Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Thirteen]

Dehenna Davidson is standing down at the next election. She is 29. She should have a future career on GB News though.

Will be interesting to see what other 2019/ red wall MPs stand down but I expect the most crackpot/deluded ones like Lee Anderson, Brendan Clarke Smith, Scott Benton, Tom Hunt, Jon Gullis etc to fight to the bitter end.

Dehenna Davison's post politics career path is probably television or journalism. I was surprised to learn she stood in 2015, she would have only been 21 at the time so barely out of university.

 

[nw1]

Dehenna Davidson is standing down at the next election. She is 29. She should have a future career on GB News though.

Will be interesting to see what other 2019/ red wall MPs stand down but I expect the most crackpot/deluded ones like Lee Anderson, Brendan Clarke Smith, Scott Benton, Tom Hunt, Jon Gullis etc to fight to the bitter end.

I've only heard of one of that lot! The notorious Lee Anderson, the former Labour politician apparently turned foaming-at-the-mouth, hard-right Tory.

 

[david1212]

Angela Rayner has a few well chosen words and observations with regard to the "generous funding arrangements " and a certain, well for now anyway...lady peer.

Lady Mone is accused and still the Tories won’t come clean about PPE. What are they hiding? | Angela Rayner

Ministers have learned nothing from earlier scandals, says Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner

www.theguardian.com

I saw this too.


Towards the end of the linked news item it is stated (my bold)

The Home Office has previously admitted that the "short-term solution" of using hotels to accommodate asylum seekers was "unacceptable", and that it was costing the taxpayers £5.6m a day to house over 37,000 asylum seekers.

Owners of hotel turn down £500,000 to house migrants

The owners of the Hatters Hotel were offered £132,000 every 13 weeks to close and allow the government to house asylum seekers.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[brad465]

Dehenna Davidson is standing down at the next election. She is 29. She should have a future career on GB News though.

Will be interesting to see what other 2019/ red wall MPs stand down but I expect the most crackpot/deluded ones like Lee Anderson, Brendan Clarke Smith, Scott Benton, Tom Hunt, Jon Gullis etc to fight to the bitter end.

It's got notable news coverage so anyone seeing this will believe in the Tories are running from believed defeat.

 

[najaB]

The Home Office has previously admitted that the "short-term solution" of using hotels to accommodate asylum seekers was "unacceptable", and that it was costing the taxpayers £5.6m a day to house over 37,000 asylum seekers.

They are clearly doing something wrong - even assuming that each asylum seeker is in their own room (which is unlikely to be the case as there will be at least some family groups) that's over £150/night per room. That's well into Hilton walk-up prices and is at least three times higher than it should be. Realistically they shouldn't be paying anything over £25-30/night per room.

 

[ainsworth74]

Still, at least the hostile environment and general awful treatment we give the desperately vulnerable is helping to disaude them from coming her to be poorly treated by the UK Government. Oh...

Creating a hostile environment for asylum seekers coming to the UK does not deter migration, internal Home Office research has found, contradicting claims by ministers.
The government has repeatedly insisted the UK needs to “deter” migrants by reducing the pull factors that make Britain a more attractive destination than other European countries.
But an internal Home Office research document, seen by The Times, suggests there is “no evidence” that welfare payments or being allowed to work legally in the UK act as “pull factors” for migrants choosing to come to Britain. Instead it finds that the vast majority of asylum seekers had no knowledge of the welfare benefits and support before coming here, and “access to the [UK] labour market does not drive migration”.

It adds that migrants heading to the UK are overwhelmingly driven by existing communities in the country — or the fact that they don’t have a choice where they end up as they are in the hands of criminal gangs that traffic them across Europe.

Creating ‘hostile’ environment for asylum seekers does not deter migrants

Creating a hostile environment for asylum seekers coming to the UK does not deter migration, internal Home Office research has found, contradicting claims by m

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Typhoon]

They are clearly doing something wrong - even assuming that each asylum seeker is in their own room (which is unlikely to be the case as there will be at least some family groups) that's over £150/night per room. That's well into Hilton walk-up prices and is at least three times higher than it should be. Realistically they shouldn't be paying anything over £25-30/night per room.

Unless the operators are in the 'VIP lane'?

