Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Thirteen]

The Cable Car really should be sold off to say Merlin Entertainment and become more of a tourist attraction like the London Eye.

 

[Dent]

The New Routemasters are well used, however each one cost as much as four regular double deckers.

Surely only "well used" because they are the buses that are running on their routes, it's not like the travelling public have a choice of what vehicle type to use on a given route. Their being well used is not any indication of user preference.

 

[Herefordian]

There is a difference between insults and nicknames.

When the Russians referred to Mrs Thatcher as "The Iron Lady", they meant it as an insult, but she turned it into a virtue.

However when a journalist referred to Liz Truss's cabinet as "The Coconut Cabinet" that definitely crossed a line, and was in my view unacceptable.

But if it is acceptable to call the Home Secretary "Cruella", then it is also acceptable to refer to the Leader of the Opposition as "Captain Hindsight". Referring to Sir Keir Starmer as "Old Ham Face" is going a bit too far though.

I agree that you can't have double standards in these matters, and you should treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself.

I know there's a difference, but I don't think DynamicSpirit does.

I didn't say it was acceptable to use "Cruella", my point was that for DynamicSpirit to say the use of "Cruella" is "abuse" is an overexagerration.

Absolutely agree with your last point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The New Routemasters are well used, however each one cost as much as four regular double deckers.

The Emirates Air Line is more or less a flop.

The cable car was useful during the Olympics but now could do with being taken down and either moved to central London as a tourist attraction or sold.

 

[Phil56]

PMQ's; I watched the first three of Starmer's questions to Sunak, and all we got were absurd pre-planned rants thather than answering the questions, it might as well have been Johnson there for the difference it makes, so I turned off. I thought/hoped Sunak could answer a straight question with a straight reply, but oh, no. So disappointing.

Sunak never properly answered questions in Parliament about the 3 million workers he excluded from the covid support schemes, nor the blatant widescale fraud of the bounce back loans. Again, just pre-prepared statements barely touching on the actual question asked.

 

[najaB]

Surely only "well used" because they are the buses that are running on their routes, it's not like the travelling public have a choice of what vehicle type to use on a given route. Their being well used is not any indication of user preference.

Yes, exactly this. Hence the point that they cost several times more than the alternative, which would be just as effective at the job.

 

[Cowley]

Sunak never properly answered questions in Parliament about the 3 million workers he excluded from the covid support schemes, nor the blatant widescale fraud of the bounce back loans. Again, just pre-prepared statements barely touching on the actual question asked.

His method of sticking to script has been touched upon by Rory Stewart in The Rest is Politics podcast a few times now. I think it’s probably fair to say that he’s quite good at not being pulled off course when he doesn’t want to be.

 

[nlogax]

The Cable Car really should be sold off to say Merlin Entertainment and become more of a tourist attraction like the London Eye.

The cable car has been meaningless for a decade. Goes nowhere, does nothing. Get rid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cable car has been meaningless for a decade. Goes nowhere, does nothing. Get rid.

If you moved it to by the London Eye you'd get plenty of tourists at a tenner a pop. It's just now in the wrong place. Too far out for tourists and serves no transport requirement.

 

[Domh245]

The Emirates Air Line is more or less a flop.

"IFS Cloud Cable Car" these days

 

[najaB]

"IFS Cloud Cable Car" these days

I guess even Emirates (of the place where they grow oil) thought it was too much of a money waster to sponsor.

 

[Gloster]

The Grauniad is reporting that Braverman made more breaches of the ministerial code than have previously been made public and which appear to be more serious than the previous ‘technical infringement’ which led to her departure (if I understand it correctly). However, the source is Jake Berry (now a Sir) who may be a little peeved as until yesterday he was a Mininister and Chairman of the Conservative Party.

Soory: I can’t do a link, but it is right up near the top.

 

[najaB]

Soory: I can’t do a link, but it is right up near the top.

