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

[HST274]

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.

I'm curious to see examples of this?

 

[najaB]

...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...

More accurately phrased as "present the UK from the perspective of those who were on the receiving end".

 

[Gloster]

Britain, although primarily England, has a lot to be ashamed of. However, the total inability and unwillingness to accept that we did anything wrong, unless really forced to, means that the stories grow, the truth gets lost and things appear worse than they were. Get the truth through, even though it is sometimes shameful, and all sides could come to terms with, “They knew no better,” although there is no doubt that many things were done that were unacceptable by the standards of the time. However, it is not easy: there are still plenty of people who consider that all those (insert offensive description of your choice) should consider themselves lucky to have been murdered by the British.

 

[najaB]

Britain, although primarily England, has a lot to be ashamed of.

I dunno, the Scottish lairds weren't lily white.

 

[Busaholic]

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?

Sunak, Hunt and Tugenhadt are the only ones not prioritising tax cuts, so will be likely to be aiming for much the same group of MPs, with first one getting picked off, then another, and finally?.....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I dunno, the Scottish lairds weren't lily white.

The Massacre at Glencoe being a prime example of clan against clan.

I used to sing the song with our folk group, having learnt it from the Corries.

 

[Berliner]

If those opinions are based solely on her reaction to people shouting at her, would it not be instructive to know exactly what they were saying ? Because some pretty vile insults are regularly hurled at politicians; The National newspaper on Facebook today features a performer at the TRNSMT music festival in Glasgow leading the crowd in a chant of 'f*ck the Tories'. But perhaps that's acceptable as it was directed at Conservatives ?

Surely a government minister should be thick-skinned or professional enough to not stick the finger up to perfectly legal protestors in a situation where she is surrounded by cameras?

Government ministers make decisions that affect real people on a daily basis and not always positively. If they aren't prepared for the backlash then don't choose politics as a career, frankly, and certainly don' become a minister. I think people affected or angered by those decisions are perfectly entitled to show their unhappiness at that person who is making those decisions by protesting, even if it's loudly or insulting. Why is there a need to bow down to politicians, especially ones who willingly make decisions that may have severe consequences for ordinary people? Someone working a shop for minimum wage gets abused and they'd be sacked for doing such a thing, but a government minister earning tens of thousands of pounds a year on top of their MP salary, plus god knows how many other streams of income, is somehow not able to cope with some people shouting nasty things at her? A musician playing to a crowd is perfectly entitled to make a political statement too, indeed music is a huge form of protest. Making anti-tory statements is hardly a shock at a music festival where the mostly young, Scottish crowd is hardly going to be made up of tory fans. I'd go out on a limb and even say most people there detest this government. Performers know their audiences.

If a government minister would rather stick the finger up to those disagreeing with her rather than attempt to engage with them then maybe she shouldn't be a minister. She is there to govern for all, not just her voters.

The supposed death threats she reviews are something else, those are illegal of course, and will be dealt with by the police. Death threats are not a form of protest.

 

[brad465]

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.

Divide and rule is the oldest political trick in the book, whether here or anywhere else in the world: create an "enemy", blame most problems in society on that group in order to garner enough support to retain or enhance power, or if it's the media doing most of the division, the purpose is usually to drive profit.

My general point about dismissing culture wars is partly because of divide and rule tactics, but also because it's costing "energy" that needs to be focused on issues that matter more to voters. There are opinion polls, including one The Daily Mail did earlier this year, that ranks matters of identity politics like trans' rights lower than most issues like cost of living issues, education, healthcare and some others. Something Labour have struggled with, although perhaps improving on now (helped by Wes Streeting I'd say), is having too much focus on identity politics' issues and not how they're going to improve living standards generally.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Divide and rule is the oldest political trick in the book, whether here or anywhere else in the world: create an "enemy", blame most problems in society on that group in order to garner enough support to retain or enhance power, or if it's the media doing most of the division, the purpose is usually to drive profit.

Maybe. Unfortunately, another 'oldest political trick in the book' would be, don't engage with your opponent's arguments or concerns: Instead, just accuse them of acting in bad faith (such as accusing them of seeking to divide and rule). Your statement that 'only reason they happen is because they're to distract from other domestic political failures' looks to me like a textbook example of that.

My general point about dismissing culture wars is partly because of divide and rule tactics, but also because it's costing "energy" that needs to be focused on issues that matter more to voters. There are opinion polls, including one The Daily Mail did earlier this year, that ranks matters of identity politics like trans' rights lower than most issues like cost of living issues, education, healthcare and some others. Something Labour have struggled with, although perhaps improving on now (helped by Wes Streeting I'd say), is having too much focus on identity politics' issues and not how they're going to improve living standards generally.

