Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[takno]

So possible use of a Gary Glitter tune* in Sunak's latest promo is the latest scandal, quite why he needs another promo has yet to be addressed.

* I don't think it is though the damage is done

To be honest I'm more concerned about the branding, and the fact that it was posted on a government Twitter. Seems to suggest that it might have been paid for and produced by the government, rather than the Tory party it was basically eulogising.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry - comment in poor taste !

 

[nw1]

So possible use of a Gary Glitter tune* in Sunak's latest promo is the latest scandal, quite why he needs another promo has yet to be addressed.

* I don't think it is though the damage is done

To charm everyone of course!

 

[Ediswan]

So possible use of a Gary Glitter tune* in Sunak's latest promo is the latest scandal, quite why he needs another promo has yet to be addressed.

* I don't think it is though the damage is done

Found the video. The rhythm is far too complicated for Gary Glitter. Reminds me more of Fat Les - Vindaloo.

 

[nw1]

Found the video. The rhythm is far too complicated for Gary Glitter. Reminds me more of Fat Les - Vindaloo.

Hmmm.. not an act, or a song, I would associate with the Conservative Party. Keith Allen in particular seems to be notably left-wing.

Not sure if it is that song (I have better things to do than look at smarmy Sunak self-publicism videos) but if so, they clearly haven't learnt from Truss' ill-advised use of Movin' On Up, made by those well-known Conservative supporters M-People.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Unfortunately, these are the views that many Tories hold. Those who have made it against the odds tend to look down on those who didn't quite make it, despite the fact that sometimes it's down to luck and having the right connections.

A friend of mine is quite influential within the Scottish Tories. His grandfather made his fortune from the oil boom in Aberdeen in the 1970s. His father then took advantage by securing deals to supply (relatively) low cost experienced labour to the Middle East in the 1990s, and now he himself is involved with oil/gas interests relating to shipping.

But what I like about him is that he doesn't deny the simple truth: he did nothing to earn any of it and that all he had do was use the family connections. He doesn't look down on others, and he often says that he prefers to work with people from working class backgrounds because they want to work rather than waste their time doing traditional Tory things like shooting grouse. He gave the example of campaigning: the Tories will rarely turn up in traditionally difficult areas, because they simply don't want to get involved with working class people. As a result, they effectively give the SNP an open door through people like Mhairi Black who have no problems knocking on doors and drinking cups of tea with working class people.

 

[Busaholic]

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


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.).

You must have a very short memory! When Labour were thought to be challenging to form a government of some description in 2017 after Theresa May's ill-considered decision to call a General Election, the abuse directed towards the party and in particular Jeremy Corbyn were widespread. The use of nicknames for politicians goes back centuries and reflects the powerlessness of most of us compared to those who rule us. Satire is the sign of free speech and nicknames play a small part in that. It is a fact that many tyrants and would-be tyrants loathe being mocked, which means we must mock them all the more while we can. I'm all for nicknames for politicians, and don't regard them as childish: often wordplays like Failing Grayling, Useless Eustice (one my wife and I had been using since George first became an MP) and now Cruella for Braverman just make use of their names and couldn't gain currency unless many saw a truth there.

As for Labour politicians not having nicknames how about Teflon Tony for Blair (or Bliar as some would have it), Two Jags ( later Two Shags) for John Prescott, Robin Cock for Robin Cook, Harriet Harperson for H. Harman by those disliking her feminism, etc. The reason there aren't so many now is that, other than Starmer, Rayner and Reeves, the party is generally invisible to the British public. I remember reading that Gwyneth Dunwoody MP was privately referred to as 'Stalin in Knickers' by some other Labour MPs!

 

[edwin_m]

Not really a surprise at all. Not sure what on earth Sunak thought bringing her back on board was a good idea at all. As a flakjacket for Sunak perhaps, but that's the only reason that makes even a modicum of sense to me.

Offering a job to Braverman in return for her support may well have secured Sunak the job by transferring right wing MPs votes from Johnson or Mordaunt. Had either of them got to 100 MPs and triggered a vote of party members, they would have almost certainly been PM by today. If you think Sunak is bad, be careful what you wish for...

