UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Fartsniffage]

If an immigrant can take your job at the same pay and benefits then you're an idiot. A guy who doesn't speak English as a first language, has few or no contacts in the UK, and doesn't follow British social practices taking your job? That's on you for being shit.

And people should be told that rather than just blaming immigrants.

There's the good old classist liberal spite we've been missing which has cost Labour so badly.

I'm guessing you don't want to acknowledge the other reasons immigrants might be better for bosses even with all those in play, right? Like them needing the job to stay in the country making them less likely to take certain actions?

I also note you lashing out here instead of actually addressing the point. Making the UK more attractive to workers without controlling immigration will mean more immigrants come here, and that exasperates the other problems immigration causes like social cohesion.

And this is why I support making employers more responsible. The issue is always employers. But you seem to thing otherwise.

[Vassenor]

So basically we need to pander to fears about out-groups that only really exist because those who hold the power have convinced the working classes that it's said out-groups that are the problem, not them.

[Ifreann]

So it's not a concerted effort to keep people ignorant, it's a concerted effort to teach people selectively.

I'm sorry, should every lesson at school concerning the socialist states of the 20th and 21st centuries be started with, " this isn't real socialism. "? Entire history classes could be dedicated to nothing but exploring the multitudes of philosophical and ideological of the various strains of socialist thought ( and there are such classes, just not in primary schools ) - or, people could be simply taught what the results were of those ideologies being put into action ( as they are now ). Socialism has a bad rep, because it did bad, that's not propaganda. Even socialists can agree that the 20th century was a huge failure for their ideology ( tens of millions dead and a collapse so total that the neo-libs now run the world ). With a record like that, it's no suprise that joe schmoe isn't really stoked on the topic.

You don't think it's a bit suspicious that the curricula set by capitalist governments tends to have people leaving education thinking capitalism is fine and socialism is just a murder spree?

That's not really how it works. Immigrants can't take jobs, they don't go to your workplace and beat you up and throw you out. Employers are the ones who decide who gets a job, not immigrants. Unless they're immigrants who employ people, obviously.

I wanna think that you're just being coy, but I honestly feel you're not - so i'll explain. The fear is, generally, low-skilled people moving in from poorer foreign countries ( for Britain this might be people from Eastern Europe or India, while in America this could mean Latin America ) will enter into the workforce and compete with native workers for their low-skilled jobs. These foreigners often having an advantage in this competition in that they are more willing to accept lower wages and are seldom part of any union ( making them the obvious choice for the thrifty employer ). The working class is concerned about immigration because they don't want to lose their jobs to immigrants who are willing to do it for less. Boogie upper-class socialists though... don't really have to worry about that, and because they don't have to worry they don't care, and are antithetical to the concerns of working men and women.

The problem here isn't immigration, it's bosses. They're the ones setting the wages, they're the ones making the hiring and firing decisions. You're blaming the people with no power over the situation instead of the people with all the power. Why do you think that is? Do you think that maybe the people with power want it that way, lest you notice that they have power over you too?

People who work and pay taxes without the state having to pay to educate them.

But now having to pay for their medical expenses and social security ( extra pricey if you happen to live in a state with socialized medicine, like the UK does ).

The same as every other worker, but immigrants are still less of an expense to the state because they joined the workforce as educated adults at zero cost.

That's if they pay taxes of course, in the United States a lot of immigrant labor is kept under the radar and so they don't pay into taxes or social security

Again a problem not with immigrants, but with bosses.

Your culture doesn't go away just because your neighbours have a different culture.

It does when all your neighbors now have a different culture.

No, it doesn't. Or how would immigrants retain their culture when they move to another country?

Just look at London today, were over 12% of the city is now Muslim, former working class neighborhoods are now overwhelmingly occupied by immigrant populations, and so on.

Working class neighbourhoods inhabited by working class people, how awful.

People have a real sense of their homes slipping away from them, and the fact boogie socialists don't care - or even welcome it ( which has absolutely infuriated people ) - is why the working class has been moving toward the populist right.

Do you think that because people feel a thing, that it is true?