There may also be unoccupied rooms. Presumably the Home Office books out whole hotels, but not all rooms may be filled. I know they are given breakfast (don't know about other meals) - I've looked at a large hotel close to Dover. Breakfast is £14.95 a day. It probably also includes transport to the hotels and may include staffing costs - security staff, perhaps even the processing staff. In the case of children, it might include the costs of whatever they are given to do during the day. Also any health checks. The sums will soon add up. Probably not to £150 though, but there is some incentive to rack the amount up and include everything they can. So that readers of the right-wing press (and others) adopt an anti-migrant line and fiercely support the 'hostile environment' and 'send them to Rwanda' line.

 

[DustyBin]

They are clearly doing something wrong - even assuming that each asylum seeker is in their own room (which is unlikely to be the case as there will be at least some family groups) that's over £150/night per room. That's well into Hilton walk-up prices and is at least three times higher than it should be. Realistically they shouldn't be paying anything over £25-30/night per room.

Unless the operators are in the 'VIP lane'?

There may also be unoccupied rooms. Presumably the Home Office books out whole hotels, but not all rooms may be filled. I know they are given breakfast (don't know about other meals) - I've looked at a large hotel close to Dover. Breakfast is £14.95 a day. It probably also includes transport to the hotels and may include staffing costs - security staff, perhaps even the processing staff. In the case of children, it might include the costs of whatever they are given to do during the day. Also any health checks. The sums will soon add up. Probably not to £150 though, but there is some incentive to rack the amount up and include everything they can. So that readers of the right-wing press (and others) adopt an anti-migrant line and fiercely support the 'hostile environment' and 'send them to Rwanda' line.

A hotel I used to use regularly is now closed to guests as it’s housing asylum seekers. I used to pay anywhere between £90-£120 per night so I think £150 is entirely realistic. Incidentally, I’m actually paying £156 to stay one night in a Premier Inn in Manchester next week. Hotels are increasingly expensive in my experience!

 

[JamesT]

A hotel I used to use regularly is now closed to guests as it’s housing asylum seekers. I used to pay anywhere between £90-£120 per night so I think £150 is entirely realistic. Incidentally, I’m actually paying £156 to stay one night in a Premier Inn in Manchester next week. Hotels are increasingly expensive in my experience!

The other cost that comes to mind is security. I believe there are guards stationed at the hotels being used to house asylum seekers, presumably their wages are included in the cost of housing migrants?

 

[DustyBin]

The other cost that comes to mind is security. I believe there are guards stationed at the hotels being used to house asylum seekers, presumably their wages are included in the cost of housing migrants?

I can’t see them doing much trade at the bar either. It will all be taken into consideration and allowed for.

 

[317 forever]

Dehenna Davidson is standing down at the next election. She is 29. She should have a future career on GB News though.

Will be interesting to see what other 2019/ red wall MPs stand down but I expect the most crackpot/deluded ones like Lee Anderson, Brendan Clarke Smith, Scott Benton, Tom Hunt, Jon Gullis etc to fight to the bitter end.

She was only elected in 2019, so standing down after just 1 term. She must so doubt being re-elected that she has started thinking about the next phase in her career ahead of her impending defeat.

 

[WizCastro197]

]

She was only elected in 2019, so standing down after just 1 term. She must so doubt being re-elected that she has started thinking about the next phase in her career ahead of her impending defeat.

I’m surprised Felicity Buchan hasn’t stepped down considering she has one of the most slimmest majorities of any conservative politicians, if not the slimmest.

150 (0.3%) was her margin.

 

[brad465]

I’m surprised Felicity Buchan hasn’t stepped down considering she has one of the most slimmest majorities of any conservative politicians, if not the slimmest.

150 (0.3%) was her margin.

There' still next week for Tory MPs to announce whether or not they wish to stand again, so if she is going to stand down she may just not have announced it yet.

 

[Thirteen]

I’m surprised Felicity Buchan hasn’t stepped down considering she has one of the most slimmest majorities of any conservative politicians, if not the slimmest.

150 (0.3%) was her margin.

TBH Labour won Kensington by an ever slimmer margin in 2017 by 20 votes. That being said, I think Labour could win it again if the Lib Dems don't stand.

 

[jfollows]

Lord Ashcroft Polls - also in the Mail on Sunday (https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2022/11/16852/)

"The fact that basic competence now feels like statesmanship of the highest order is surely a bad sign."