Here you go:

Rishi Sunak’s decision to reappoint Suella Braverman six days after she was forced to resign for a security breach is facing fresh questions after a former Conservative minister claimed the home secretary was responsible for “multiple breaches of the ministerial code”.

Jake Berry, who was at the heart of Liz Truss’s government, said Braverman was responsible for a “really serious breach” after sending confidential information to a private address, sending it to an MP, attempting to send it to the MP’s wife and then accidentally sending it to a member of parliamentary staff.

He also indicated that the UK’s most senior civil servant, Simon Case, had been consulted and ruled that it had broken the rules.

Ex-Tory chairman alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’

Opposition call for inquiry as Braverman is reappointed home secretary six days after resigning over security breach

www.theguardian.com

 

[brad465]

The Grauniad is reporting that Braverman made more breaches of the ministerial code than have previously been made public and which appear to be more serious than the previous ‘technical infringement’ which led to her departure (if I understand it correctly). However, the source is Jake Berry (now a Sir) who may be a little peeved as until yesterday he was a Mininister and Chairman of the Conservative Party.

Sorry: I can’t do a link, but it is right up near the top.

And this is only just after Sunak took office, so it sounds like party unity on the surface won't last very long, given Jake Berry is the one basically confirming this.

 

[WatcherZero]

Not just the left reporting.

Daily Mail reporting she was one of several suspects investigated by MI5 in January for leaking to the Daily Telegraph on 21st January that the government was about to file an injunction against the BBC to stop them naming an overseas spy who had abused their position (BBC later won a High Court case to overturn the injunction in May). Braverman was in Boris Johnson's Cabinet as Attorney General, the Government's most senior law officer, and was overseeing the legal action. The investigation concluded without finding the leak.

Braverman embroiled in probe over leak that raised 'concerns' at MI5

The Home Secretary was included in an investigation this year by a little-known unit within the Cabinet Office that handles leak inquiries.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Smells like a government briefing operation either by Sunak or Truss to force her to resign by the end of the week.

Daily Telegraph may come to regret another of their headlines.

Access Restricted

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not sure I agree with that I'm afraid. Is it wrong to use robust, non-profane language against politicians who one personally believes are morally suspect?

I would say that what is fine is robust debate. If you said something like, that you think the Suella Braverman's approach to migration is cruel because <insert reasons>, that would be robust debate. But calling her 'Cruella' isn't robust debate - it's simply name-calling.

I have no time for forelock-tugging excessive respect of politicians, I am afraid. And remember, we are talking about an extremely powerful individual, not someone struggling, financially, mentally, or otherwise, in life.

I would be wary of those kinds of judgements. Yes Braverman has a job that is powerful in the sense of being able to have a lot of influence on many people's lives. And you could also argue that she has chosen a career in which a lot of criticism is expected: She made that choice freely so she should expect to have a thick skin. But on the other hand, being powerful doesn't necessarily mean a person might not be struggling mentally or in some other way that you don't know about. If you want a compassionate society, which I think from your posts that you do, then you have to remember that compassion applies to everyone - because everyone is a human being. It's not right to decide that because someone is 'powerful' or has opinions that you disagree with, you can forget about being compassionate in the way you treat them (including, how you talk about them in public).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==

Is it abuse to say that Keir Starmer is boring? Or that Alexander Johnson is feckless? Where's the line between criticism and abuse?

Those seem to be different because in your two examples, you're describing an attribute you believe the person has, you're not calling them a derogatory name.

Also, saying that someone is 'boring' is describing something that is obviously a matter of personal taste and so doesn't really imply any kind of moral judgement over them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==

I haven't seen you saying anything when those on the right use "insulting nicknames" to "abuse" politicians in the centre or on the left.

Maybe that's because almost no-one on the threads that I read uses insulting nicknames and other abuse against politicians on the centre or the left? Whereas in these railforums threads I very regularly see abuse directed against right-wing politicians - often not just by one person, but with the abuse then repeated by multiple other posters.