[Munkcestrian Republic]

I take it you are referring to his call for a referendum regarding the royal family?

Yeah, traditional working class Labour voters can be a pretty patriotic bunch including the monarchy. Even suggesting some kind of review is not a good idea to win them back. He just seems like he's trying to shout out to the echo chamber.

I thought he might be one of the sensible ones that gets it but apparently not.

Imagine thinking love for this country has anything to do with liking the monarchy.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Can any Tories here tell us exactly what they're conserving?

"Labour is anti-British!! Labour is anti-British!!" say Tory MPs while running a business pimping out young people (who, thanks to their policies, have no money, no job, and no place to live) to "international businessmen and diplomats".

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I take it you are referring to his call for a referendum regarding the royal family?

Yeah, traditional working class Labour voters can be a pretty patriotic bunch including the monarchy. Even suggesting some kind of review is not a good idea to win them back. He just seems like he's trying to shout out to the echo chamber.

I thought he might be one of the sensible ones that gets it but apparently not.

£345 million a year extra to spend on the NHS. We could put that on the side of a bus.

[The Blaatschapen]

Most jobs don't get lost to immigrants (soon) anyway.

They get lost to computers (including robots).

Ah, it's fun, being a worker in IT, get all the benefit, none of the blame

[The Blaatschapen]

Yeah, traditional working class Labour voters can be a pretty patriotic bunch including the monarchy. Even suggesting some kind of review is not a good idea to win them back. He just seems like he's trying to shout out to the echo chamber.

I thought he might be one of the sensible ones that gets it but apparently not.

£345 million a year extra to spend on the NHS. We could put that on the side of a bus.

President Johnson, now that sounds just cool. I cannot believe he's not going for it

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

£345 million a year extra to spend on the NHS. We could put that on the side of a bus.

President Johnson, now that sounds just cool. I cannot believe he's not going for it

As long as he doesn't start talking about 'Jumbo' constantly.

[Chan Island]

£345 million a year extra to spend on the NHS. We could put that on the side of a bus.

President Johnson, now that sounds just cool. I cannot believe he's not going for it

The Americans already have that president Johnson thing locked down (by the way- support president Johnson in 2064! )

Most jobs don't get lost to immigrants (soon) anyway.

They get lost to computers (including robots).

Ah, it's fun, being a worker in IT, get all the benefit, none of the blame

I'm especially amazed by people in factory towns that seem to not cotton onto the fact of automation. Output by those factories being at record highs yet only employing 7 people and a box of cheerios, leaving everyone else in the dust.

Over the past 20 years alone we've seen the almost entire disappearance of clerks, cashiers are vanishing before our very eyes, and now ai is getting rolled out to replace call centre workers. Which is frightening when you realise that that represents over a million workers, concentrated in places with otherwise high unemployment.

At least in the United States they've had Andrew Yang draw a lot of attention that way and slowly chip away at the shifting of blame, but it's depressing how much of this thread has been dedicated to purely discussing immigration and jobs without mentioning this all important aspect of the debate. And I often do wonder what would happen to the immigration debate if we had a solid UBI - since much of the anti-immigration stance is driven by a sense of insecurity, yet on the other hand it would make the UK extremely attractive to go and live in.

Can any Tories here tell us exactly what they're conserving?

"Labour is anti-British!! Labour is anti-British!!" say Tory MPs while running a business pimping out young people (who, thanks to their policies, have no money, no job, and no place to live) to "international businessmen and diplomats".

Why oh why is it that Buzzfeed is the one that comes out with real journalism these days? That the 10 list guys are the ones who find out that new conservative MPs are running divorce and sugar daddy businesses?

There's the good old classist liberal spite we've been missing which has cost Labour so badly.

I'm guessing you don't want to acknowledge the other reasons immigrants might be better for bosses even with all those in play, right? Like them needing the job to stay in the country making them less likely to take certain actions?

I also note you lashing out here instead of actually addressing the point. Making the UK more attractive to workers without controlling immigration will mean more immigrants come here, and that exasperates the other problems immigration causes like social cohesion.

And this is why I support making employers more responsible. The issue is always employers. But you seem to thing otherwise.

