When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[Typhoon]

Well to give you a couple of quotes from her:

“I don’t care about colonialism because know what we were doing before colonialism got there. They came in and just made a different bunch of winners and losers.

“There was never any concept of ‘rights’, so [the] people who lost out were old elites not everyday people.”

I may well see what she is getting at here. To quote Mr Townshend, "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss". (Just different 'colour').

If she was someone off the street, an activist or a backbencher, it would probably have been OK. But she wasn't, she was the Equalities Minister. If ever there was a ministerial post where you would expect the incumbent to be careful with their words, it is that one. Nothing to do with 'wokery', just trying to maintain a fairly United Kingdom. (I've lived through enough difficulties in the last quarter of the 20th Century and into this.)
We are living in an age where anything said cannot be unsaid - ministers in the time of MacMillan, Wilson and Heath could make statements which would be forgotten six months later. Johnson was treated as a joke(r), as shown by the international responses to his appointment as Foreign Secretary and his blunders were excused to some extent. The next PM will be a comparative unknown internationally and their gaffes won't be treated in the same way as 'That's just Boris'.
Badenoch's comments, as quoted. will, I suggest, be treated as offensive by some Commonwealth countries, and not necessarily just those in Africa or the Caribbean, despite her background. It makes a difference because, having ditched the EU, we are trying to get trade deals with the rest of the world, concentrating on those countries where we already have links - such as the Commonwealth.

Before she is given an outward facing role of any kind, I believe Ms Badenoch needs to take an intensive course in diplomacy.

 

[najaB]

If she was someone off the street, an activist or a backbencher, it would probably have been OK. But she wasn't, she was the Equalities Minister.

Exactly. I can see how her comments might play in some parts of the Tory press "Don't worry, I'm not *that* kind of Black person..." but she was given the responsibility of promoting the cause of the underrepresented in society - many of whom are very much the "losers" of colonialism who she mentioned.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well to give you a couple of quotes from her:

Thanks for responding.

You can also read how she laid into a professor of critical race theory on a discussion panel without even reading what critical race theory was.

From reading the article you cite, that seems not to be correct. The claim seems to be that she hadn't read a particular book written by one of the other people on the discussion panel.

She boycotted the Gender and Equalities Committee review into the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act, in essence refusing to engage in the passage of her departments own bill after earlier prompting a mass resignation from the Committee.

I wasn't aware of that, and on preliminary checks that seems something that shouldn't be boycotted, but again I wonder if you're over-egging that. A bit of digging reveals that Kemi declined to appear before the committee, stating, 'The Government will be well represented at the session, with Jo Churchill, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care in attendance,” Ms Badenoch wrote in response to declining to attend two meetings discussing the reforms. “I have full confidence in the Minister to represent the Government’s position and appropriately respond to any questions you may have.” (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/m...idence-gender-recognition-act-inquiry-1047599), I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge whether that was reasonable or not, but off the top of my head, that doesn't seem obviously inappropriate.

Allowed herself to be lobbied by The LGB Alliance (A group that wants to ban sex changes as they believe gay people should stay the gender they are born as, they believe if Lesbians have the option of becoming Men then Lesbians will become extinct).

I would strongly disagree with the aims of the LGB Alliance, but are you trying to say that Government ministers shouldn't be allowed to meet groups that we disagree with? Surely in a Democracy, there's nothing wrong with groups with different beliefs being allowed to air their beliefs?

I think my verdict from all that is that Kemi may well have some views that I would disagree with, but that's a long, long way from accusing her of trying to stoke up some kind of wars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2022 ==

If she was someone off the street, an activist or a backbencher, it would probably have been OK. But she wasn't, she was the Equalities Minister.

Trying to piece together the timeline from the article, it looks to me like she made the various comments before she became Equalities Minister, and they were leaked when she became a Minister.

Before she is given an outward facing role of any kind, I believe Ms Badenoch needs to take an intensive course in diplomacy.

Does intensive diplomacy cover, comments you made in private that you weren't expecting to be leaked?

