of wealth, especially with a spouse, while in office. Just investing $75K for 10 years (average length of service for Congressmen) would be enough to get one a $1M net worth.


ButterflyAttack t1_itlj4aj wrote

Yeah, that's why they'll so often sell us out so cheaply. Either we have rich politicians or we have rich people buying and controlling the politicians. Either way, we are nothing but a resource from which to extract maximum value.

Yeah, occasionally you get politicians who mean well, they generally get stomped by the media - most of which is owned by a small group of rich people. Either way, we're fucked.


empfindsamkeit t1_itlmgug wrote

If true, there's nobody to blame but the people. They could throw these people out at any time. If they can't find ~500 honest, qualified people in the country on a regular basis then that's still an indictment of the people.


woopdedoodah t1_itlpno2 wrote

Realistically, the attributes that help you get elected (determination, people skills, organizational ability, etc) are also those most likely to make you rich.


Jebus_UK t1_itlefqc wrote

>He's an utter cunt.

About right - not quite as much of a cunt as Johnson though. If Johnson had got the nod the party and government would probably have collapsed - 100% As it stands - they have an 80% chance of collapsing.

I don't think the factions in the party will be united under Sunak. I don't think they woukd have under Johnson either. Which is why they should call a GE - throw it back to the people but they won't


OutsideObserver t1_itlve19 wrote

With parliamentary systems I always see people talking about "calling an election" - do they also happen automatically based on time or are they only called in certain circumstances?


thatbakedpotato t1_itlvty2 wrote

They must happen every 4-5 years, but they can happen sooner, which restarts the countdown until another must be called.


OutsideObserver t1_itlwx6r wrote

That is how I always assumed it was but thought I'd ask for clarification, thank you!


Treczoks t1_itndmcd wrote

In other words, he is a perfect Tory.


stonedseals t1_itmsqwn wrote

Not from the UK, but read that his wife isn't a UK citizen to avoid taxes on her wealth... Yikes for a PM's SO, imo.


rhubarbrhubarb78 t1_itl85nl wrote

Rishi is the best of a terrible bunch. This isn't saying much, as he's still a rich Tory, used to be a Goldman Sachs banker, and was Chancellor during Boris Johnson's terrible government. His government will (probably) not do anything as stupid as Truss as quickly, but the gradual erosion of civil liberties, crippling of the NHS, and slow collapse of the economy under Brexit will still continue.

Like the rest of them, he hasn't avoided scandal himself - his wife dodges her taxes, and he was the architect of 'Eat Out To Help Out', an intiative during the peak of Covid in Summer 2020 that encouraged people to go out and eat. It cost a shit tonne of money, as the govt subsidised restaurants, and saw a massive raise in cases and deaths. Great work.

Looking to future general elections, the Conservative Party (and UK politics as a whole) has been chasing the right-wing, 'middle England' vote for decades. This shift is why Brexit was even considered, and why a proper left-wing alternative to the Conservatives hasn't emerged (Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders have a lot in common). Electing Sunak may shoot the Tories in the foot here, as a lot of these people are racist af and won't vote for him because he's brown and has a 'funny' name. Sunak was the most popular amongst MPs three months ago too, the press played him up as the obvious choice and as a safe, capable pair of hands after the mess of BoJo, but they had to ask the party membership and Truss won their vote pretty decisively.... for some reason.

Let's not mince words here - these people are thick, racist twats. Fuck 'em. But the Tories have 2 years to try and convince these dickheads that Rishi is one of the good ones, actually. And he has to avoid making any stupid policy decisions and crashing the economy even further. Which, as a Tory, will be very hard for him to do.

Verdict? Meh. BoJo would have been worse, and the rest of the current Tory frontline are degenerate swine. Rishi is at least vaguely normal.


NecromanticSolution t1_itle847 wrote

> Truss won their vote pretty decisively.... for some reason.

Empty promises. She promised castles in the sky while his ones were somewhat more restrained. So the Tory members chose to chase a cheap illusion instead of dealing with reality.


MilfagardVonBangin t1_itlux0h wrote

Plus the party membership supported her because she’s permanently rimming Boris. Sunak only had the parliamentary party voting.


thatbakedpotato t1_itlvyk7 wrote

Starmer is most definitely left-wing lmao.


busyandtired t1_itn07oq wrote

He's really more centrist than you think.


thatbakedpotato t1_its24p0 wrote

I’ve read his entire manifesto, watched his speech at the conference, and followed his interviews. He isn’t super left, but he is 100% left wing. Unless you define left wing as exclusively Corbynite disciples, which is massively reductionist.