Because there are factors that aren't solely the employers. For example, many anti-immigration people worry about shifting culture. There is a perception that you encounter on the doorstep that fish & chips shops and pubs are being replaced by halal kebabs and mosques. Especially if you go outside of London and talk to people about what they think of the city, I think you'll find that many people think Sadiq Khan is more representative of the demographics than he actually is.

It seems like nobody on the pro-immigration side of this debate has addressed that argument.

You've also got to contend with the feeling that immigration causes crime. Lots of people like Joohan would surely point to whatever the latest horror story in the Daily Fail is, or to something the New Years 2015 in Cologne and then argue that this is why immigration should be controlled.

.
.
.

Personally, my contention has generally been that I don't particularly care how many immigrants there are- there are pros and cons either way - but that we should be very worried with how we treat them once in the country regardless of the rules that allowed them in. And historically it's rare for countries to reduce immigration numbers without outbreaks of anti-immigrant violence and unapologetically bigoted laws getting passed. Just look at how Brexit was accompanied by a giant spike in racist incidents and hate crimes.

What to do about it? Well the public is very strongly in favour of reducing immigration, so it has to happen eventually, but increase security in vulnerable communities and crackdown on fascist thugs before the controls are put in place. Bonus points in that we get punched nazis, which makes everyone except the daily mail happy. The overton window will have to shift, to frame the debate around skills as opposed to raw numbers.

Oh, and enshrine the rights of immigrants already here, and be public about deporting one or 2 people who blatantly broke immigration law.

[Salandriagado]

I waited a month to see if something would happen before I posted this, but apparently not.

Does anyone here doubt that Boris Johnson is the most politically powerful Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher or Harold Wilson, if not much earlier with Clement Attlee?

I judge it on three bases; firstly, Boris Johnson has a majority unprecedented by his three most recent Conservative incumbents, and one Labour leader (who despite a very large majority was just a lame duck.) In post-1979 politics, only Thatcher and Blair reached those figures. These are figures which are insurmountable by any opposition combined with any potential rebels. It is historically large by any measure, going back to the start of the last century.

Secondly, Boris Johnson has almost no rebels. There's no distinct big wig figures who are ready to challenge him like the threat Thatcher had for eleven years, nor are there any small-time rebels like Corbyn was to almost anything Blair tabled for 10 years. Not a single Conservative Party MP rebelled to any single-line whip so far. Boris' Brexit policy of leaving at the end of January was passed without a single absent/rebellious Nay vote. All Rebels have either moronically left on their own like Soubry, or have been effectively forced out by their local association like Dominic Grieve.

This leaves the Conservative Party in possibly its most 'united' state since the War. Because let's not forget that there were plenty of anti-price controls rebels 1950-1964, and plenty of one nation / social marketers rebels during Thatcher. So far, early in this conservative government, all Tory MPs are united under the Boris vision. There's no disagreement about what the future of the party or the country should be, something not seen in the party since the war at least. Any previous rebels which have managed to stay in the party have been quashed under Boris' boot. Whether this stays true to the future is anyone's guess, but so far there's no evidence to the contrary. Even the ERG rebels are careful about pushing for a no deal Brexit at the end of the transition period, because they have been rendered weak by the supermajority.

I predict that this Tory unity will only break if the current government fails to improve the economic situation in the north, with the 'unity' breaking down geographical lines rather than ideological ones. At a more frivolous guess, perhaps even a split like the National Liberals being the Tory contingent in the north like in the 50s.

Thirdly, Boris Johnson has no contenders. This genuinely is not something that has been seen since shortly after the war, lest you want to consider Harold Wilson relative powerful in this regard. Theresa May was flooded with leadership contenders, and David Cameron wielded a thin line of control. Tony Blair had plenty of cabinet contenders, as did John Major. Thatcher was often overshadowed by them, especially in the latter part of her premiership. Callaghan, Heath, Eden, Macmillan (Night of Long Knives,) Churchill and Attlee all had a similar situation to Cameron or worse. Harold Wilson is a bit debatable, he was a bit of a strongman but he had his public disagreements with cabinet members like George Brown and Patrick Walker.

