Conservative party/opposition watch

[Mark]

Maybe Mel Stride too ?
Personally, hope they go for someone on the right - Patel, Badenoch or Braverman...
Any of those will have the Tories in opposition for 10yrs, regardless of how Labour get on...

[UndercoverElephant]

I think Bojo might try and make a comeback once the dust has settled, dyed in the wool Tory voters still like him. If Trump can do it anyone can.

That would have to be the leader after the next one, unless there's a by-election in the very near future.

[Potemkin Villager]

Yes indeed bring back Bojo!

I suspect he may not at all. at all be interested as he is probably not enough of a masochist.
There are probably lots of useless old buffers in the Lord's posh pensioner day centre and susidised dining club who are
not tempted either as they have quite a cozy gaff already.

Oh dear poor things.

[mr brightside]

I think Bojo might try and make a comeback once the dust has settled, dyed in the wool Tory voters still like him. If Trump can do it anyone can.

That would have to be the leader after the next one, unless there's a by-election in the very near future.

So he's no longer a MOP then?

[Ralphw2]

He resigned as an MP and triggered a by election a year ago. Do keep up.

[mr brightside]

It's inconvenient having people like me around, i know, but you'll have to be patient, Ralph; not everyone has the time or the interest levels to 'keep up'.

[Mark]

So, it looks like it's a field of 6 candidates...
Kemi Badenoch is the favourite according to the Bookies, followed by Robert Jenrick, Tom Tugendhat, James Cleverly, Priti Patel & Mel Stride
No Suella Braverman - perhaps there wasn't room for 3 candidates on the right - soon off to Reform ?

[UndercoverElephant]

So, it looks like it's a field of 6 candidates...
Kemi Badenoch is the favourite according to the Bookies, followed by Robert Jenrick, Tom Tugendhat, James Cleverly, Priti Patel & Mel Stride
No Suella Braverman - perhaps there wasn't room for 3 candidates on the right - soon off to Reform ?

I think the situation with Braverman is what really matters. It is now very clear that she is the most popular candidate with the membership, but she's struggling to even get 10 nominations because the parliamentary party is much more socially centrist. The bulk of the MPs want to prioritise economic conservatism (ie act in the interest of the rich) and they see social conservatism on the scale of Braverman and Farage as making it impossible for them ever to get a FPTP majority again. Braverman sees it differently -- she knows that the membership won't budge on this. They can't because we're talking about people who actually care about protecting society from woke liberalism more than they care about protecting the very wealthy from socio-economic change.

It currently appears that tory MPs are going to work together to make sure that Braverman does not make it into the last two -- they want to ensure that their own membership does not get the opportunity to choose Braverman in preference to a more socially centrist candidate. Braverman is warning them that if this is what happens, then she will defect to Reform and a very significant chunk of their remaining activists will go with her. This is exactly what Reform needs in order to "professionalise", and it also offers very interesting opportunities for tory activists who fancy a stab at actually getting elected (locally and nationally). If this is what happens then Reform will become a permanent fixture to the social right of the tories, at a time when more and more people in the social centre are being forced towards the right by the ever-increasing insanity of woke leftism threatening to take over the rest of mainstream politics.

The tories' fundamental problem has not gone away, and is coming to a head. The parliamentary party wants to rebuild as economically right wing and socially centrist, while the majority of the membership is desperate for Farage-style social conservatism. There is no way to square this circle. The tories now have to choose between

(a) taking on Reform, defeating and assimilating it, which requires veering to the social right. Only Braverman can deliver this. Or maybe Badenoch, but I don't think she's consistently socially right wing enough.

(b) accepting Reform is now a part of the long-term political landscape, and challenging Labour, which means veering to the social centre and losing their right wing to Reform.

They cannot avoid this choice, but (a) means they end up unelectably socially right wing so long as Labour remains in the centre and (b) means FPTP will ensure they never get a majority again. Either way, there is no path back to an overall majority for them.

[Mark]

The Conservative Party Membership is hardly reflective of anything much - even the people who vote Tory - think I read their age profile is 70+..
There are only about 170k of them, and because they're 'joiners', suspect they're naturally more likely to be 'socially conservative' as you put it..

I'm sure Suella Braverman would have stood if she'd that she had the '10', so the choice for that wing seems to be Badenoch or Patel.
It's difficult to know where the balance of power now lies with the MPs, as so many of them lost their seats...
However, suspect there will be enough on the right to support (probably Badenoch) vrs a more centrist candidate...