As I posted earlier, I would guess Sunak is waiting for Braverman to mess something up sufficiently that he can sack her again. Probably won't be very long.

 

[yorksrob]

A friend of mine is quite influential within the Scottish Tories. His grandfather made his fortune from the oil boom in Aberdeen in the 1970s. His father then took advantage by securing deals to supply (relatively) low cost experienced labour to the Middle East in the 1990s, and now he himself is involved with oil/gas interests relating to shipping.

But what I like about him is that he doesn't deny the simple truth: he did nothing to earn any of it and that all he had do was use the family connections. He doesn't look down on others, and he often says that he prefers to work with people from working class backgrounds because they want to work rather than waste their time doing traditional Tory things like shooting grouse. He gave the example of campaigning: the Tories will rarely turn up in traditionally difficult areas, because they simply don't want to get involved with working class people. As a result, they effectively give the SNP an open door through people like Mhairi Black who have no problems knocking on doors and drinking cups of tea with working class people.

One has to ask, what are the labour party doing in these areas to see off the separatists.

 

[Cloud Strife]

One has to ask, what are the labour party doing in these areas to see off the separatists.

Scottish Labour have nothing to offer. They're seen as the Tories-lite on the topic of independence, which means that their message simply isn't getting through.

One disappointing thing for supporters of Scottish independence (like myself) is that Sunak is unlikely to alienate Scottish voters. The Tories are toxic, but I would be very, very surprised if Sunak does anything to offend voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[XAM2175]

One has to ask, what are the labour party doing in these areas to see off the separatists.

One might ask why it's automatically considered necessary for the separatists to be seen off - but in a different thread, perhaps.

 

[yorksrob]

Scottish Labour have nothing to offer. They're seen as the Tories-lite on the topic of independence, which means that their message simply isn't getting through.

One disappointing thing for supporters of Scottish independence (like myself) is that Sunak is unlikely to alienate Scottish voters. The Tories are toxic, but I would be very, very surprised if Sunak does anything to offend voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Well, it seems to me that Scottish labour should be offering an alternative to conservatism Nationwide, with a view beyond economic libertarianism.

Won't do anything for the separatists though unfortunately.

 

[Cloud Strife]

One might ask why it's automatically considered necessary for the separatists to be seen off - but in a different thread, perhaps.

An interesting question is how Sunak will work with the leaders of the devolved administrations. I can see a substantial thaw in relations with Edinburgh, for instance.

 

[yorksrob]

One might ask why it's automatically considered necessary for the separatists to be seen off - but in a different thread, perhaps.

Because they're an existential threat to Britain.

 

[XAM2175]

An interesting question is how Sunak will work with the leaders of the devolved administrations. I can see a substantial thaw in relations with Edinburgh, for instance.

Well, he's managed to speak to the First Ministers so he's already ahead of Truss on that front.

Because they're an existential threat to Britain.

Ehh, to some particular ideas of "Britain", maybe.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, he's managed to speak to the First Ministers so he's already ahead of Truss on that front.


Ehh, to some particular ideas of "Britain", maybe.

Yes they are.

Putin, Ping, the Ayatollah and their chums would be dancing to see the back of the United Kingdom. Those who support its destruction are doing their work for them.

 

[Gloster]

Even though I am an internationalist, in this case I think it is for us to make our own decisions. We should not be doing or refraining from doing something because it might cheer up a few dictatorship: we should do what is best for us. It might even give ideas to a few parts of these dictatorships.

 

[XAM2175]

Putin, Ping, the Ayatollah and their chums would be dancing to see the back of the United Kingdom. Those who support its destruction are doing their work for them.

I'm not quite sure how you've managed to equate "peaceful dissolution of one part of a political union" with "destruction".

Also, am I to presume that by "Ping" you mean Xi Jinping? If so, his family name is Xi - it's presented ahead of the personal name, as is common in several Asian languages.

For the sake of this thread's topic, Sunak's position on the constitutional question is perhaps less clear than that of most high-level Conservatives. He's obviously said no, as party policy demands, but he's not really said much beyond that, and neither does he have very strong unionist credentials. In fact I seem to remember that a few years ago he had to deny reports that he'd privately advocated for English independence from the UK.