Boris has none of these. There's no one in the cabinet big enough to challenge him, there's no one in the cabinet who wields more support than him in the parliamentary or membership party, there's no one in the cabinet who disagrees with him in the media or social media. The case with backbenchers is the same. He is the definition of a strongman at the moment, even if he doesn't make it ostentatious.

Ergo/tl;dr, Boris is by far the most "powerful" Prime Minister the UK has had since the war, both in the country and in his party.

Anyone disagrees; and if yes, why?

I've got some methodological objections: you're comparing Boris Johnson at one point in time, which may well turn out to be the peak of his power (if nothing else, there isn't much more "up" for it to go) to Blair and Thatcher's averages. If you took both of them at the peak of their power, you'd get a much closer comparison, especially to Thatcher. Unfortunately, there's not really a good way to fix it without waiting until the end of Johnson's time in number 10, which is a bit of a long wait for a conclusion, so I'm going to put it down as "plausible" for now.

[Philjia]

God, Student Finance England is a barely functioning heap of shit.

[Salandriagado]

God, Student Finance England is a barely functioning heap of shit.

Ooo, "barely functioning". That's the best feedback they've had in years.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

I waited a month to see if something would happen before I posted this, but apparently not.

Does anyone here doubt that Boris Johnson is the most politically powerful Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher or Harold Wilson, if not much earlier with Clement Attlee?

I judge it on three bases; firstly, Boris Johnson has a majority unprecedented by his three most recent Conservative incumbents, and one Labour leader (who despite a very large majority was just a lame duck.) In post-1979 politics, only Thatcher and Blair reached those figures. These are figures which are insurmountable by any opposition combined with any potential rebels. It is historically large by any measure, going back to the start of the last century.

Secondly, Boris Johnson has almost no rebels. There's no distinct big wig figures who are ready to challenge him like the threat Thatcher had for eleven years, nor are there any small-time rebels like Corbyn was to almost anything Blair tabled for 10 years. Not a single Conservative Party MP rebelled to any single-line whip so far. Boris' Brexit policy of leaving at the end of January was passed without a single absent/rebellious Nay vote. All Rebels have either moronically left on their own like Soubry, or have been effectively forced out by their local association like Dominic Grieve.

This leaves the Conservative Party in possibly its most 'united' state since the War. Because let's not forget that there were plenty of anti-price controls rebels 1950-1964, and plenty of one nation / social marketers rebels during Thatcher. So far, early in this conservative government, all Tory MPs are united under the Boris vision. There's no disagreement about what the future of the party or the country should be, something not seen in the party since the war at least. Any previous rebels which have managed to stay in the party have been quashed under Boris' boot. Whether this stays true to the future is anyone's guess, but so far there's no evidence to the contrary. Even the ERG rebels are careful about pushing for a no deal Brexit at the end of the transition period, because they have been rendered weak by the supermajority.

I predict that this Tory unity will only break if the current government fails to improve the economic situation in the north, with the 'unity' breaking down geographical lines rather than ideological ones. At a more frivolous guess, perhaps even a split like the National Liberals being the Tory contingent in the north like in the 50s.

Thirdly, Boris Johnson has no contenders. This genuinely is not something that has been seen since shortly after the war, lest you want to consider Harold Wilson relative powerful in this regard. Theresa May was flooded with leadership contenders, and David Cameron wielded a thin line of control. Tony Blair had plenty of cabinet contenders, as did John Major. Thatcher was often overshadowed by them, especially in the latter part of her premiership. Callaghan, Heath, Eden, Macmillan (Night of Long Knives,) Churchill and Attlee all had a similar situation to Cameron or worse. Harold Wilson is a bit debatable, he was a bit of a strongman but he had his public disagreements with cabinet members like George Brown and Patrick Walker.

Boris has none of these. There's no one in the cabinet big enough to challenge him, there's no one in the cabinet who wields more support than him in the parliamentary or membership party, there's no one in the cabinet who disagrees with him in the media or social media. The case with backbenchers is the same. He is the definition of a strongman at the moment, even if he doesn't make it ostentatious.