 

[jfollows]

Jeremy Hunt has announced Esther McVey as his deputy, should he get elected.
I can see his logic - things will change repeatedly but my current view is that it's going to be Rishi Sunak + 1 other who get to go through to the party at large. And the party is well represented by white old men, like me in that they're white and old, but unlike me in that their opinions are somewhat to the right. So if Hunt is going to get through he has to appeal to this constituency, which won't naturally vote for Rishi Sunak either.
Esther McVey is my MP and I'm not a fan, not least because she puts the views of an old man in the Vatican above my views, and her track record is pretty dire in its treatment of the less well off in our country.
Lots of twists and turns over the next week, hopefully we'll have a shortlist of two by recess (21 July) and get a final candidate elected sooner rather than later. I think "September" is being planned for Boris's final defenestration.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Lots of twists and turns over the next week, hopefully we'll have a shortlist of two by recess (21 July) and get a final candidate elected sooner rather than later. I think "September" is being planned for Boris's final defenestration.

Indeed. No doubt some of the more marginal contenders will in due course be withdrawing their candidacies in the hope/expectation/promise of receiving prominent Cabinet positions by backing another candidate instead.

 

[GS250]

What I would say is that if they go with a 'wet' but safe candidate like Sunak or Hunt, that's their red wall support heavily at risk. We've been here before with the likes of John Major.

Do they try to retain their present support or go after their more traditional support base?

 

[najaB]

Does intensive diplomacy cover, comments you made in private that you weren't expecting to be leaked?

If you intend to be PM then, frankly, yes it should.

 

[Lost property]

Jeremy Hunt has announce Esther McVey as his deputy, should he get elected.
I can see his logic - things will change repeatedly but my current view is that it's going to be Rishi Sunak + 1 other who get to go through to the party at large. And the party is well represented by white old men, like me in that they're white and old, but unlike me in that their opinions are somewhat to the right. So if Hunt is going to get through he has to appeal to this constituency, which won't naturally vote for Rishi Sunak either.
Esther McVey is my MP and I'm not a fan, not least because she puts the views of an old man in the Vatican above my views, and her track record is pretty dire in its treatment of the less well off in our country.
Lots of twists and turns over the next week, hopefully we'll have a shortlist of two by recess (21 July) and get a final candidate elected sooner rather than later. I think "September" is being planned for Boris's final defenestration.

Esther McVey is indeed dire, but still nowhere near Nadine, which is possibly the reason her phone hasn't rung yet inviting her to become a deputy.

However, Boris, and his toxic legacy, as perceived elsewhere...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-johnson-will-be-remembered-in-europe-brexit

 

[Typhoon]

Trying to piece together the timeline from the article, it looks to me like she made the various comments before she became Equalities Minister, and they were leaked when she became a Minister.

As I wrote, we are living in an age where anything said cannot be unsaid - these were worse, they were written down, and prone to misinterpretation. Maybe she should have declined the post on these grounds? She has held roles in the Treasury and the Department for Education which, as far as I know, have elicited no criticism,
They seem to have come from a webchat for a group 'Conservative Friends of Nigeria'. I think there is a fair chance that some members may not have agreed with her sentiment - and she must have known that.

The quote I gave is the only one I have specifically taken issue with, others are debatable. That one is always bound to be a potential problem at home, but in particular abroad. No-one is forcing her to apply for the top job. She must have known that every inch of her past will be scrutinised; by the media, by the opposition(s), by the other candidates. If something is out there it will be found.

Does intensive diplomacy cover, comments you made in private that you weren't expecting to be leaked?

If you are a politician, that is naive! Last Wednesday's (and many other Wednesday's) PMQs demonstrate that.

Jeremy Hunt has announced Esther McVey as his deputy, should he get elected.
I can see his logic ...

So can I, it gets him two votes!

 

[Falcon1200]

What a vile person that Andrea Jenkyns seems to be.

Leadsom said, if I remember right, that May was not the best choice to be PM because she didn't have children.

Maybe 'vile' is a bit strong

The original 'vile person' comment was referring to Andrea Jenkyns, as above, not Andrea Ledsom. And I believe that Andrea Ledsom has since said that her comment about Theresa May's childlessness was selectively edited, and despite her asking the Times to publish the full transcript of the interview, they have not done so.