If the left wing in Britain wants to keep defining its leaders as socialist or bust, it’s never gonna win again. I’d rather see a moderate left like Starmer actually govern than a leader I 100% agree with keep failing.


busyandtired t1_itsq2hn wrote

Starmer couldn't even be bothered to support the striking RMT workers. If that is left wing, you and I have different ideas of what that is.

A moderate is not what the UK needs.


busyandtired t1_itn033d wrote

Best of the bunch is a stupid way to put it. He sucks ass.


Starman68 t1_itm1kpe wrote

Can I ask you if you think Labour will face similar problems when they get in power? Seems to me that Brexit chews up PMs. I don’t see Labour being hugely united despite Keith doing a good leadership job so far. Do you think he’ll get in and go for immediate improvement of relations with the EU (despite what he says now?)


woopdedoodah t1_itlq3cd wrote

>Jeremy Corbyn

was found to be an 'anti-semite' by the UK's own equality and human rights commission. I mean... how can you accuse anyone of being a racist twat and then prop this guy up?


Tugays_Tabs t1_itl7qw3 wrote

The fact that we are even having another Tory prime minister shows our electoral system is fucked.

He’s a cunt like the rest of them.


barc0de t1_itl6j4n wrote

He potentially serves as an end to the chaos the UK has seen in recent weeks, since he predicted it would happen while running against Liz Truss in the prior leadership campaign.

But it remains to be seen if the Conservative Party is in any way governable any more, particularly since he will have to announce a series of unpopular measures next week to close the budget black hole caused by his predecessor's mini budget sending the cost of government borrowing through the roof


WonderWall_E t1_itl9asf wrote

He won't end the chaos at all. He'd have a chance to do so if the underlying problems were the result of the character or personality of Tory leadership, but they aren't. They're the result of Tory policy. Sunak's policy will be indistinguishable from BoJo or Truss (or the myriad of clowns, liars, and grifters who preceded them).


TimeTraveler3056 t1_itl3b45 wrote

Yes. ELI5 please.


SterlingMNO t1_itlfjgv wrote

Same policies as the rest of them, but has financial chops, however his running of the economy has been horrific up till now, whether it's the endless tax hikes (more hikes in 2 years than brown did in a decade), whether it's his 'eat out to help out' scheme which was absoltuely moronic during covid. Whether it was the money he paid companies (lets face it, probably ran by his friends) during covid to deliver services they never did, writing off billions of pounds of tax payer money.

Then there's the scandals and things that generally just stink like shit.

  • He held a US green card, classing himself as a permanent resident of the US while in government.
  • He's also married to a billionaire who's been dodging tax for YEARS.
  • He openly admitted to funnelling government money away from deprived working class areas to prop up the budgets of upper-class wealthy areas, because let's face it, that's who his core supporters are.
  • He likes to do photo shoots in little cars pretending it's his own, but actually borrowed from a Sainsbury's worker who probably lives paycheck to paycheck because of his policies.
  • He owns 5 cars at different homes. Land Rovers and the like.
  • He calls himself 'a northerner like you', even though he was raised in SOUTHampton. The clue is in the name.
  • He was raised by a wealthy family and went to a prestigious private boarding school, and he's now worth about £1billion, but somehow likes to act like he had humble beginnings and is just a working class bloke! Until he's infront of his cronies, and then he's full greedy goldman sachs banker mode.

He will be no different then Boris, or Truss. Potentially worse because of his absolute arrogance and the gall of him to have the track record he does and still run for PM, but it makes little to no difference, it's all public perception, the reality is that he too, is a complete cunt, and he too, will continue to degrade the economy, the NHS, and strip away benefits.

The only guy in that party that I wanted to be PM is Ben Wallace, and he openly said he didn't want the job. Another reason why he's the only person I want to have the job.


TimeTraveler3056 t1_itlyjri wrote

Is there anybody else in any party ? Who decides-Do you get to vote?


SterlingMNO t1_itm0um9 wrote

Only conservative party members can vote afaik.

No one else in the party is worthy besides Ben Wallace that I know of


TimeTraveler3056 t1_itmybjl wrote

What about a different side? Or no side? Why just the conservatives?


SterlingMNO t1_itmykou wrote

Because its a conservative government. It's not a general election, it's an election of whos going to lead the conservative party, so naturally it's conservative party members who decide.


LongStrangeTrips t1_itniwau wrote

I get that these are the rules, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. Surely if you’d gone through two leaders already, there are people from other parties who deserve a chance now.