Ergo/tl;dr, Boris is by far the most "powerful" Prime Minister the UK has had since the war, both in the country and in his party.

Anyone disagrees; and if yes, why?

I've got some methodological objections: you're comparing Boris Johnson at one point in time, which may well turn out to be the peak of his power (if nothing else, there isn't much more "up" for it to go) to Blair and Thatcher's averages.

That's definitely true, it's just an observation I made initially before the election when seeing all his opponents leave or get ejected from the party, something extremely rare in Tory party history. Will he fall or others arise? Possibly, but as you said, too early for that yet. But I believe he has a strong chance of keeping the status quo - remember that he's actually the most popular PM since Tony Blair and one of only 3 in British polling history to take a net positive immediately after an election.

If you took both of them at the peak of their power, you'd get a much closer comparison, especially to Thatcher. Unfortunately, there's not really a good way to fix it without waiting until the end of Johnson's time in number 10, which is a bit of a long wait for a conclusion, so I'm going to put it down as "plausible" for now.

Enlighten me as I don't remember Thatcher having a peak of power which rivalled Boris in that she was borderline presidential, albeit I could concede she was potentially as powerful during and after Falklands. But it's important to remember that the cabinet /backbench had many influential figures with or against Thatcher like Whitelaw, Tom King, Howe, Lawson, Brittan and Ken Baker throughout the premiership, then of course Heseltine in the end two years.

There honestly isn't anyone you could call influential in the present cabinet or backbenches under Boris, whereas these people above were around before Thatcher's election.

Ken Clarke is gone, Grieve is gone, Soubry is gone, Letwin is gone, Philip Hammond is gone, Nick Boles is gone, Justine Greening is gone.

Soames retired, Vaizey retired, Morgan retired, Lidington retired, McLoughlin retired, Fallon retired, Mark Field retired, Alan Duncan retired. Amber Rudd retired. (thank Allah)

Some of those names you might not know / forgot already. The other MPs that retired from the Tory Party are even more no-namers than above.

Here are backbench MPs you *might* know: I genuinely forgot some of them even exist.

Lucy Allan
Steve Baker **
John Baron
Crispin Blunt
Peter Bone
Graham Brady
Greg Clark
Stephen Crabb
David Davis
IDS
Fabricant
Liam Fox
Grayling
Damian Green
Stephen Hammond
Damian Hinds
Jeremy Hunt
Jenkyns
Kawczynski
Leadsom
Theresa May
Esther McVey
Penny Mordaunt
Caroline Nokes
Jacob Rees Mogg
Royston Smith
Desmond Swayne
Tugendhat
Whittingdale

Boris' cabinet is even better. It's either full of Boris yes-men or it's full of the Old Guard who carry media baggage and can never challenge Boris or are simply 'past it'. His chief whip Mark Spencer is a literal Boris yes-man, and a no-namer. Rees-Mogg has been muffled by having an ally so he doesn't need a voice in cabinet. Geoffrey Cox goes in the past it area. DWP - Throw out Rudd and put in Coffey. Who? Coffey. Idk, but she's there.

Here are people who are higher on my Google results than our cabinet minister Coffey: Chip Coffey, a psychic from New York. Professor Amanda Coffey from Cardiff University. Donald Coffey from Max Planck University. Geopolitical consultant Luke Coffey. Labour MP Ann Coffey. Country singer Coffey Anderson. Simon Coffey from King's College London. Dr. Dan Coffey from University of Leeds. Mark Coffey, a 20-something athlete whose specialism is the Southampton city monthly Park Run. Our cabinet minister Therese Coffey is at the bottom of page 3.

Wales? Simon Hart. Hart that choice. Transport? Throw in Shapps. Yes-man ally with media baggage to stall a V8 Mustang. Scotland? Alister Jack. NI? Julian Smith. Justice? Robert Buckland. Why? Nobody knows, but he supported Boris in every breath since 2015, and that's a good thing. Trade? Liz Truss. God bless Liz. Development? Throw in Alok Sharma, who like Boris wants to close his ministry anyway. Secretary of State for Housing? Stand up Richard Jenrick, if you yourself know who you are. No wait, it's Robert. Close enough. He's only 38 and sponsored Boris in the internal election, and that's good enough.

