Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.