Nothing startling, other than "confirmation" that the Tories are doomed because nobody believes that our current problems are caused primarily by external events, and that even when they are people want someone other than the current government to sort it out:

They Think It’s All Over – Can The Tories Turn It Round?

Saturday, 26 November, 2022 in Conservative Party

By Lord Ashcroft

This article was first published in the Mail on Sunday

Ask a group of people who’ve previously voted Tory about what they felt when they heard Rishi Sunak was to become PM and the chances are someone will say “relief”.

There are plenty of doubts – about his ability to empathise with voters given his family’s wealth, his role in Boris Johnson’s downfall, and some of the Covid bailouts he unveiled as chancellor – but many welcome the return of some sanity to politics and sense to the public finances.

Yet in footballing terms, the Conservatives find themselves three goals down with the clock ticking. The scoreline is made up entirely of own goals (though Johnson, the former captain, still claims one of them never crossed the line). A late substitution seems to have put the Tories back in the game and gives a glimmer of hope for extra time. How likely is that, really?

The fact that basic competence now feels like statesmanship of the highest order is surely a bad sign. My latest research shows how voters are seeing things.

Head-to-head, Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer are closely matched. There is little to choose between them when we ask how people compare their judgment, strength as a leader or ability to get things done – though Starmer leads comfortably on honesty, integrity and caring about “people like me”.

But the Conservative brand is in as bad a state as I have seen in all my years of polling. Fewer than one in ten say the party is competent, shares their values or is on their side. Labour is more trusted on nearly all policy issues – not just the NHS and the cost of living, but on traditionally Tory territory such as immigration and crime. Voters say the Sunak government feels like a rehash of its predecessors rather than a fresh new administration.

Few are optimistic that the latest new government will succeed in any of its immediate challenges such as bringing financial stability, controlling inflation or making a success of Brexit – let alone dealing with small-boat migrant Channel crossings or cutting NHS waiting lists.

Moreover, many reject the claim that world events are responsible for Britain’s predicament: voters are more likely to blame the government than the after-effects of covid or the war in Ukraine.

No general elections are the same, but the portents from recent contests are not good for the Conservatives. First, Sunak’s Tories face Theresa May’s 2017 problem, when she struggled to unite austerity-backing Cameron voters (many of whom voted Remain in the referendum) with 2016 Brexiteers (many of whom disliked austerity).

In the absence of the twin unifiers of the last election – the drive to “get Brexit done” under Johnson and horror at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in No. 10 – the 2019 coalition has collapsed. Anti-austerity Leavers have deserted the party in droves, while more liberal Tory Remainers had already gone.

My research shows that views about austerity are once again the best predictor of whether someone will back Labour or the Conservatives.

Next, Sunak has Gordon Brown’s 2010 problem. Brown argued furiously that Britain’s credit crunch and subsequent recession were the result of a global financial crisis, not his own mismanagement. The voters took a different view – or in any case decided that whoever had caused the problem, they wanted someone else to get them out of it.

Worst of all, it looks increasingly like Sunak is up against John Major’s 1997 problem – a governing party that looked so exhausted, tainted and ill-disciplined that even a strongly recovering economy could not stave off defeat at the hands of a newly detoxified Labour opposition.

Indeed, the final disservice of the Truss experiment was not just to wreck what remained of the Tory reputation for financial competence but to show just how constrained any government is when it comes to economic policy, reducing the risk of putting Labour in charge.

My poll found one third of 2019 Tories saying they would probably vote for the party again next time, and a quarter saying they were wouldn’t – either for the next election or for good. Another third said they might give the party another go, but it would really have to sort itself out first. These people want to give Sunak the benefit of the doubt and see what happens.

Many grimly accept the necessity of Jeremy Hunt’s tax rises. They don’t expect every problem to be fixed, but they want things moving in the right direction. Crucially, they want an end to scandals and distractions.

And it’s possible to see how, if everything goes right, enough people might be convinced by policy successes – inflation down, borrowing under control, progress on migration and NHS waiting times – to give the Tories another chance.

But policy and competence may no longer be enough for people. To extend the World Cup analogy, they think it’s all over. Most expect Labour to win the next election, with or without an overall majority. Only one in ten former Conservatives expect an outright Tory victory.

On paper, Sunak and the party could turn things around – and maybe they will yet. But the vibe is against them. Placating the financial markets is one thing. Overcoming the mood is another.