Home Office? Priti Patel. Pretty addition to the Boris ammunition. NHS? Hancock. Doesn't matter who you put there if you're a Tory, put in your worst enemy to be honest, they'll be unelectable forever. Foreign Office? Dominic Raab! Better than Boris in many people's views, so why not put him in the cabinet in a job he doesn't understand but desperately needs to stay relevant. Good forward-thinking choice by Boris. Same with education, dump Gavin Williamson. Defence secretary strongly out of his depth, so dig his hole even deeper by putting him somewhere where you can't just talk about how beautiful the flag is and your plans for buying jets and get away with it.

Defence? Ben Wallace. A literal friend of the US SecDef Mark Esper and Boris Yes-man. 10/10 choice. Gove? Dump him in a media-oxygen-free zone by giving him the high-work-no-reward cabinet office of the Queen's finances in the Duchy. Good enough to stay relevant in the cabinet, and good enough to kill public memory of his existence. Business? Leadsom. Out of depth, sometimes-yes-man. Is good for shouting "Brexit" when you need her. Environment? Villiers. Northern Ireland flashbacks. Tory and environment? Cya.

Then you put Sajid Javid in the Exchequer. It's his only viable challenger at the moment, but who knows why? Is it to muffle him by giving him a role and see if he sinks or swims? Maybe CoE is all he wants and will stay loyal for years?

[The Blaatschapen]

Home Office? Priti Patel. Pretty addition to the Boris ammunition.

A priti addition.

[Ostroeuropa]

God, Student Finance England is a barely functioning heap of shit.

Did I tell you about the way their system blue screened and they had no idea what to do with my case?

I move around a lot. I also once had ESA or EMA, one of those too, the one to do with getting cash if you go to college.
Turns out student finance handled that.

So, a decade later

i'm like; hey gimme student loans.

And they're like; you already have an account with us.

Oh okay. So... change the details and lemme apply for a loan.

Okay, we'll change your details, just confirm your identity for us and we'll change them.

Okay, so how?

Well tell us your old details.

… Which old details? What year Is the account from?

We can't disclose that sorry.

…

…

Okay, so how about you let me set up a new account then.

Well no, because this one is yours.

But you just said it wasn't... well okay, if it's mine, can you let me change the details on it?

------------------------


It took *months* to sort out.

[Greed and Death]

God, Student Finance England is a barely functioning heap of shit.

Did I tell you about the way their system blue screened and they had no idea what to do with my case?

I move around a lot. I also once had ESA or EMA, one of those too, the one to do with getting cash if you go to college.
Turns out student finance handled that.

So, a decade later

i'm like; hey gimme student loans.

And they're like; you already have an account with us.

Oh okay. So... change the details and lemme apply for a loan.

Okay, we'll change your details, just confirm your identity for us and we'll change them.

Okay, so how?

Well tell us your old details.

… Which old details? What year Is the account from?

We can't disclose that sorry.

…

…

Okay, so how about you let me set up a new account then.

Well no, because this one is yours.

But you just said it wasn't... well okay, if it's mine, can you let me change the details on it?

------------------------


It took *months* to sort out.

Don't Worry bojo is going to privatize it.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Home Office? Priti Patel. Pretty addition to the Boris ammunition.

A priti addition.

Does best Johnny Rotten impersonation

Oh she's so Priti
Oh so Priti
She's va-cunt
And she don't care

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Arlene Foster reappointed Northern Ireland's First Minister, so she gets to keep having a chauffeur.

[Salandriagado]

I've got some methodological objections: you're comparing Boris Johnson at one point in time, which may well turn out to be the peak of his power (if nothing else, there isn't much more "up" for it to go) to Blair and Thatcher's averages.