 

[jfollows]

Esther McVey is indeed dire, but still nowhere near Nadine, which is possibly the reason her phone hasn't rung yet inviting her to become a deputy.

Agreed, amongst other things Esther has significantly more functioning brain cells than Nadine does, and she appears to be a reasonably good constituency MP (I get to hear about her quite a lot) so I am just left with disagreeing with just about all her policies and stances on issues that are important to me.

 

[Busaholic]

If I was a betting man, which I'm not really despite my £100 win from Euromillions Hotpicks on Friday, i'd be committing to Sunak and Truss being the two names that will be sent to the Tory membership to chew over.

 

[317 forever]

I think all major parties struggle to get the right type of leader. Trouble is that their personal lives are scrutinised by the media and "normal" people just don't want that. The job of party leader (and ultimately PM) really needs a kind of person with the right kind of personality who just doesn't care, i.e. of the Boris mould! Just look at the hatchet job the media did on Tim Farron when he become Libdem leader just because he had Christian values. He's a brilliant/committed MP for his constituency and would have made a good LibDem leader had he been allowed to do so for more than a few weeks.

He was leader for 2 years but yes, I think it was that scrutiny during the GE campaign in 2017 that put him off staying on after the election.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I believe that Andrea Ledsom has since said that her comment about Theresa May's childlessness was selectively edited, and despite her asking the Times to publish the full transcript of the interview, they have not done so.

This reference above shows childlessness on one hand and the oft-quoted fecundity of Johnson on the other hand as being something to be avoided if the post of Prime Minister is in the offing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The quote I gave is the only one I have specifically taken issue with, others are debatable. That one is always bound to be a potential problem at home, but in particular abroad. No-one is forcing her to apply for the top job. She must have known that every inch of her past will be scrutinised; by the media, by the opposition(s), by the other candidates. If something is out there it will be found.

I think that's true, we live in an age where everything is scrutinised. But I would argue that the problem here is as much with the attitude that, as soon as you find one thing in someone's past that could be interpreted as objectionable/offensive by some people, you declare the person who said it is unfit for any political role: In the end we all sometimes say things that are too blunt or that someone else will disagree with. If you start trying to rule out as unsuitable anyone who it turns out has at some point said something questionable on social media, then you'll end up with, the only people who can become senior Government ministers are people who have never said anything of note. (Or people who figured when they were about 8 years' old that they wanted to be Prime Minister and therefore started self-censoring everything they said after that date ).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2022 ==

The original 'vile person' comment was referring to Andrea Jenkyns, as above, not Andrea Ledsom. And I believe that Andrea Ledsom has since said that her comment about Theresa May's childlessness was selectively edited, and despite her asking the Times to publish the full transcript of the interview, they have not done so.

Oh yes, you're right, that was my bad - misreading that post and thinking incorrectly it referred to Andrea Leadsom. I think the point still stands though that it's not reasonable to go around accusing people you don't know of being 'vile' without good reason. In the case of Andrea Jenkyns, it does appear that she lost her composure for a few seconds when faced with a crowd shouting abuse at her. That is absolutely not a basis for accusing anyone of being 'vile'.

 

[Senex]

Should any minister who was content to be sent out on to the airwaves or into print to defend Johnson's indefensible activities over the last 2½ years be seriously considered as a possible prime minister? Isn't there a need for someone untainted?

 

[najaB]

This reference above shows childlessness on one hand and the oft-quoted fecundity of Johnson on the other hand as being something to be avoided if the post of Prime Minister is in the offing.

Childlessness is only an issue with a very small percentage of the electorate whereas being unable to enumerate one's progeny will turn off quite a significant proportion.

 

[Lost property]

Agreed, amongst other things Esther has significantly more functioning brain cells than Nadine does, and she appears to be a reasonably good constituency MP (I get to hear about her quite a lot) so I am just left with disagreeing with just about all her policies and stances on issues that are important to me.

Any evidence of Nadine having any functioning brain cells would be appreciated...albeit I fear you may spend many fruitless hours in your search....however, on the subject of doomed hopes and alliances, a certain Ms Coffey has now decided to offer her not unsubstantial support for Ms Truss. As Ms Coffey presides over a Dep't noted for their dedication in damaging the lives of many, then it's probably quite fitting really.

