Lol, Lmao | Samuel Martin


Back in early July, following consecutively dire electoral forecasts, Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister and Conservative leader. With his departure, most Conservatives expected that their party could be saved from gradual decline – if only they’d applied some of that anti-declinist attitude to the country, no less the one they’ve been governing for the last twelve years.

Alas, things have gone from bad to worse, from election loss to electoral annihilation, from Johnson’s resignation to Truss’ resignation. Indeed, things have gotten so bad that Conservative canvassers report that it was easier to defend Johnson’s Covid rule-breaking and Pincher ignorance-feigning than Truss’ entire 48 days in office. As if we required anymore evidence that “partygate” isn’t as important as journos make it out to be.

Credit where it’s due, Truss has certainly lived up to her “Boris 2.0” self-characterisation. With a track record of adultery, the most I expected her to “Deliver, Deliver, Deliver” was another man’s child. Alas, Truss has bequeathed us with something as opportune and laden with potential as Brexit: the possible destruction of the Conservative Party.

Characterised by pundits as a firebrand free-marketeer, some of her own backbenchers calling her as a “libertarian jihadist”, Truss’ first act as Prime Minister was to freeze energy prices – not only a thoroughly impractical policy, but a distinctly anti-market, un-libertarian one.

Followed soon-after by previously unannounced mass borrowing, the primary cause for the recent bout of market volatility, her government’s only decent policies included a minor cut to the basic rate of income tax, plans for Brexit-enabled deregulation, and a smattering of other supply-side reforms, all of which have been either been reversed or abandoned by the new Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt.

Some have characterised Hunt’s appointment as a technocratic coup. Like the squealing pundits that called Truss a libertarian maverick, such a description misses the mark. To be a technocrat, at the very least, you have to a) be unelected, b) be an “expert”, and c) have political control.

Hunt isn’t an expert at anything. Like many in Parliament, he’s just a dull sycophant for the status-quo. The “sensible”, “moderate”, “serious”, “technocratic” status-quo of borrowing hundreds of billions to be spent without return, raising taxes to historic levels, turning the police into an anarcho-tyrannic institution, undermining basic energy capabilities in the name of environmentalism, obliterating social cohesion, leftist domination of institutions, engineering housing and fertility crises, all whilst threatening war with a nuclear power, facilitating depoliticization through bureaucracy, failing to solve a multi-decade “productivity puzzle”, and importing infinity migrants as part of a demographic Ponzi-scheme.

The hollow nature of his sort shouldn’t be confused for competence. If “Kamikwasi” has proven anything, it’s that being a boring bastard and an incompetent bastard are not mutually exclusive. Granted, whilst it’s possible that Hunt has been calling the shots these past few days, he’s still very much an elected official – something he’ll be reminded of soon enough.

Conservative MPs are blaming Conservative members for this embarrassment, as if they weren’t the ones that whittled down the original eight candidates to the final two, Truss’ opponent being the guy that “backstabbed” Johnson, despite having broken Covid rules himself, and generally having little to offer other than the status quo. I don’t think Britain, with its long history of Parliament, can recall having a party so devoid of talent, charisma, and vision. That’s what happens when you implement diversity quotas; discriminating to maximise your party’s adherence to hegemonic leftist ideology, rather than practicing the meritocracy you pretend to champion. Combined with a predilection for selecting the Labourites of yesteryear, and a unshakeable preference for careerist obedience over statesmanlike qualities, it’s no wonder the Conservatives – and by extension, Parliament – is a hotbed of degenerate stagnation-inducing mediocrity.

Despite their preoccupation with holding 2019 “Red Wall” voters, Conservative MPs have done everything possible to alienate them. Polling by Redfield and Wilton back in July showed the most popular policy platform with “Red Wall” voters, by far, was Suella Braverman’s – a platform dedicated to leaving the ECHR, completing Brexit, reducing legal immigration, and ending illegal Channel crossings.