That's definitely true, it's just an observation I made initially before the election when seeing all his opponents leave or get ejected from the party, something extremely rare in Tory party history. Will he fall or others arise? Possibly, but as you said, too early for that yet. But I believe he has a strong chance of keeping the status quo - remember that he's actually the most popular PM since Tony Blair and one of only 3 in British polling history to take a net positive immediately after an election.

If you took both of them at the peak of their power, you'd get a much closer comparison, especially to Thatcher. Unfortunately, there's not really a good way to fix it without waiting until the end of Johnson's time in number 10, which is a bit of a long wait for a conclusion, so I'm going to put it down as "plausible" for now.

Enlighten me as I don't remember Thatcher having a peak of power which rivalled Boris in that she was borderline presidential, albeit I could concede she was potentially as powerful during and after Falklands. But it's important to remember that the cabinet /backbench had many influential figures with or against Thatcher like Whitelaw, Tom King, Howe, Lawson, Brittan and Ken Baker throughout the premiership, then of course Heseltine in the end two years.

There honestly isn't anyone you could call influential in the present cabinet or backbenches under Boris, whereas these people above were around before Thatcher's election.

Ken Clarke is gone, Grieve is gone, Soubry is gone, Letwin is gone, Philip Hammond is gone, Nick Boles is gone, Justine Greening is gone.

Soames retired, Vaizey retired, Morgan retired, Lidington retired, McLoughlin retired, Fallon retired, Mark Field retired, Alan Duncan retired. Amber Rudd retired. (thank Allah)

Some of those names you might not know / forgot already. The other MPs that retired from the Tory Party are even more no-namers than above.

Here are backbench MPs you *might* know: I genuinely forgot some of them even exist.

Lucy Allan
Steve Baker **
John Baron
Crispin Blunt
Peter Bone
Graham Brady
Greg Clark
Stephen Crabb
David Davis
IDS
Fabricant
Liam Fox
Grayling
Damian Green
Stephen Hammond
Damian Hinds
Jeremy Hunt
Jenkyns
Kawczynski
Leadsom
Theresa May
Esther McVey
Penny Mordaunt
Caroline Nokes
Jacob Rees Mogg
Royston Smith
Desmond Swayne
Tugendhat
Whittingdale

Boris' cabinet is even better. It's either full of Boris yes-men or it's full of the Old Guard who carry media baggage and can never challenge Boris or are simply 'past it'. His chief whip Mark Spencer is a literal Boris yes-man, and a no-namer. Rees-Mogg has been muffled by having an ally so he doesn't need a voice in cabinet. Geoffrey Cox goes in the past it area. DWP - Throw out Rudd and put in Coffey. Who? Coffey. Idk, but she's there.

Here are people who are higher on my Google results than our cabinet minister Coffey: Chip Coffey, a psychic from New York. Professor Amanda Coffey from Cardiff University. Donald Coffey from Max Planck University. Geopolitical consultant Luke Coffey. Labour MP Ann Coffey. Country singer Coffey Anderson. Simon Coffey from King's College London. Dr. Dan Coffey from University of Leeds. Mark Coffey, a 20-something athlete whose specialism is the Southampton city monthly Park Run. Our cabinet minister Therese Coffey is at the bottom of page 3.

Wales? Simon Hart. Hart that choice. Transport? Throw in Shapps. Yes-man ally with media baggage to stall a V8 Mustang. Scotland? Alister Jack. NI? Julian Smith. Justice? Robert Buckland. Why? Nobody knows, but he supported Boris in every breath since 2015, and that's a good thing. Trade? Liz Truss. God bless Liz. Development? Throw in Alok Sharma, who like Boris wants to close his ministry anyway. Secretary of State for Housing? Stand up Richard Jenrick, if you yourself know who you are. No wait, it's Robert. Close enough. He's only 38 and sponsored Boris in the internal election, and that's good enough.

Home Office? Priti Patel. Pretty addition to the Boris ammunition. NHS? Hancock. Doesn't matter who you put there if you're a Tory, put in your worst enemy to be honest, they'll be unelectable forever. Foreign Office? Dominic Raab! Better than Boris in many people's views, so why not put him in the cabinet in a job he doesn't understand but desperately needs to stay relevant. Good forward-thinking choice by Boris. Same with education, dump Gavin Williamson. Defence secretary strongly out of his depth, so dig his hole even deeper by putting him somewhere where you can't just talk about how beautiful the flag is and your plans for buying jets and get away with it.