It's a fair point about not wanting to use up political energy on issues that are not voters' current priorities - and it's understandable that, right now, most people's main concern will be the cost of living. However, some things are important for society as a whole, even if not in the minds of voters. As an example, the same poll you quoted has just 3% of people listing 'defence and security' as a concern. Would it therefore be a good idea if we stopped talking about defence and security (for example, refusing to talk about the plans by some of the Tory leadership candidates' to increase defence spending)?

(I would also note that the poll doesn't mention culture wars per se. I'm guessing you're looking at the figure for 'the rights of trans men and women', which is only one part of the 'culture wars'. Also, the question asked specified 'problems facing you and your family' - that's going to bias against issues that concern society as a whole, although I'm sure bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living would still dominate the answers).

 

[brad465]

In latest contest updates, Truss has formally announced she's standing and a surprise endorsement for Kemi Badenoch from Michael Gove.

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

Maybe. Unfortunately, another 'oldest political trick in the book' would be, don't engage with your opponent's arguments or concerns: Instead, just accuse them of acting in bad faith (such as accusing them of seeking to divide and rule). Your statement that 'only reason they happen is because they're to distract from other domestic political failures' looks to me like a textbook example of that.

It's a fair point about not wanting to use up political energy on issues that are not voters' current priorities - and it's understandable that, right now, most people's main concern will be the cost of living. However, some things are important for society as a whole, even if not in the minds of voters. As an example, the same poll you quoted has just 3% of people listing 'defence and security' as a concern. Would it therefore be a good idea if we stopped talking about defence and security (for example, refusing to talk about the plans by some of the Tory leadership candidates' to increase defence spending)?

(I would also note that the poll doesn't mention culture wars per se. I'm guessing you're looking at the figure for 'the rights of trans men and women', which is only one part of the 'culture wars'. Also, the question asked specified 'problems facing you and your family' - that's going to bias against issues that concern society as a whole, although I'm sure bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living would still dominate the answers).

Fair enough, in the context of this particular contest we'll have to see how much these issues become of interest. At the moment we're only talking about it here because of the views of one candidate, while at the moment the main frontrunners are angling over tax cuts; this may change in the weeks ahead.

 

[Yew]

It's a fair point about not wanting to use up political energy on issues that are not voters' current priorities - and it's understandable that, right now, most people's main concern will be the cost of living. However, some things are important for society as a whole, even if not in the minds of voters. As an example, the same poll you quoted has just 3% of people listing 'defence and security' as a concern. Would it therefore be a good idea if we stopped talking about defence and security (for example, refusing to talk about the plans by some of the Tory leadership candidates' to increase defence spending)?

I must admit, if I was in charge of Labour, I would continue to push for progress on these issues, but put vastly more PR effort into the others.

The tabloids will take any non-story on identity politics out of context to sew the seeds of outrage, so the party must adjust it's efforts towards the areas of public concern that won't get as much frontpage square footage.

 

[Falcon1200]

Surely a government minister should be thick-skinned or professional enough to not stick the finger up to perfectly legal protestors in a situation where she is surrounded by cameras?

If a government minister would rather stick the finger up to those disagreeing with her rather than attempt to engage with them then maybe she shouldn't be a minister.

Perhaps, in both cases, but as I mentioned earlier, we do not know what was being said to, or rather shouted at, the woman, and without knowing that it is difficult to judge whether her reaction was in any way justified or not. I would hazard a guess that some of the 'disagreements' may actually have been words akin to those at TRNSMT !

 

[nw1]

Sunak, Hunt and Tugenhadt are the only ones not prioritising tax cuts, so will be likely to be aiming for much the same group of MPs, with first one getting picked off, then another, and finally?.....

Another reason to favour someone like Hunt, it seems, and again Tugendhat strikes me as something as a moderate and Sunak not too bad. It's beginning to become crystal clear to me who the better candidates are.

Anyone who honestly thinks the UK can afford tax cuts right now is not worthy of being prime minister, IMO. It's economically illiterate and continues the same sort of dishonesty that has marked the Johnson years. Bribe the electorate to vote Tory at the next election, and then the inevitable vicious spending cuts will follow and we won't be able to do anything about it until 2029. No thanks.