SterlingMNO t1_itnj6kj wrote

Maybe, but the fact is the people voted in this party. And this party will stay it's term and elect a new leader.


alexmikli t1_itpso7r wrote

So in 2019 the voters voted for conservatives who voted for Boris. The public essentially elects the party that governs, but the party chooses who the PM is. This isn't a general election, it's replacing a PM who fell out of favor.


Print_it_Mick t1_itlw3wa wrote

The want to run your country are the people who wouldn't consider it, simply put it's a thankless job as you can't please everyone,


BabySuperfreak t1_itmud4j wrote

And the people who DO want the job only feel as such bc they have no intention of actually doing it - they just want to use the power and benefits for personal gain.


MilfagardVonBangin t1_itlukvt wrote

Honestly, the Tories, always bastards, have gone completely insane since 2016. The uk needs an election followed by serious electoral reform.


h0p3ofAMBE t1_itl1loc wrote

It’s official he’s the prime minister. Odds on him lasting till the “2024 election”?


TedKFan6969 t1_itl1zkg wrote

If they change him before '24 and don't call an election, none of them are gonna last at the 2024 election.


[deleted] t1_itl4zhe wrote



pollok112 t1_itl6j1u wrote

Tories have been in power for twelve years not two decades,in that time they have been ahead of Labour in opinion polls until last week

Now they are well behind and would lose around 200 mps if there was a vote tomorrow


CrashB111 t1_itl9osz wrote

The problem is people have goldfish memories so they have a couple years for everyone to forget their fuck ups. And in the meantime they can beat the good ole racism drums to scare people into voting for them.


ajlunce t1_itlthu7 wrote

Labour have been leading in the polls since December of last year and have led the conservatives several times over the last decade, what are you talking about?


kingfrito_5005 t1_itlweg1 wrote

Well they weren't averaging a new PM every 3 weeks during most of those two decades.


Jebus_UK t1_itldy4f wrote

The public should demand one now - it's ludicrous.


mushroomwig t1_itl213w wrote

Pretty good odds I think, winning the next election though? No way 😂 unless something amazing happens in the next couple of years that give them another pass


h0p3ofAMBE t1_itl2458 wrote

Haha the odds of some thing amazing happening are probably lower than him winning the next general election


mistergoodguy20 t1_itl89ro wrote

This just in, Queen Victoria has had enough of the Torie cabinet, and has come back from death to assert direct rule over England.

And in other news, is child labor the future for your family? More at 5.


Starman68 t1_itm1zfl wrote

I doubt he’ll make it much after eight o clock.


HanaBothWays t1_itl1kt4 wrote

I refuse to believe that this “Penny Mordaunt” person is real and not a character from a Lemony Snickett book.

Or a monster from the Old Kingdom.


LupinThe8th t1_itl5333 wrote

Mordaunt is absolutely the name of either a vampire or a mortician, possibly both.


ChampBlankman t1_itl1ouv wrote

They've got to be heading towards a vote of no confidence. They just can't seem to get out of their own way long enough to form a cohesive government.


Moontoya t1_itl8okf wrote

No confidence can't be triggered until 12 months in office


CrashB111 t1_itla4am wrote

Tories have found this one simple trick to avoiding no confidence votes. Just change PM multiple times a year.


lula2488 t1_itlar6m wrote

Only if it is an internal Conservative Motion of No Confidence.

Can still put one forward in the HoC


Lootcifer- t1_itl47hs wrote

Jesus fuck just start new elections or something


space-ish t1_itl7e2p wrote

I'm confused, their next leader is not elected by the people?


Tugays_Tabs t1_itl81dw wrote

Nope. Anointed by the ruling party. Opinion polls show that a huge majority of the country want to remove them but we will likely have to wait until 2024.

What we need right now is not a billionaire PM.


space-ish t1_itl8r9b wrote

Thank you for clarifying! It's nuts that in-party politics is messing it up for the common folk. Yes, billionaires are out of touch with the problems of the majority.


gonzo5622 t1_itljhbt wrote

Can the King force new elections?


Tugays_Tabs t1_itll17x wrote

It’s technically possible I believe due to the way our laws were made up on centuries worth of “back of the cigarette packets”.

But it would lead to a bit of a constitutional crisis and no matter how much I hate the Tories, I’m not sure I want to set the precedent for a hereditary dictatorship who can decide to dissolve the sitting government at will.