Defence? Ben Wallace. A literal friend of the US SecDef Mark Esper and Boris Yes-man. 10/10 choice. Gove? Dump him in a media-oxygen-free zone by giving him the high-work-no-reward cabinet office of the Queen's finances in the Duchy. Good enough to stay relevant in the cabinet, and good enough to kill public memory of his existence. Business? Leadsom. Out of depth, sometimes-yes-man. Is good for shouting "Brexit" when you need her. Environment? Villiers. Northern Ireland flashbacks. Tory and environment? Cya.

Then you put Sajid Javid in the Exchequer. It's his only viable challenger at the moment, but who knows why? Is it to muffle him by giving him a role and see if he sinks or swims? Maybe CoE is all he wants and will stay loyal for years?

It depends how you define "powerful", I guess: Johnson is powerful in that he's got no notable opposition, inside his party or otherwise. Thatcher had such opposition, but was able to stop them from actually doing anything meaningful to prevent her. Especially around 1983: Labour had fallen apart in a more literal sense than usual, she was hot off the Falklands, the Election win was spectacular, including taking a bunch of northern cities. Nobody was in any particular position to work against her: of her cabinet (skipping the nobodies): Biffen was loyal, Lawson had no public image (yet), Howe was annoyed, but not acting on it yet (and when he finally did act on it, he failed miserably) and Heseltine wasn't arguing with her yet. The real big names hadn't come into the picture yet: Hurd didn't come in until September 1984, and Baker & Clarke weren't there until 1985. Now that I think about it, there are rather a lot of parallels to the current situation.

[Gormwood]

Arlene Foster reappointed Northern Ireland's First Minister, so she gets to keep having a chauffeur.

Uhhh huh-huh-huh, he said "having," uhhh huh-huh-huh...

[Gormwood]

Did I tell you about the way their system blue screened and they had no idea what to do with my case?

I move around a lot. I also once had ESA or EMA, one of those too, the one to do with getting cash if you go to college.
Turns out student finance handled that.

So, a decade later

i'm like; hey gimme student loans.

And they're like; you already have an account with us.

Oh okay. So... change the details and lemme apply for a loan.

Okay, we'll change your details, just confirm your identity for us and we'll change them.

Okay, so how?

Well tell us your old details.

… Which old details? What year Is the account from?

We can't disclose that sorry.

…

…

Okay, so how about you let me set up a new account then.

Well no, because this one is yours.

But you just said it wasn't... well okay, if it's mine, can you let me change the details on it?

------------------------


It took *months* to sort out.

Don't Worry bojo is going to privatize it.

He'll also think Johnny English has a great idea and turn all of the UK into a for-profit penal colony.

[Vassenor]

So now the Sussex situation has reached "crisis talks" levels.

But somehow Andrew turning out to be a possible paedophile never triggered this sort of response.

[Souseiseki]

so northern ireland has a government now... i think?

has the 1,000 day reign finally come to an end?

[The Huskar Social Union]

so northern ireland has a government now... i think?

has the 1,000 day reign finally come to an end?

1,089 days total last i checked

And yes we have a government now, here are the new ministers:

DUP: 4 (First Minister, Economy, Education, Agriculture Environment and Rural Affairs)
SF: 3 (Deputy First Minister, Communities, Finance)
SDLP: 1 (Infrastructure)
UUP: 1 (Health)
APNI: 1 (Justice)

Total breakdown of MLA's is unchanged from last election so:

Executive:
DUP: 27 (U)
SF: 26 (N)
SDLP: 12 (N)
UUP: 10 (U)
APNI: 8 (O)

Opposition:
GRN: 2 (O)
PBP: 1 (O)
TUV: 1 (U)
IND: 2 (U)

Nationalists (Total): 38
Unionists (Total): 40
Others (Total): 11
Speaker: 1

The Alliance party, SDLP and UUP might move into the opposition in the future