To be clear, I regard abuse as wrong, no matter who it's directed at or what side of the debate they are on. But it's very clear to me that there is a particular problem on the left, where people on the left - including even senior politicians - seem to think that it's OK and culturally acceptable to abuse people on the right (remember Angela Rayner's 'Tory Scum' speech? Could you even imagine a senior Tory politician today making a speech declaring that Labour people are scum? It just wouldn't happen because - at least in the UK - that culture where abuse of opponents is considered socially acceptable simply isn't there in mainstream politics on the right.).

For example, I've seen an RailUK Forums member use "Old Ham Face" (seriously, is that the best you can do?) as an insult for Keir Starmer. Is that okay?

I did not see that post, and no, in my view, it's not OK.

 

[nw1]

His method of sticking to script has been touched upon by Rory Stewart in The Rest is Politics podcast a few times now. I think it’s probably fair to say that he’s quite good at not being pulled off course when he doesn’t want to be.

Except not answering questions will not look good, I suspect. It will smack of arrogance; "I don't need to listen to you".

 

[Lost property]

I would say that what is fine is robust debate. If you said something like, that you think the Suella Braverman's approach to migration is cruel because <insert reasons>, that would be robust debate. But calling her 'Cruella' isn't robust debate - it's simply name-calling.



I would be wary of those kinds of judgements. Yes Braverman has a job that is powerful in the sense of being able to have a lot of influence on many people's lives. And you could also argue that she has chosen a career in which a lot of criticism is expected: She made that choice freely so she should expect to have a thick skin. But on the other hand, being powerful doesn't necessarily mean a person might not be struggling mentally or in some other way that you don't know about. If you want a compassionate society, which I think from your posts that you do, then you have to remember that compassion applies to everyone - because everyone is a human being. It's not right to decide that because someone is 'powerful' or has opinions that you disagree with, you can forget about being compassionate in the way you treat them (including, how you talk about them in public).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==



Those seem to be different because in your two examples, you're describing an attribute you believe the person has, you're not calling them a derogatory name.

Also, saying that someone is 'boring' is describing something that is obviously a matter of personal taste and so doesn't really imply any kind of moral judgement over them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==



Maybe that's because almost no-one on the threads that I read uses insulting nicknames and other abuse against politicians on the centre or the left? Whereas in these railforums threads I very regularly see abuse directed against right-wing politicians - often not just by one person, but with the abuse then repeated by multiple other posters.

To be clear, I regard abuse as wrong, no matter who it's directed at or what side of the debate they are on. But it's very clear to me that there is a particular problem on the left, where people on the left - including even senior politicians - seem to think that it's OK and culturally acceptable to abuse people on the right (remember Angela Rayner's 'Tory Scum' speech? Could you even imagine a senior Tory politician today making a speech declaring that Labour people are scum? It just wouldn't happen because - at least in the UK - that culture where abuse of opponents is considered socially acceptable simply isn't there in mainstream politics on the right.).



I did not see that post, and no, in my view, it's not OK.

There may be, in this case, 12 years of countless reasons for the sentiments expressed concerning said politicians.

And it was very kind of you to mention Ms Angela Rayner and her definitive statement. This, possibly, is even more so than that of a Mr Bevan...but, put the two together, and they combine perfectly. Do bear in mind please, Ms Rayner comes from Stockport... and her constituency...her terms were very polite really. You would be correct in thinking she's a lady after my own heart.

We'll probably be seeing, and hearing, a lot more from her as the GE gets closer....and thereafter as a member of the Cabinet in the next Labour Gov't.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe an unfortunate surname, but the title of Braverman, would fit well with those other American comic heroes such as Superman and Batman.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==

And it was very kind of you to mention Ms Angela Rayner and her definitive statement. This, possibly, is even more so than that of a Mr Bevan...but, put the two together, and they combine perfectly. Do bear in mind please, Ms Rayner comes from Stockport... and her constituency...her terms were very polite really. You would be correct in thinking she's a lady after my own heart.