 

[yorksrob]

Britain is the guarantor of freedom and democracy.

Britain saw off the Kaiser.
Britain saw off Hitler
Britain saw off the Soviet Union
Britain is assisting Ukraine to see off the Russians.

 

[najaB]

Because they're an existential threat to Britain.

The UK and Britain are not the same thing.

Britain saw off the Kaiser.
Britain saw off Hitler
Britain saw off the Soviet Union

Single-handedly and without any assistance each time.

 

[takno]

Scottish Labour have nothing to offer. They're seen as the Tories-lite on the topic of independence, which means that their message simply isn't getting through.

One disappointing thing for supporters of Scottish independence (like myself) is that Sunak is unlikely to alienate Scottish voters. The Tories are toxic, but I would be very, very surprised if Sunak does anything to offend voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I'd be fascinated to know why, in your view as a non-resident of Scotland, why Scottish Labour's view on independence, shared as it is by the majority of residents, means they have nothing to offer.

 

[XAM2175]

Britain is the guarantor of freedom and democracy.

... what part of Scotland not being within the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament changes this?

Britain saw off the Kaiser.
Britain saw off Hitler
Britain saw off the Soviet Union

Oh man, this is priceless stuff

 

[yorksrob]

The UK and Britain are not the same thing.


Single-handedly and without any assistance each time.

... what part of Scotland not being within the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament changes this?


Oh man, this is priceless stuff

We're weaker as separatist countries.

 

[Busaholic]

Britain saw off the Soviet Union

Britain has never been at war with the Soviet Union, whereas both nations were at war with Hitler's Germany.
The only time Britain has been at war with Russia was in the 1850s (the Crimean War) when we joined with France, the Ottoman Empire and Sardinia-Piedmont! It was a very unpopular war with the public at home and saw heavy casualties, and there was great relief all round when a peace treaty was signed. Alfred, Lord Tennyson, the Poet Laureate, wrote 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' in 1854 about the disastrous (for British forces) Battle of Balaclava.

 

[yorksrob]

Britain has never been at war with the Soviet Union, whereas both nations were at war with Hitler's Germany.
The only time Britain has been at war with Russia was in the 1850s (the Crimean War) when we joined with France, the Ottoman Empire and Sardinia-Piedmont! It was a very unpopular war with the public at home and saw heavy casualties, and there was great relief all round when a peace treaty was signed. Alfred, Lord Tennyson, the Poet Laureate, wrote 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' in 1854 about the disastrous (for British forces) Battle of Balaclava.

We kept them at bay. We will keep them at bay again

 

[najaB]

We kept them at bay.

Single-handedly and without any assistance, of course.

We will keep them at bay again

Quite difficult, unless you happen to have a time machine handy? The Soviet Union hasn't existed for the best part of 30 years.

 

[yorksrob]

Single-handedly and without any assistance, of course.

Quite difficult, unless you happen to have a time machine handy? The Soviet Union hasn't existed for the best part of 30 years.

With our allies of course - we always did.

The west will fortunately find its strength again !

 

[najaB]

With our allies of course - we always did.

And what leads you to conclude that an independent Scotland wouldn't remain allied with most or all of the countries that the UK is allied with?

 

[yorksrob]

And what leads you to conclude that an independent Scotland wouldn't remain allied with most or all of the countries that the UK is allied with?

It could do.
Wouldn't have the gravitas of Britain though.

Think of the Navy. Lots of countries have Navies, but its the Royal Navy that patrols the seas to keep our enemies at bay.

 

[Strathclyder]

Offering a job to Braverman in return for her support may well have secured Sunak the job by transferring right wing MPs votes from Johnson or Mordaunt. Had either of them got to 100 MPs and triggered a vote of party members, they would have almost certainly been PM by today. If you think Sunak is bad, be careful what you wish for...

As I posted earlier, I would guess Sunak is waiting for Braverman to mess something up sufficiently that he can sack her again. Probably won't be very long.

Well, yeah, that of course makes sense, much as it pains me to say it. Upon reflection, I suppose I was despairing over Braverman getting back into power at all for any reason.