CrappyTire69 t1_itlpx7d wrote

Happened here in Canada with the King-Byng Thing. William Lyon McKenzie King had a few rapid-fire elections in a short period of time due to unstable government, so the third or fourth time he asked GG Byng to dissolve parliament, he said no. Under Canadian law, if the GG says no, the PM has to step down (read: is fired). Led to a huge constitutional crisis in Canada and massive republican sentiment in Canada. It'd cause a constitutional crisis for sure. What wound up happening is the opposition was offered the opportunity to form parliament but lost in a confidence vote and King won a majority in the next election.


leelougirl89 t1_itmsa72 wrote

If anyone is curious, GG stands for Governal General. The GG is a stand in for the King or Queen in a British Colony (like Canada) since the King can’t physically be in all of his colonies at once.

Just like British Kings/Queens, the Governer General:

-doesn’t usually get involved unless it’s super duper crisis time and the Prime Minister needs help. -is mostly known for giving out awards. -is not elected by the people. (The colony’s Prime Minister picks one and gets final approval from the Queen/King).

Our last one was a super accomplished astronaut... who was apparently SUCH an extremely nasty and cruel boss to her staff that there was an entire legal investigation done by an outside lawfirm. They confirmed she was a b-word. Yeah she was fired. Or she quit. That was quite the drama.

I didn’t know the GG had the power to call an election.

Cool :)


PoeHeller3476 t1_itozqkh wrote

There was also the Dismissal in Australia, where Gough Whitlam’s Labor government lost it’s majority in the Senate due to a Whitlam ally dying in office and being deliberately replaced with a member of the Labor Party opposed to Whitlam (the Premiers of the Australian States fill senate vacancies; in this case, it was infamous National Premier and dictator of Queensland Joh Bjelke-Pieterson). This caused the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser to get the Liberal-National Coalition to block supply in the Senate (supply is the funding for the government to operate; without supply, the government falls and an election is called).

Fraser repeatedly urged the GG Sir John Kerr (a friend of Whitlam’s who Whitlam had appointed the year before the crisis) to call a fresh election for the House of Representatives. Whitlam sought advice from Kerr, and Kerr showed no indication that he would dismiss Whitlam, while Kerr worked out a deal with Fraser.

Then, when Whitlam came to meet the GG to request a half-Senate election, the GG instead dismissed Whitlam, forcing the government from power. He then appointed Fraser as PM, the Coalition passed supply, and a double dissolution election was called. The Coalition and Fraser then won the snap election with a massive majority.

The whole issue with the Dismissal was the fact that the GG wasn’t direct with Whitlam and basically blindsided him, and that the GG forced a sitting government out of office. It essentially forced Kerr to resigned a few years later and live out his years away from Australia.


vipros42 t1_itlki94 wrote

Technically he could probably deny Sunak the chance to form a government. But that won't happen.


infidel11990 t1_itnmfsz wrote

The moment he does that, monarchy will be instantly abolished.

It's a ceremonial role with no real power. And that's by design. The monarchy can't actually be held accountable. But the government can be.


thisvideoiswrong t1_itlb05a wrote

In all parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is elected by the members of the legislature. It's like the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader in the US, but that position is given executive power. This frequently leads to coalition governments, with parties allying to form a majority that can elect a Prime Minister, which can allow for greater diversity than the US system where one person has to win the majority of votes from the whole country. And realistically a US Republican President wouldn't have resigned under these circumstances in the first place. In both cases you have to wait for the next scheduled election before the people get a vote.


space-ish t1_itlcmfy wrote

Good point. I was thinking along the lines that people vote for the govt knowing the person who will lead/represent them. In this case it's not the person they originally voted for to lead them?


Merzendi t1_itlm4nr wrote

Correct. The public as a whole voted for Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party, and after Boris resigned, it’s the Conservatives alone who get to pick who replaces him.

While one could argue it would be ethically appropriate for a the new leader to call a general election, there’s no legal obligation to, and the likelihood of victory is very low. It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that they aren’t going to.


woopdedoodah t1_itlp2fl wrote

Parliamentary systems are basically electoral colleges that meet regularly. You elect an elector (an MP). They vote for a leader... the PM, the new head of government. The PM lasts as long as he has the support of the parliament. While PM he/she basically gets to pass whatever legislation they want by introducing it into parliament, and getting his party / coalition to vote for it.


nsci2ece t1_itle2gp wrote

In parliamentary systems, the people vote for MPs and never get directly involved in the election of the party leader.

If the leader changes before the party's term is up, that is also out of the hands of the masses.

In practice, it's not really that much different from directly voting for the leader. Ultimately the buck stops with the leader and many voters choose their MP because of who the party leader is, without paying much attention to the MP's actual campaign.