 

[nw1]

TBH Labour won Kensington by an ever slimmer margin in 2017 by 20 votes. That being said, I think Labour could win it again if the Lib Dems don't stand.

I strongly suspect such an extremely marginal seat will go to someone other than the Tories next time; it will only take the smallest of swings to do so. And if the Lib Dems don't stand, I suspect it will have a large Labour majority (and vice-versa).

It's a great shame new-found Lib Dem Sam Gyimah didn't pick another seat to stand in last time, as the anti-Tory vote was clearly split. He might have won Winchester, for example, his ex-Tory status encouraging a few floating voaters.

 

[GS250]

Oh well it looks like Matt Hancock could be the only Tory MP that the public vote for. At least he's proven that they are probably a bit smarter, down to Earth and braver than some give credit for. Opposed to quite a few one dimensional 'celebrities' who are pretty much hopeless outside of their bubble and entourage.

Next election though? Lib-Lab coalition.

 

[nw1]

Lord Ashcroft Polls - also in the Mail on Sunday (https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2022/11/16852/)

"The fact that basic competence now feels like statesmanship of the highest order is surely a bad sign."

Nothing startling, other than "confirmation" that the Tories are doomed because nobody believes that our current problems are caused primarily by external events, and that even when they are people want someone other than the current government to sort it out:

Reminiscent of 1997 indeed. I would personally disagree that our problems are caused primarily by external events (as there were problems even before Ukraine, and the Truss disaster has certainly not helped things) but I take the point of the article.

People say Starmer is uncharismatic and perhaps this is the case, but I suspect that will make a difference between a Blair-style landslide and narrow majority/coalition with the Lib Dems, with the latter more likely. Unless the Tories find yet another leader who has the attributes to woo people in the next 12 months, I can't see a Tory win happening.

The only concern (from a non-Tory POV) I have is it seems the country as a whole is significantly more conservative (with a small "c") than it was in the liberal 90s.

 

[jfollows]

Reminiscent of 1997 indeed. I would personally disagree that our problems are caused primarily by external events (as there were problems even before Ukraine, and the Truss disaster has certainly not helped things) but I take the point of the article.

People say Starmer is uncharismatic and perhaps this is the case, but I suspect that will make a difference between a Blair-style landslide and narrow majority/coalition with the Lib Dems, with the latter more likely. Unless the Tories find yet another leader who has the attributes to woo people in the next 12 months, I can't see a Tory win happening.

I don't think it'll surprise you if I say I agree with you - the Tories want to shift the perception so that their incompetence can be blamed elsewhere but - in general - the electorate isn't that stupid and won't buy it either. Things directly caused by the war in Ukraine can be identified and tolerated, but most of the problems with the current government are of its own making. Mind you, I'm probably with you in being rabidly opposed to Boris Johnson and all that he unleashed, and there's a part of the electorate which isn't, but it's not going to be large enough.

 

[brad465]

Oh well it looks like Matt Hancock could be the only Tory MP that the public vote for. At least he's proven that they are probably a bit smarter, down to Earth and braver than some give credit for. Opposed to quite a few one dimensional 'celebrities' who are pretty much hopeless outside of their bubble and entourage.

Next election though? Lib-Lab coalition.

Certain grifters have revealed on Twitter that they voted for Hancock merely to annoy "the left", which sums up the effects of divide and rule on society, where one group hopes an outcome is achieved for no reason other than to upset their opponents. Fortunately there are no serious consequences if Hancock wins I'm a Celeb, but if we're not careful that attitude in an election could blindly allow a wannabe dictator to take over, which is in nobody's interests.

 

[GS250]

Certain grifters have revealed on Twitter that they voted for Hancock merely to annoy "the left", which sums up the effects of divide and rule on society, where one group hopes an outcome is achieved for no reason other than to upset their opponents. Fortunately there are no serious consequences if Hancock wins I'm a Celeb, but if we're not careful that attitude in an election could blindly allow a wannabe dictator to take over, which is in nobody's interests.

Sadly you are probably right there. Equally to blame are those responsible for inviting him on in the first place hoping to humiliate him in front of the electorate. Probably left leaning media types with an agenda too. The whole thing is a sad mess.

Even sadder is that his exposure in this particular production will probably lead to calls for him to lead the party.