Let's hope one of the more reasonable candidates makes the final cut and wins the run-off.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely a government minister should be thick-skinned or professional enough to not stick the finger up to perfectly legal protestors in a situation where she is surrounded by cameras?

Government ministers make decisions that affect real people on a daily basis and not always positively. If they aren't prepared for the backlash then don't choose politics as a career, frankly, and certainly don' become a minister. I think people affected or angered by those decisions are perfectly entitled to show their unhappiness at that person who is making those decisions by protesting, even if it's loudly or insulting. Why is there a need to bow down to politicians, especially ones who willingly make decisions that may have severe consequences for ordinary people? Someone working a shop for minimum wage gets abused and they'd be sacked for doing such a thing, but a government minister earning tens of thousands of pounds a year on top of their MP salary, plus god knows how many other streams of income, is somehow not able to cope with some people shouting nasty things at her? A musician playing to a crowd is perfectly entitled to make a political statement too, indeed music is a huge form of protest. Making anti-tory statements is hardly a shock at a music festival where the mostly young, Scottish crowd is hardly going to be made up of tory fans. I'd go out on a limb and even say most people there detest this government. Performers know their audiences.

If a government minister would rather stick the finger up to those disagreeing with her rather than attempt to engage with them then maybe she shouldn't be a minister. She is there to govern for all, not just her voters.

The supposed death threats she reviews are something else, those are illegal of course, and will be dealt with by the police. Death threats are not a form of protest.

I guess John Prescott [*] would never survive in your World, then...

 

[AM9]

I guess John Prescott [*] would never survive in your World, then...

John Prescott was assaulted at close range. His reaction was probably automatic to a degree. There's this assumption that politicians should expect the occasional egg of tomato thrown at them but at less than 6ft away, the reaction might be considered as response to somebody attempting to harm. Just think of what happened to David Amess, Jo Cox and even Stephen Timms. Sticking a finger up as a gesture is not only unnecessary but tempting fate.

 

[daodao]

Anyone who honestly thinks the UK can afford tax cuts right now is not worthy of being prime minister, IMO. It's economically illiterate and continues the same sort of dishonesty that has marked the Johnson years. Bribe the electorate to vote Tory at the next election, and then the inevitable vicious spending cuts will follow and we won't be able to do anything about it until 2029. No thanks.

Regrettably, as the UK is living well beyond its means, spending cuts are essential, whether or not tax cuts are feasible. Candidates for PM who don't acknowledge this are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[RichJF]

Suella Braveman mouthing off on Twtter that voting for Brexit meant a vote for leaving the ECHR. For an Attorney General not to understand that the EU & ECHR are two completely different kettle of fish is quite frankly astounding.

 

[jfollows]

Jeremy Hunt on Esther McVey: "She's someone who's won tough seats against Labour in the north, in the same way I've won tough seats against the Lib Dems in the south."
She lost Wirral West (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirral_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) to Labour in 2005, won the seat in 2010, then lost it again to Labour in 2015. In 2017 she was parachuted into my constituency, Tatton, where it would take a miracle (known as Neil Hamilton and Martin Bell, but that was a one-off) for a donkey wearing a blue rosette not to be elected. She's hardly going to break a sweat at the next election.
PS Wirral West continued to be won by Labour, both in 2017 and in 2019.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm seeing suggestions that Boris is actually going to run himself! Apparently that is why he didn't use the phrase "I resign" because that would disqualify him. Sly...

 

[Gloster]

I'm seeing suggestions that Boris is actually going to run himself! Apparently that is why he didn't use the phrase "I resign" because that would disqualify him. Sly...

Does he realistically think he can win or is that just his ego telling him he will, or is it just disruption? Or does it affect (i.e. increase) any payout that he may get? Remember, his sister has just reminded LBC listeners that he is so poor that he can’t afford a salad bowl. (“When I were young I was so poor I couldn’t afford a salad bowl...Without salad...Or bowl.”)

 

[jfollows]

Voting planned for (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...les-how-tories-will-elect-new-prime-minister/)

• Wednesday July 13
• Thursday July 14
• 3xhustings on Monday July 18
• Tuesday July 19
• Wednesday July 20
• Two candidates remain on Thursday July 21 and they will be required to commit to not dropping out (as Andrea Leadsom did against Theresa May)

Winner to be announced Monday September 5 - bye bye Boris on that day then, if all goes to plan

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2022 ==

I'm seeing suggestions that Boris is actually going to run himself! Apparently that is why he didn't use the phrase "I resign" because that would disqualify him. Sly...

