The Tories are all stabbing each other in the back, and the Labour opposition is kind of just sitting there, by the looks of things. Meanwhile, the cost of living has skyrocketed, and it doesn't look like it will be coming down any time soon. Wages on the other hand, still aren't rising in line with the cost of living, and a recent pay rise may have put lots of low-income poeple into a higher tax bracket, which means that they are worse-off in real terms. We're heading for the cool zone certainly, if not already there.

I must admit, I haven't been following Johnson's woes too closely. With all the talk af mass shootings in the States and the collapse of the Democrats, I didn't see that Sunak and Javid, two of the top Tory cabinet members, had resigned yesterday; besides which, it just seemed like more people complaining about him having a party during lockdown, which I personally just can't get that angry about. All of the things he has done, and that's the one the public can't stand?

However, it's looking like he won't survive to lead the party in another election because of some more recent allegations about hiring a known sex pest as the Deputy Chief Whip, then lying about it, and because of the loss of safe Tory seats in the recent by-elections.

If he's ousted before the end of the year, we could even end up with another general election - the third in 6 years (I feel like another election would probably happen in 2023 though, which upsets the statistics a bit). It would also mean that neither of the last two Prime Ministers have managed to complete a full term.

What do you guys think?

Edit: as some have pointed out, I was wrong about tax itself, but means testing thresholds are usually the same which means that benefits could still be cut off as wages rise even marginally in line with the cost of living.

  • layla
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Skinner voice: No.

    Jk, look here

    Basically it is uncodified and derives from many different sources. There are a few things that despite this the Supreme Court holds as principles but they're dumb liberal shit like "the rule of law" and "international order" or some shit.

    • Orannis62 [ze/hir]
      ·
      2 years ago

      If it's uncodified, isn't it by definition not a constitution?

      • layla
        ·
        2 years ago

        No, it means it's an uncodified constitution

          • layla
            ·
            2 years ago

            An uncodified constitution

            • Orannis62 [ze/hir]
              ·
              2 years ago

              Idk chief seems kinda fake to me.

              I mean, more fake than the codified kind of constitution

              • layla
                ·
                2 years ago

                Yeah it's dumb bullshit

        • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          An uncodified constitution? At this year, at this political situation, at this country, localized entirely within British legal tradition?

          • layla
            ·
            2 years ago

            ...

            Yes!

      • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Okay, so, there is no practical difference between a codified constitution and an uncodified one. A codified constitution means whatever the institutional powers say it means. An uncodified constitution means whatever the institutional powers say it means. It all depends on normative consistency, like all of liberalism.

          • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I suppose you are correct that the codified constitution can be put up on display or used as uncomfortable toilet paper, but I don't think that makes it any different politically.