 

[Typhoon]

I think that's true, we live in an age where everything is scrutinised. But I would argue that the problem here is as much with the attitude that, as soon as you find one thing in someone's past that could be interpreted as objectionable/offensive by some people, you declare the person who said it is unfit for any political role: In the end we all sometimes say things that are too blunt or that someone else will disagree with. If you start trying to rule out as unsuitable anyone who it turns out has at some point said something questionable on social media, then you'll end up with, the only people who can become senior Government ministers are people who have never said anything of note. (Or people who figured when they were about 8 years' old that they wanted to be Prime Minister and therefore started self-censoring everything they said after that date ).

Whether we like it or not, that is what is happening/ has happened.

Moving away from the thread slightly, consider what has happened over Labour politicians over the years. (Milliband was even condemned for the views of his father.) They have ended up with Starmer 'we don't know what he stands for' because that is the best stance to take. I think, also, in his role as Lawyer, he would have been very circumspect. I have no problem with that.

Up thread, someone (apologies - long thread, no time to look) mentioned Tim Farron, seemed a decent bloke - attack/ attack/ attack, the media would not let go. They end up with Davey - Sir Anonymous.

Farage - always a good one for a quote, so doubtless there are dozens about but consider:

Channel 4 News obtains a letter about Ukip leader Nigel Farage, from his days as a schoolboy, in which teachers are quoted as accusing him of being “racist” and “fascist”.

That is dated 2013 - its relevance then? (Almost) Nil. Now even Niller.

We have media overkill. Not just the printed press, but we now have a number of news views outlets which are trying 24/7 to get the audience in as well as the established broadcasting outlets. Then there are opinion forums - like this - which enable the likes of me to find quotes made by, say, Lord Buckethead* in 1999, truncate them and make a fuss. And there are some pretty bad ones if you look hard enough.

If you want to be Prime Minister, probably the best policy is to spend 20 years with the British Antarctic Expedition, unsubscribe to all social media, invest in portable refrigeration units, smile a lot, nod your head when 'friendly' interviewers/ colleagues make comments, get speeches checked/ double checked for anything controversial, don't answer questions just quote from the speeches you have learnt.

Is this desirable? Of course not but it is the way that things have developed. For over 10 years (except for a brief interlude near the end of the May era) the Conservatives have got off lightly. Guido Fawkes has got eleven candidates standing or considering standing for the leadership. This is feeding time for the media, and they will gorge on it. Wallace is best out of it!

* - apologies to Lord Buckethead, the first name that came into my head. I'd assumed that all his policies would be outlandish but some seem pretty sensible.

 

[WatcherZero]

It alarms me that the Attorney General doesnt know the difference between the European Court of Human Rights, the interpretative body of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Union referring to it as 'A foreign court'.
The Convention was Churchills baby to both prevent the atrocities of WW2 happening again and to prevent the subversion of democracy and civil rights by a national government leading eventually to Communism. It was drafted by a British Hague tribunal prosecutor incoporating elements of the Scottish Bill of Rights, English Bill of Rights, US Bill of Rights, French Declaration on the Rights of Man and German Basic Law.

 

[birchesgreen]

It alarms me that the Attorney General doesnt know the difference between the European Court of Human Rights, the interpretative body of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Union referring to it as 'A foreign court'.

She probably knows however she is talking to an electorate (her party membership) who probably don't as much, and putting the boot into those FoReigNeRs will help...

 

[The Ham]

She is also an Oxford graduate, the traditional university for PMs to have attended, and read PPE there.

A useful degree if there's another shortage due to a global pandemic?!?!

 

[jfollows]

Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-degeneracy-in-his-shabby-carnival-of-misrule)

Boris Johnson plumbed the depths of degeneracy in his shabby carnival of misrule​

I won't post the whole article, it's entirely consistent with Rawnsley's earlier articles, he's long said that Boris Johnson is totally unfit for the office. But the quote I've seen before is worth repeating:

One of the most memorable quotes I have gathered during his premiership was from a former Tory cabinet minister and erstwhile supporter who said: “The trouble with Boris is that he’s not very interested in governing. He’s only interested in two things. Being world king and shagging.”