BigODetroit t1_itlfiq5 wrote

You guys need a general election


80Pound t1_itl8oqb wrote

Having someone of Indian decent leading the UK just seems poetic. How the tables have turned.


earhere t1_itlepyr wrote

He'll likely be just as hated as Truss


[deleted] t1_itldm03 wrote



gopoohgo t1_itlhobl wrote

>Why? Turned how?

Like how the UK invaded India, turned it into a colony and looted it's riches? And now you have someone of Indian descent (who is also rich af) as Prime Minister?

Oh how the turn tables, as the kids say nowadays.


woopdedoodah t1_itlpdua wrote

I'm ethnically Indian. As annoying as the British are, and as well documented as some of the abuses... the British are not this evil colonizing power you make them out to be. Everywhere the Brits went, they educated the native populations (especially the 'elites' of that population) with good English education and wanted them to assimilate into British culture. That's not to say they were perfect, but it's also not surprising that Britain and India get along farely well and that Indians are well-accepted in the UK as Britons. IIRC, at this point the entirety of the British isles are now led by people of Indian ethnicity.


gopoohgo t1_itlsblt wrote

>As annoying as the British are, and as well documented as some of the abuses...the British are not this evil colonizing power you make them out to be.

Since I'm American, we disagree on the bolded point, tongue-in-cheek.


woopdedoodah t1_itm4q3x wrote

I'm american too.. that's great. But british colonialism was a mixed bag. Not universally bad, not universally good. The Brits were rather accepting of foreign aristocrats. It's how they got so powerful. Not sure why I'd be downvoted for this.


Vannitel t1_itlidw6 wrote

Calm down, turbo, I think they meant it historically like the UK was running India for a bit and now someone of Indian descent is running the UK. Not a great insight/post but certainly not as heinous and venomous as yours. I doubt they care about Brexit if they are American. It’s just not as newsworthy anymore here. Shitty as that is.


woopdedoodah t1_itlphu7 wrote

>I doubt they care about Brexit if they are American. It’s just not as newsworthy anymore here. Shitty as that is.

Brexit is good for the USA; not shitty at all.


kingfrito_5005 t1_itlwtd8 wrote

I think he was referring to the fact that the UK took control of India for a long time? Nobody said anything about the EU. And also 80Pound didn't say anything at all about whether he would be good or bad. He just said it was poetic.


jcmach1 t1_itlak0s wrote

This trainwreck ends with a generational Labour landslide...

Even IF you are Tory, you should realize that.


WirelessBCupSupport t1_itln5xu wrote

Ok Brits, now get back in the EU, and get the economy stable there, and kick those Russkie spies out of the UK!


PS Boris Johnson is a twit.


hellcat_uk t1_itmtvvv wrote

Worth letting the EU decide what it is before we decide if that's what we want to apply to be a fully participating part of.


hyggety_hyggety t1_itltdki wrote

Penny Mordaunt? That’s a hell of a name.


Jerrymoviefan3 t1_itn10sr wrote

She was named after the HMS Penelope though it floated for ten years before the Nazi’s sunk it and her campaign sunk far faster.


MassiveFajiit t1_itl6f7c wrote

Hey at least they already have a puppet for him on Spitting Image so they won't have to make one and retire it.


JesterOfTheMind t1_itmkw9g wrote

I’m from American and I knew for sure Rishi was going to be the next PM since like 7am eastern. It was pretty obvious since yesterday.


GooseHenry t1_itmzrjd wrote

She found the race more daunting than he


Legndarystig t1_ito2zed wrote

There’s something poetic an Ethnically Indian man being PM of Britain… lmao


johnnyzrico t1_itp85w5 wrote

well the brits blamed it on the women so they could boot her out and now get the douchenozzle in


jcmach1 t1_itrifga wrote

Key differences between a huckster and a twaddle..., LOL


Freexscsa t1_itl4bnb wrote

India has successfully conquered british parliament.


hypermads2003 t1_itl5y6k wrote

Let’s not be racist now


Freexscsa t1_itle4kc wrote

India is a country not a race, no where in my statement do I mention any of the dozens of races in India. Nor am I making a derogatory statement.


jl2352 t1_itm7qb2 wrote

It's obvious you are only saying that because he has brown skin. That is racist.

For example you haven't said the French have conquered Parliament, or that other nationalities have conquered other ministerial jobs.


hypermads2003 t1_itle900 wrote

But saying India is “conquering” us is rooted in racism and being Indian is indeed a race so I’m not sure what your argument is?


Freexscsa t1_itlengd wrote

In not one place did I say Indian. If you see racism that is your hang-up.