 

[Typhoon]

Reminiscent of 1997 indeed. I would personally disagree that our problems are caused primarily by external events (as there were problems even before Ukraine, and the Truss disaster has certainly not helped things) but I take the point of the article.

People say Starmer is uncharismatic and perhaps this is the case, but I suspect that will make a difference between a Blair-style landslide and narrow majority/coalition with the Lib Dems, with the latter more likely. Unless the Tories find yet another leader who has the attributes to woo people in the next 12 months, I can't see a Tory win happening.

But with a hint of '74 (but much worse). As Heath found in '74 (and Callaghan in '79) strikes are blamed as much on the government as on the strikers.
Also, when people open their energy bills and see they have gone up significantly, they don't instantly blame Putin, similarly with food prices. Sunak is making a difference, but not enough of a difference, the Conservatives blundered big time by electing Truss - a worse mistake than Duncan-coughSmith in 2001, at least he was never in government. Labour will be able to dine on the Kwarteng mini-budget for years.

 

[najaB]

Sunak is making a difference, but not enough of a difference, the Conservatives blundered big time by electing Truss - a worse mistake than Duncan-coughSmith in 2001, at least he was never in government.

She was the party members' choice. So they have nobody but themselves to hold responsible for that mess.

 

[WizCastro197]

She was the party member's choice. So they have nobody but themselves to hold responsible for that mess.

They’ll probably blame Labour in the end for Truss’ appointment as usual

 

[Gloster]

They’ll probably blame Labour in the end for Truss’ appointment as usual

Or parrot their usual, ‘but if Corbyn had been in charge...’ line, as if something that didn’t happen excuses everything they caused to happen.

 

[DustyBin]

Certain grifters have revealed on Twitter that they voted for Hancock merely to annoy "the left", which sums up the effects of divide and rule on society, where one group hopes an outcome is achieved for no reason other than to upset their opponents. Fortunately there are no serious consequences if Hancock wins I'm a Celeb, but if we're not careful that attitude in an election could blindly allow a wannabe dictator to take over, which is in nobody's interests.

Sadly you are probably right there. Equally to blame are those responsible for inviting him on in the first place hoping to humiliate him in front of the electorate. Probably left leaning media types with an agenda too. The whole thing is a sad mess.

Even sadder is that his exposure in this particular production will probably lead to calls for him to lead the party.

I agree with both of you. I’m a conservative (note use of a small c!) but I’m not so tribal and bloody-minded as to oppose those on the left purely for the sake of it. Indeed there are left-wing contributors to this thread who make some very good points. Unfortunately the wider debate is dominated by extremists of both denominations, and people with differing views are painted as the enemy (literally in some cases). The media absolutely love this and actively encourage it. It’s hugely damaging to our society and I actually find it rather worrying.

 

[takno]

Certain grifters have revealed on Twitter that they voted for Hancock merely to annoy "the left", which sums up the effects of divide and rule on society, where one group hopes an outcome is achieved for no reason other than to upset their opponents. Fortunately there are no serious consequences if Hancock wins I'm a Celeb, but if we're not careful that attitude in an election could blindly allow a wannabe dictator to take over, which is in nobody's interests.

I'm struggling to picture anybody on the left who is remotely bothered by Hancock getting through to the final - he gets paid win or lose and it's not compulsory to watch, so really it's just cutting off any chance he's got of getting back and saving his political skin before the 5th.

 

[birchesgreen]

Most people on the "left" that i know think he shouldn't be on that programme in the first place. Its a complete disgrace that he is being given the opportunity to rehabilitate himself on national TV. The only place Hancock should be is in gaol, with no voting out ever.

 

[DC1989]

Is Matt Hancock a right wing hero now? I thought he was very much a centre right one nation conservative

 

[nw1]

I'm struggling to picture anybody on the left who is remotely bothered by Hancock getting through to the final - he gets paid win or lose and it's not compulsory to watch, so really it's just cutting off any chance he's got of getting back and saving his political skin before the 5th.

As someone on the left, I agree.

Matt Hancock is not a current cabinet minister. He's not really responsible for the current mess (other than, it could perhaps be argued, he was rather too much in favour of prolonged lockdowns and that is one of the factors contributing to the economic mess we're currently in, as well as, to varying degrees, the Ukraine war, Truss and the B-word).

So he's scarcely the number one foe of the left at the moment and I am not in the least bothered by his apperance, though there are other contestants perhaps more worthy of winning it.