 

[brad465]

Smaller parties can often wield disproportionate power in a system where you don’t get an overall majority. They will usually demand particular policies as part of agreeing to form a coalition. The poster child for this is usually considered to be Israel as the smaller right-wing and religious parties drag the centrists towards them. You could argue the German Greens getting all their nuclear plants shut down is also an extreme policy.

As opposed to the current system where small parties hijack larger parties because under FPTP they have no other way. This is what Momentum did to Labour (although Starmer has now largely neutralised their influence), and what the ERG are still doing to the Tories, to the point that whoever wins this leadership election will have to do the ERG's bidding to retain power and/or avoid splitting the party.

On the subject of culture wars, the only reason they happen is because they're to distract from other domestic political failures. I think it's therefore best to avoid discussing particular identity politics' views associated with candidates, as all that will do is give them more irrelevant attention (Trump had plenty of controversial views and exposing and criticising them didn't stop him getting elected, if anything they probably helped him through extra publicity).

 

[najaB]

Trump had plenty of controversial views and exposing and criticising them didn't stop him getting elected, if anything they probably helped him through extra publicity

Indeed. The heads of several media companies have expressed their regret at giving him as much coverage as they did - I think I recall reading somewhere that he got several hundred million dollar's worth of coverage for free.

Edit: Just looked it up, it was closer to $2B worth!

 

[Lost property]

" The Lord moves in mysterious ways "...etc, as the saying goes.

Still, he's the first to chuck a bit of religion into the "vote for me ! " sales talk...for devotees only. So yes, quite original really...not that, strangely, we can be expected to believe him.

Boris Johnson resignation: Sajid Javid says prayer meeting moved him to quit

The Tory leadership candidate says a sermon on integrity moved him to quit Boris Johnson's cabinet.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jfollows]

George Osborne's view on Channel 4 seems to be that most of the candidates appear to be going to promise tax cuts, with the exception of Rishi Sunak of course, but if they promise tax cuts without a believable explanation of how they'll be funded then they're being fundamentally dishonest.
I don't disagree with the tenor of his argument.
His personal track record wasn't altogether popular, of course, but he tended towards cutting spending in order to keep taxes low. It's not realistic to think that taxes can be cut without doing so, I agree. A new leader making promises in order to get the job, but then being unable to deliver on the promises .... well, we've just had three years of boosterism and unfulfilled promises, haven't we?

 

[najaB]

His personal track record wasn't altogether popular, of course, but he tended towards cutting spending in order to keep taxes low. It's not realistic to think that taxes can be cut without doing so, I agree.

There is a way: grow the economy. A smaller slice of a bigger pie means services don't have to be cut. That said, despite all their talk, the Tories have a good track record of shrinking the economy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On the subject of culture wars, the only reason they happen is because they're to distract from other domestic political failures. I think it's therefore best to avoid discussing particular identity politics' views associated with candidates, as all that will do is give them more irrelevant attention (Trump had plenty of controversial views and exposing and criticising them didn't stop him getting elected, if anything they probably helped him through extra publicity).

What of those of us for whom the 'culture wars' is a fairly key issue? It seems a bit strange to say that we shouldn't be able to discuss the merits of the candidates on an issue that we regard as very important.

And why do you say it's only to distract from other political failures? That seems to me a bit insulting towards people (like me) who are genuinely horrified at both the rise of identity politics and the recent trend in popular culture where people seek to rewrite the UK's history in ways that appear primarily motivated by a desire to present the UK in a bad light. Whatever your views on those issues, isn't it better to be willing to discuss them, rather than just dismissing other people's concerns in the way you seem to be doing here.

 

[brad465]

There is a way: grow the economy. A smaller slice of a bigger pie means services don't have to be cut. That said, despite all their talk, the Tories have a good track record of shrinking the economy.

There hasn't been any growth since 2008 that hasn't been in the form of blowing up bubbles, the evidence is in stagnant productivity, but somehow GDP did grow in many of the years since. A lot of so-called growth required evermore borrowing, inflating housing markets, consumerism through borrowed money, and QE.