Thread by @DanielBerman2

A summary for those Americans trying to make sense of internal Conservative Party UK politics. It begins with the leadership race this summer. First and foremost the core candidates stood for different demographic factions as much as ideological ones

Rishi Sunak represented much of the National party machine, the wider CCHQ campaign apparatus, the consultants, ad agencies and ex-SPADs who make the party run. That made him a "centrist" despite having backed Leave in 2016. He turned on Boris on their behalf as well as his own

Penny Mordaunt, by contrast represented backbench small-c MPs. In this she was a centrist but in a cautious way rather than an ideological one. Her coalition represented local officials and was the successor to the forced which installed Theresa May in 2016.

Kemi Badenoch, whose campaign was run by Michael Gove represented the up and coming "Right" of the party. These were ideologically rightwingers, but also the sort of capable performers who would have had careers in office even had Brexit lost and Osborne become Prime Minister

Liz Truss represented not those who backed Brexit because they were Rightwing but who existed because of Brexit. Her grouping stretched from otherwise centrist Boris loyalists(Nadine Dorries) to Boris/Brexit creations(Lord Frost) united by only mattering bc Brexit removed rivals

Liz Truss herself, along with Kwasi Kwarteng who reportedly(now) had doubts seem to have seen her campaign as ideological but it was actually a self preservation campaign for those who would not have had careers absent Brexit and would be finished if anyone else won

This created an internal contradiction when Truss took office. She was elected in her own mind on a platform of doing something, but her supporters backed her precisely because they were risk adverse. Anything that risked her political capital mortally threatened them

This explains why Truss backers like Nadine Dorries were so quick to turn on the Prime Minister for breaking the 2019 manifesto. The further irony is that Truss' economic instincts involving shrinking the state included both tax cuts and reducing spending massively

On both she was closer to supporters of rival candidates than her own backers. On tax cuts and "pro-growth" policies, Jeremy Hunt far from being a "wet" proposed larger tax cuts this summer, and his current spending cuts go far beyond what Kwasi likely contemplated

She has not "abandoned" her entire agenda from Britannia Unchained. She has abandoned half of it, jettisoning supporters who would never be able to implement any of it, in favor of those who would do half now, and objected only to the timing of the rest(Hunt et al)

That was rhetoric situation Friday. And it would be the situation now if the Conservative party was defined on ideological lines. But it is not. It is defined by personal factions. Take for instance the "Wets" or post-Camerons. This included Hunt, Sunak, Cameron, and Boris

However, it is deeply divided by betrayals. Boris/Gove betrayed Cameron by backing Brexit(as did Rishi), Gove then betrayed Boris in 2016, while in 2022 Rishi betrayed and ousted Boris. Hunt opposed Boris throughout, while Rishi was Chancellor.

Truss, by appointing Hunt, reached out to the anti-Boris/anti-Rishi wing of that group. Which made sense, but it also meant that Hunt and Truss waged war On rishi for different reasons. Liz to divide his faction, Hunt to reunite it under his own control.

In turn, Sunak overplayed his hand. Reportedly he was approached by Penny Mordaunt last week and refused any deal which did not involve him becoming PM without a contest. The result was that Mordaunt joined with Hunt against him. In fact there seemed to be a 4 person junta

It was Hunt, Wallace concerned primarily with defending a 3% of GDP defense budget, and Jacob Rees-Mogg who wished to be energy dictator as well as master of the "Right". Mordaunt seems to have been the face of it as seen by her Commons appearance monday

However, this alliance only seems to have lasted 96hrs before beginning to crumble. Mordaunt's Monday performance cosplaying as Prime Minister created an impression she was the Prime Ministerial candidate of the "cabinet party" leading to a decision to have Truss resurface

This not only had the predictable results but emphasized a more dangerous dynamic. By extending her cabinet to include a member of every faction without establishing her control over her cabinet first, Truss merely extended the Tory civil war to every faction and group

Every major ideological and social grouping is now divided between a figure who controls senior Cabinet office and wields governmental power and rivals in opposition. Like a child king in a monarchy the goal of rebellion is to replace a minister with oneself not the throne

The removal of Braverman today occured at the same time as the government faced a rebellion externally and sabotage internally over a vote on fracking the priority of Jacob Rees-Mogg. It was an attack not on the policy but on Mogg and removing Braverman removing his rival

None of this could occur if there was an effective Prime Minister because no Prime Minister would tolerate Ministers fighting their personal wars. Instead this anarchy has spread fractionally. Kwasi Kwarteng declined to vote on the fracking motion. Grant Shapps is a minister

So we have Rishi Sunak and Kwasi Kwarteng in effect plotting against the government now while grant Shapps who was leading plots is now its domestic policy enforcer, as he used his rebellion to take over the Home Office rather than depose Truss

That Shapps accepted the office despite being a leading rebel organizer speaks to the problem. The current anarchy allows anyone in a position to oust Truss to extract a senior Ministry, whereas they cannot guarantee themselves anything if they replace her with someone effective

So until someone is strong enough to make themselves PM it is in their interests NOT to depose Truss but instead trade high office for support. That explains the musical chairs. Not a "globalist/remainer" plot. No deep state would allow this anarchy.

Odds are backbenchers will eventually put a stop to it themselves once they realize that "rebel leaders" have zero intention of doing so.