As for Suella - defecting to Reform would just add to their collection of oddballs and misfits...
If she does defect, this should trigger a by-election.

[Potemkin Villager]

Oh Patel please, please, please.

She would be the perfect figurehead of the spectacular theater of the absurd and unwoke unleashed.

I really don't understand what this "woke" stuff that UE keeps banging on about. Can anybody explain?

[clv101]

Here's one AI's explanation:

"Woke" is quite a buzzword these days, and its meaning can vary depending on who you ask.

**Positive definition:** In a positive sense, being "woke" means being aware and actively attentive to important social and political issues, especially those related to racial, gender, and socioeconomic justice. It implies that someone has "awakened" to the systemic issues in society and is actively working to challenge them. For example, someone who is woke might speak out against discrimination, support equal rights for marginalized groups, or educate others on these topics.

**Negative definition:** In a negative sense, "woke" can be used sarcastically or critically to describe someone who is excessively politically correct, overly sensitive, or too eager to take offense. This use of the word often implies that the person is more concerned with appearing virtuous or enlightened, rather than actually addressing real-world problems. For example, a critic might label a celebrity as "woke" if they post about social justice issues on social media but don't take any tangible action to support these causes.

So, depending on the context and the speaker's intention, "woke" can either be a compliment or a criticism.

And from a different AI:

The term “woke” has evolved significantly over time and can have different connotations depending on the context. Here’s a breakdown:

Positive Definition of “Woke”
Woke originally comes from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) and means being alert to social injustices and discrimination, particularly around issues of race, gender, and other forms of inequality. It signifies a heightened awareness and a commitment to addressing these issues.

Examples:

Supporting Social Justice: Advocating for policies that promote equality, such as affirmative action or gender equality initiatives.
Environmental Awareness: Being conscious of environmental issues and supporting sustainable practices.
LGBTQ+ Rights: Actively supporting the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and opposing discrimination against them.
Negative Definition of “Woke”
While “woke” is often used positively, it can also be used pejoratively. Critics sometimes use “woke” to describe actions or attitudes they perceive as overly politically correct or performative, rather than genuinely committed to social justice.

What “Woke” Doesn’t Mean:

Performative Activism: Engaging in social justice causes only for appearances or social media clout, without genuine commitment.
Over-Sensitivity: Being excessively sensitive to issues to the point of stifling free speech or open dialogue.
Identity Politics: Focusing solely on identity-based issues in a way that some believe divides rather than unites people.

[mr brightside]

I really don't understand what this "woke" stuff that UE keeps banging on about. Can anybody explain?

It came out of the black lives matter movement. It refers to the state of being awake in the face of racial discrimination, and using your vote wisely; the original slogan of the movement was aimed at black American voters and went- "Be woke, vote!"

So a relatively useful and logical message, but, alas, it now represents the result of a huge overshoot in attitudes and definitions of what is and isn't acceptable. It's now a license to call anything racist if an ethnic group is involved or impacted, and any reference to the days of rational definitions of racism is frowned upon severely and thought of as an undermining of 'progress'. Secondary schools are hotbeds of wokery.

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh Patel please, please, please.

She would be the perfect figurehead of the spectacular theater of the absurd and unwoke unleashed.

I really don't understand what this "woke" stuff that UE keeps banging on about. Can anybody explain?

The correct answer is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynical_Theories

Cynical Theories contrasts the academic approaches of liberalism and postmodernism, then argues that "applied postmodernism" (which focuses on ought rather than is) has displaced other approaches to activism and scholarship. The authors present several academic fields and schools—postcolonial theory, queer theory, critical race theory, intersectionality, fourth-wave feminism, gender studies, fat studies, and ableism—and describe how the "applied postmodernism" approach has developed in each field. The authors use capitalization to distinguish between the liberal concept of "social justice" and the ideological movement of "Social Justice" that they state has reified postmodernism.

Critical Theory is a philosophical school based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality. A denial of objective reality. It puts ethics before realism, and attempts to use language to cynically confuse people to the extent that nobody knows what anything actually means any more.

What do you think "gender" actually means? Nobody knows, because it is a load of tripe that can literally mean whatever you want it to, which is the whole point. This leftist assault on realism is justified in terms of bringing down existing power structures. In fact it has crippled the left, and is well on the way to doing the same to the rest of western society. The real powers couldn't care less about this bullshit, so long as it is distracting the plebs.

[UndercoverElephant]

From chatgpt:

UE: can you explain what "woke" has got to do with critical theory?