It was only when I looked into her past life that I saw she left school with no qualifications and pregnant.

Coming from Stockport does not automatically make you an ideal candidate to be the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne.

 

[nw1]

I would actually say it's the Tories that get away with such comments, given the extreme bias of most of our printed media, who are far quicker to judge comments made by a Labour or a Lib Dem MP than a Tory.

For example from a Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum)

"However, the complaints about Rayner’s language were undermined by remarks from a Tory MP who suggested that a bomb should be planted in the office of Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair."

The person seemingly advocating this was one James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire.

Funny how few people have heard of this incident, isn't it? Suggesting what he did is far worse than using terms like "Tory scum" (in an after-hours drinks do at the Labour conference, it seems), or, for that matter, the original source of this controversy, "Cruella".

 

[WizCastro197]

I would actually say it's the Tories that get away with such comments, given the extreme bias of most of our printed media.

For example from a Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum)

"However, the complaints about Rayner’s language were undermined by remarks from a Tory MP who suggested that a bomb should be planted in the office of Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair."

The person seemingly advocating this was one James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire.

Funny how few people have heard of this incident, isn't it? Suggesting what he did is far worse than using terms like "Tory scum" (in an after-hours drinks do at the Labour conference, it seems), or, for that matter, the original source of this controversy, "Cruella".

Yes the extreme bias has plagued most media as you e stated. Not sure if mentioned yet about the Martine Croxall bias allegations and that she was taken off air.

But Kuennsburg or however you spell it and Question Time lady also show extreme bias and are pro Tory it seems.


It is strange how BBC thinks it can pick and choose depending on which way the bias is.

 

[nw1]

Maybe an unfortunate surname, but the title of Braverman, would fit well with those other American comic heroes such as Superman and Batman.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==


It was only when I looked into her past life that I saw she left school with no qualifications and pregnant.

So what?

Some might say that makes you a better politician than an ex-Winchester College pupil who has worked in the world of high finance.

Coming from Stockport does not automatically make you an ideal candidate to be the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne.

But the people of Ashton-under-Lyne obviously preferred her to the Tory alternative, and that particular brick in the Red Wall remained in place.

I would expect a substantially increased majority for her next time.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So what? Some might say that makes you a better politician than an ex-Winchester College pupil who has worked in the world of high finance.

If you honestly believe what you have stated, you would have a Government full of high-school dropouts who would be totally out of their depth when dealing with their opposite numbers in other national Governments.

 

[najaB]

If you honestly believe what you have stated, you would have a Government full of high-school dropouts who would be totally out of their depth when dealing with their opposite numbers in other national Governments.

There is nothing to say that academic qualifications make someone better at decision-making than someone who lacks them. And, at the end of the day, that is what we need in Government: good decision-makers who can act on the advice given and data provided by the well-educated, highly-skilled advisors who work in their departments.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would actually say it's the Tories that get away with such comments, given the extreme bias of most of our printed media, who are far quicker to judge comments made by a Labour or a Lib Dem MP than a Tory.

For example from a Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum)

"However, the complaints about Rayner’s language were undermined by remarks from a Tory MP who suggested that a bomb should be planted in the office of Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair."

The person seemingly advocating this was one James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire.

Seems you have forgotten to mention the crucial difference: James Gray almost immediately apologised for his comment, appearing to show that he recognised it was unacceptable. Angela Rayner, on the other hand, continued to defend and express no regrets for her 'Tory Scum' speech right up until the point that a Tory MP was murdered a few months later (at which point to be fair she did then change her mind). Indeed she continued to defend her 'Tory Scum' comments even after Iain Duncan Smith was a few days after her speech actually physically assaulted by protesters who were shouting 'Tory Scum'

Also, James Gray was a backbench MP, whereas Angela Raynor was deputy leader of the Labour Party - and continued to remain Labour's deputy leader despite at the time expressing no regret for her comments. Unsurprisingly, the more senior the role you have, the more people are going to pay attention to what you say.