Sounds unlikely, but then I've said that before.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01366/SN01366.pdf says

A leadership contest will occur if a sitting leader resigns or if they lose a vote of no confidence of MPs.
2022 contest
On 7 July 2022 Boris Johnson announced he would resign as Conservative Party leader. He peldged to remain Prime Minister until a new leader was in place and said the timetable for the leadership election would be announced in due course.
Johnson had survived a vote of no confidence from his own MPs in June 2022. He won the confidence vote by to 211 to 148 and under the Parliamentary Party’s rules another vote could not be held for a year.
The announcement of his resignation followed a string of ministerial resignations and concern over his handling of sexual misconduct allegations against for Deputy Chief Whip, Chris Pincher.

A leader who resigns is not eligible to contest the subsequent leadership election.

The detailed rules for stage 1 are not in the public domain and in the event of a contest the Chairman will announce the procedure and timetable to be followed.

Of course, John Major resigned as party leader in June 1995, only to be re-elected comfortably.

 

[Purple Orange]

Voting planned for (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...les-how-tories-will-elect-new-prime-minister/)

• Wednesday July 13
• Thursday July 14
• 3xhustings on Monday July 18
• Tuesday July 19
• Wednesday July 20
• Two candidates remain on Thursday July 21 and they will be required to commit to not dropping out (as Andrea Leadsom did against Theresa May)

Winner to be announced Monday September 5 - bye bye Boris on that day then, if all goes to plan

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2022 ==


Sounds unlikely, but then I've said that before.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01366/SN01366.pdf says

Given none of the candidates are all that great, and the Tory membership will go for most right wing candidate, I hope we get to July 21 and one of the final two has dropped out. I’d prefer to get this whole saga out of the way, and then Johnson can get on his way too.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Britain, although primarily England, has a lot to be ashamed of. However, the total inability and unwillingness to accept that we did anything wrong, unless really forced to, means that the stories grow, the truth gets lost and things appear worse than they were. Get the truth through, even though it is sometimes shameful, and all sides could come to terms with, “They knew no better,” although there is no doubt that many things were done that were unacceptable by the standards of the time. However, it is not easy: there are still plenty of people who consider that all those (insert offensive description of your choice) should consider themselves lucky to have been murdered by the British.

Has anywhere got a past to be proud of? I hate this narrative that Britain is the big evil, yes we did bad things (like all empires and countries) but we’re also the first country to abolish slavery, slavery still exists in other parts of the world in this century.

 

[najaB]

I hate this narrative that Britain is the big evil, yes we did bad things (like all empires and countries) but we’re also the first country to abolish slavery, slavery still exists in other parts of the world in this century.

Excluding, of course, those countries that never legalised owning another human being...

 

[Purple Orange]

Has anywhere got a past to be proud of? I hate this narrative that Britain is the big evil, yes we did bad things (like all empires and countries) but we’re also the first country to abolish slavery, slavery still exists in other parts of the world in this century.

This ‘narrative’ is not saying Britain is “the big evil”. It’s just telling history as it was with the good and the bad. The alternative is to go down the right wing culture war route, and just tell the ‘nicely-nice’ things and wave a little flag, which is rather pathetic really. We should be mature enough to see our history warts and all, as well as great.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm seeing suggestions that Boris is actually going to run himself! Apparently that is why he didn't use the phrase "I resign" because that would disqualify him. Sly...

The World of silly online conspiracy theories clearly knows no bounds....

Has anyone yet discovered exactly whereabouts on the Moon Elvis is currently living?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Excluding, of course, those countries that never legalised owning another human being..

They’re very few and far between, we still ended the slave trade long before other countries did.

Some people only live to see the negatives in our past.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The World of silly online conspiracy theories clearly knows no bounds....

I'd normally say that, but Boris does a very good job of making conspiracy theories come true...

 

[Phil56]

Anyone who honestly thinks the UK can afford tax cuts right now is not worthy of being prime minister, IMO. It's economically illiterate

Not necessarily. What we NEED is economic growth. If we're not careful, we're going to have stagnation, which at a time of high inflation, risks stagflation.

Carefully targeted tax cuts could help growth. Not the scattergun approach where they've thrown money at people like over the Boris/Rishi years, but far more targeted, such as reducing taxes/duties on fuel to help control inflation (supply push cost increasing inflation). Business tax reductions to help businesses grow, invest (and choose the UK as opposed to other low tax countries to base themselves in).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd normally say that, but Boris does a very good job of making conspiracy theories come true...

We shall see what we shall see when all the candidates are named.