Chatgpt:

The term "woke" and its connection to critical theory can be understood through the following explanations:

Origin and Evolution of "Woke"
Historical Roots: The term "woke" originally emerged from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and was used to describe a heightened awareness of social and racial injustices. It gained wider usage during the Black Lives Matter movement, where being "woke" meant being aware of systemic racism and other forms of social inequality.

Modern Usage: Today, "woke" has been broadened to refer to a general awareness of various social justice issues, including but not limited to race, gender, sexuality, and economic inequality. It signifies a commitment to challenging and addressing these injustices.

Critical Theory
Origins of Critical Theory: Critical theory is an intellectual tradition that originated with the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century. Thinkers like Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and later Jürgen Habermas, developed critical theory as a way to critique and challenge the structures of power and domination in society.

Core Principles:

Critique of Power Structures: Critical theory examines how power and oppression operate within society, often focusing on capitalism, patriarchy, racism, and other forms of systemic inequality.
Emancipatory Objective: The goal of critical theory is not just to understand the world but to change it, promoting emancipation from oppressive social structures.
Connection Between "Woke" and Critical Theory
Shared Focus on Social Justice: Both "woke" culture and critical theory prioritize social justice and the need to address and rectify systemic inequalities. They share a common commitment to recognizing and challenging societal power dynamics.

Analytical Framework: Critical theory provides the analytical tools and theoretical foundation that inform much of contemporary "woke" discourse. For instance, concepts like intersectionality, developed within critical theory and feminist thought, are central to "woke" discussions on how various forms of oppression (race, gender, class, sexuality) intersect and compound one another.

Critique of Hegemony: Both perspectives critique cultural hegemony—the ways in which dominant groups maintain power through cultural norms and institutions. Being "woke" involves recognizing and resisting these hegemonic structures, much like how critical theorists aim to uncover and challenge these dynamics.

Contemporary Context
Academic Influence: Many ideas associated with being "woke" are derived from academic disciplines influenced by critical theory, such as cultural studies, gender studies, and critical race theory. These fields explore the ways in which societal power imbalances are constructed and maintained, offering a deeper understanding that fuels "woke" activism.

Public Discourse: The term "woke" has become highly politicized, often used pejoratively by critics to describe what they see as an excessive or misguided focus on identity politics. This reflects broader debates about the influence of critical theory on public discourse and education, with some arguing that it leads to divisive or dogmatic thinking, while others defend it as necessary for social progress.

In summary, the relationship between "woke" and critical theory lies in their shared emphasis on understanding and addressing systemic forms of injustice and inequality. Critical theory provides the conceptual groundwork that informs much of what it means to be "woke" in contemporary social and political contexts.

My bold. Without Critical Theory, there can be no wokeism. Critical Theory provides woke ideology with its academic foundations. The problem is that its is fundamentally bankrupt, intellectually. It involves a false assumption that science cannot provide us with any facts about reality - that science is just another "language game" or "narrative", which brings us no closer to objective truth than religion, politics, or direct personal experience. If you identify as a helicopter, then that's what you are! Don't like that? Then you're a COPTERPHOBE!!!

This is why I am such a strong defender of Scientific Realism --- the philosophical position that claims our best scientific theories are tending towards truth about objective reality. Scientific realism destroys Critical Theory at its foundation. It is glyphosate for woke idiocy. The word "gender", as used in contemporary political discourse, has no scientific meaning whatsoever. And yet the purveyors of gender ideology are typically utterly convinced that it is strongly supported by science. In other words, critical theory and the woke ideology it fuels are both examples of systematic pseudoscience. It's like climate change denial, except it is entrenched in western universities.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just to absolutely nail this. Any academic subject you see with the word "studies" in it is a branch of Critical Theory. All of them are toxic, but the absolute booby prize goes not to gender studies but to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_studies.

Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts. It uses various methods to analyze the production, representation and reception of scientific knowledge and its epistemic and semiotic role.

Worth reading carefully. Why would anybody seek to situate scientific expertise in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts? Do we need a social, historical or philosophical context to state that it is an objective fact about reality that anthropogenic climate change is real? The goal of science studies is to undermine the epistemic privilege of science -- to reduce it to just another claim on truth which has no special claim to objectivity. Researchers in this field deliberately tried to undermine the authority of scientists as scientists. Not by using science...oh no. What they did was sat in laboratories trying to identify ways in which scientists weren't behaving objectively, in order to prove that science is just another social activity, no different to any other.

These people have done a LOT of damage to western civilisation.