Both of those things explain why there was so much more outrage at Angela Rayner's comments.

 

[Yew]

The right prefer to make up lies instead, anyone remember Jeremy Corbyns “dancing” on remembrance day or his photoshopped “Russian hat”.

 

[najaB]

Indeed she continued to defend her 'Tory Scum' comments even after Iain Duncan Smith was a few days after her speech actually physically assaulted by protesters who were shouting 'Tory Scum'

You'll probably find that usage of the phrase "Tory Scum" predates Angela Raynor's usage of it and in many parts of the North, predates Angela herself.

 

[nw1]

If you honestly believe what you have stated, you would have a Government full of high-school dropouts who would be totally out of their depth when dealing with their opposite numbers in other national Governments.

I do believe what I have said, I'm afraid. If you take the wrong decisions at 16, should you be screwed for life?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==

Seems you have forgotten to mention the crucial difference: James Gray almost immediately apologised for his comment, appearing to show that he recognised it was unacceptable. Angela Rayner, on the other hand, continued to defend and express no regrets for her 'Tory Scum' speech right up until the point that a Tory MP was murdered a few months later (at which point to be fair she did then change her mind). Indeed she continued to defend her 'Tory Scum' comments even after Iain Duncan Smith was a few days after her speech actually physically assaulted by protesters who were shouting 'Tory Scum'

Also, James Gray was a backbench MP, whereas Angela Raynor was deputy leader of the Labour Party - and continued to remain Labour's deputy leader despite at the time expressing no regret for her comments. Unsurprisingly, the more senior the role you have, the more people are going to pay attention to what you say.

Both of those things explain why there was so much more outrage at Angela Rayner's comments.

To me that just sounds like a heavily biased post which is trying to make excuses for Gray just because he is a Conservative.

Trying to be objective here (which is difficult, after what else I have read about Gray; to me he holds some thoroughly obnoxious views, e.g. https://inews.co.uk/news/education/lgbt-sex-relationship-education-mps-support-273961) the fact remains that Gray appeared to be suggesting violent action, while Rayner was not.

That's the difference.

I'd say the same if say, a Labour MP said that they wanted to place a bomb under a prominent Tory's chair. That would be equally outrageous, even if they then apologised. (And I suspect said Labour MP would then face far more backlash in the media than Gray did).

 

[edwin_m]

Not just the left reporting.

Daily Mail reporting she was one of several suspects investigated by MI5 in January for leaking to the Daily Telegraph on 21st January that the government was about to file an injunction against the BBC to stop them naming an overseas spy who had abused their position (BBC later won a High Court case to overturn the injunction in May). Braverman was in Boris Johnson's Cabinet as Attorney General, the Government's most senior law officer, and was overseeing the legal action. The investigation concluded without finding the leak.

Braverman embroiled in probe over leak that raised 'concerns' at MI5

The Home Secretary was included in an investigation this year by a little-known unit within the Cabinet Office that handles leak inquiries.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Smells like a government briefing operation either by Sunak or Truss to force her to resign by the end of the week.

Daily Telegraph may come to regret another of their headlines.

Access Restricted

Seems to me Sunak would be quite glad if Braverman crashed and burned (again). It seems pretty obvious that she was only appointed in return for supporting him in the contest, and she's almost certainly going to cause trouble in office as she did for Truss. Rather like Corbyn and several of his followers under Starmer, I'd expect her to be out as soon as enough of a pretext has built up.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To me that just sounds like a heavily biased post which is trying to make excuses for Gray just because he is a Conservative.

I am absolutely not doing that. The point is that, both remarks were wrong and unacceptable. But there is HUGE difference between (a) making an unacceptable statement, and almost immediately apologising for it and making it clear that you accept your comments were wrong, and (b) making an unacceptable statement and then going on, after your comments are challenged, for months on end to keep making out that what you said was fine and that you are proud of it.

Can you really not see that difference?