And what has Braverman done since Conservative MPs pushed her out of the contest? Besides making empty remarks about the “tofu-eating wokerati”, she resigned as Truss’ Home Secretary a month after she was appointed. Specifically, she resigned over the government’s plans to increase immigration, most notably by entering a free-exchange agreement with the 1.2 billion people in India.

Behold the travesty of the Conservative Party. Gifted a historic majority in 2019 on a platform of completing Brexit, reducing immigration, and resisting tax rises, it has, three years later, not only squandered a revolution by making a general election inevitable, has given 3/4 “Great Offices of State” to Remainers, let immigration reach historic levels (whilst making plans to increase immigration further), and increased taxes amid a supply-side crisis which is sending living costs through the roof.

The indifference and mismanagement of Johnson’s leadership made the Conservative Party electorally vulnerable. The idiocy of Truss’ brief leadership is set to make the Conservative Party an electoral non-entity. Nobody, especially not after the 2019 majority, Labour infighting and by-election losses, and the formation of several dud parties, could have predicted the avoidable near-obliteration of the Tories from the inside. Nevertheless, even with Truss’ resignation, that is still very much a real possibility.

What is to be done? Right-wing and anti-establishment people of influence need to be organising a hostile takeover of their own. Farage has announced his intention to create a new party to replace the Conservatives, stating on GBNews that Britain needs a fresh “centre-right party that believes in the individual.” Whatever Farage comes up with, any attempt at replacing the Tories must be immune to accusations of being a Trussian counter-revolt.

If Britain requires a new party, it needs a polished right-leaning nationalist party that understands the need for, and unwaveringly supports, immigration reduction. The desire for controlled borders led to the mainstreaming of Euroscepticism, the rise of UKIP in 2015, the Leave victory in 2016, and the Conservative majority in 2019. More than a second or third-tier commitment, immigration reduction must be a top priority.

Unlike the Conservatives, when Labour has promised to control immigration, they’ve never gone as far as putting down a target number. Whatever immigration-reductionist sentiment exists amongst parliamentary Tories, even less exists within the Labour Party. Indeed, Conservatives have been able to blackmail the people into voting for them unconditionally because of this fact.

However, it seems this tactic is (thankfully) waning in its effectiveness. The Conservatives have, consistently and without exception, broken their promises to reduce the immigration since the early 90s – never mind Cameron’s infamous “to the tens of thousands” pledge. Johnson, the supposed immigration hard-liner (another piece of journalist-sanctioned misinformation) permitted an unprecedented 1.1 million visas in 2022.

For supporters of immigration reduction, that is to say the majority of the electorate, the upcoming election will be a choice between promise-breakers and promise-obfuscators. As it stands, Starmer is set to achieve in 2024 what Corbyn tried to do in 2019 – win an election through strategic ambiguity on a major issue. This shouldn’t be the case.

As a result, Farage has to be wheeled out again and again. It’s a depressing spectacle. A man that so evidently wants an undisturbed retirement from party politics is continuously pulled back in, courtesy of being the only means of punishing Tory duplicity from the right. Farage retires and people are desperate to bring him back, citing a lack of viable options. Conversely, Farage re-enters politics and new blood is prevented from emerging. Rinse and repeat for about seven years. In his recent Telegraph piece, Farage warns that his successor won’t be as moderate as him. However, as long as this Catch-22 remains in place, Farage might not have a successor to worry about.

The same cannot be said of the Conservatives. As of writing this, the leadership election is well underway. Sunak has surpassed 100 backers, whilst Johnson has pulled out of the contest. Penny Mordaunt, the parliamentary darling of delusional careerists, is lagging behind.

Regardless of who wins the leadership election, the Tories are consigned to defeat. Assuming present course, the next election won’t be a Labour victory, but a Conservative loss. A massive, totally avoidable, and completely deserved Conservative loss. It will be an election marked not by overwhelming support for Labour, but rampant disillusionment with and disdain for the Tories. Three years of finger-wagging at Labour, gloating over how the party abandoned their core supporters, only to be undone by doing the exact same thing. Then again, who are the Conservatives to complain? After all, they tell us: “you must stay at home”.


Photo Credit.

You may also like...