Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Gloster]

Without wanting to get a crossed line with the C***d thread, I think that the restrictions imposed are a relatively minor concern to most voters. They may matter a lot to some, but most people are more likely to be concerned about the number of deaths and, to a lesser extent, the appalling waste of money and the amounts that ended up in the overseas bank accounts of friends and acquaintances. They are also concerned about current problems such as the cost of living and the way that a chaotic series of governments seem to be completely out of touch.

 

[Thirteen]

In regards to Reigate, it makes more sense for Raab to contest it than Boris although I'm not a fan of MPs moving to a different area in order to stay a MP.

 

[brad465]

Its a byelection. They always get a lower turnout.
In this case turnout was 41% compared to 71% in 2019.
Which is why the percentages matter rather than the number of voters, and in this case Labour increased their percentage lead by a decent amount.

Labour's numerical majority went up from 6,164 to 10,974, despite the turnout being much lower, which is also notable.

In regards to Reigate, it makes more sense for Raab to contest it than Boris although I'm not a fan of MPs moving to a different area in order to stay a MP.

When it's because of periodic boundary changes and an MP moves because their incumbent seat is being abolished it's acceptable, and James Brokenshire did this without any issues in 2010. However I agree it's not acceptable generally, and especially where the MP moving is doing so to avoid defeat. This also makes for very easy campaigning in the new seat by the best challenger, who can highlight this apparent desperation as proof they won't look out for the constituents.

 

[WizCastro197]

In regards to Reigate, it makes more sense for Raab to contest it than Boris although I'm not a fan of MPs moving to a different area in order to stay a MP.

Yes it is a classic example how representatives don’t actually care about their area, and just want the power.

 

[Lost property]

My reading of that is that the Uxbridge seat will probably be quite marginal, and could go either way in 2024. The current prediction of the seat heavily going Labour is presumably based on current opinion polls which have the Tories in a state of near-collapse. Governing parties usually recover ground in the year or two before an election, and the Government is looking a lot more stable now than it was for most of this year, so I'd expect the Tories to recover a lot of ground over the next 2 years (although not enough to stop Labour winning the next election)

Your expectations of the Tories recovering a lot of ground are, I would suggest, wildly optimistic. The damage they've done to the UK population / economy isn't miraculously going to be reversed over the next two years, if anything, it's going to be exacerbated further with the ongoing costs of living crisis and the proposal to withdraw energy support next year...

As for Boris remaining an MP, well surely by now we all know what Boris says, and what he actually does, are mutually exclusive as he's a proven liar. However, he's not going to stop s$%t stirring where Sunak is concerned, hence chuck this little pebble in...plus, more importantly, well to Boris that is, it keeps the all important narcissus ego in the public mind and eye.

 

[najaB]

Without wanting to get a crossed line with the C***d thread, I think that the restrictions imposed are a relatively minor concern to most voters. They may matter a lot to some, but most people are more likely to be concerned about the number of deaths and, to a lesser extent, the appalling waste of money and the amounts that ended up in the overseas bank accounts of friends and acquaintances.

I agree. And those who would hold the restrictions against the politicians are significantly outnumbered by those who are angered by government ministers/advisors flouting those restrictions.

 

[Typhoon]

IIRC Bromsgrove hasn't been anything other than Tory since a by-election win in the 1970s. The proximity to Birmingham mean it's not quite a traditional Tory shire constituency anymore, but I'd imagine it would take a really dramatic national swing to Labour for it to change hands.

Although Bromsgrove has had its share of industry (although less so than neighbours Kidderminster and Redditch) and once provided workforce for Longbridge, now it, and particular surrounding villages such as Barnt Green, Hagley, Alvechurch and Wythall, provide a home for those with the money to exit Brum. Typically, they are white collar workers, or those with their own businesses, the type of people for whom 'Strong and Stable' is a watchword. What they think of the last six months, I can imagine!

As regards Johnson parachuting in, I really don't see it. Too far from London. and his recently purchased house (as well as the media). Still, I must remember to mention it as a rumour to former colleagues living in the area when I send them my usual Christmas greeting. That should wake them from any festive stupor.

As for Boris remaining an MP, well surely by now we all know what Boris says, and what he actually does, are mutually exclusive as he's a proven liar. However, he's not going to stop s$%t stirring where Sunak is concerned, hence chuck this little pebble in...plus, more importantly, well to Boris that is, it keeps the all important narcissus ego in the public mind and eye.

Exactly, he's probably hoping 'the call to lead' will come before the next election, then we will forget his misdemeanors and re-elect him. If it doesn't, he can just say that he has changed his mind, there is nothing the Conservatives can do to stop him. As you rightly imply, he thrives on publicity, a headline of 'Boris not standing' is better than no headline at all.

 

[WizCastro197]

Away from town and HS2 will not be running for several years but an option for Johnson?




May I'm wrong but I think he would not want to be far from London for meetings aka parties etc.



Probably not but he will not believe in anything other than the Tories winning.

I don't think where MPs stand have anything to do with the proximity with London. Some MPs choose to stand where they have grown up or lived and that shows real admiration for their community, not just standing wherever I want just for power. If there is any vacant seat that Bojo believes is an easy grab, the chances are, he'll go for it. My secondary point, is that it London is pretty much a Labour and Lib Dem swamped area thankfully, meaning that any seat he decides to contest will be met with intense friction, ie. it will be hard to win such seat. I don't believe any Conservatives are standing down in London so he really can't win unless he bites the bullet and attempts to obtain a Labour/Lib Dem seat.

 

[Thirteen]

Boris' original seat as an MP was Henley so it's not of the question for him to go for a non London seat but I think it's unlikely.

 

[DC1989]

How much time does he actually spend in Uxbridge. Fair enough when he was PM or in the cabinet but now he's just a regular MP and just moved to Dulwich! (Where the Tories finished 3rd behind the Greens in the 2019 election)

 

[Gloster]

Matt Hancock has sold his pandemic diaries to the Daily Mail. (N.b. I am presuming that he has been paid for them: he might have provided them for free in order to improve his reputation.) Yet again one can only say, “Has he no shame?” To which the answer has been ‘No’ for some time. Of course, one can be sure that they are an absolutely honest and unspun version of the diaries: of course they are. There have been so many new lows that you wonder each time if they are actually lower than anything before, but this one definitely is.

 

[WizCastro197]

How much time does he actually spend in Uxbridge. Fair enough when he was PM or in the cabinet but now he's just a regular MP and just moved to Dulwich! (Where the Tories finished 3rd behind the Greens in the 2019 election)

This is what I mean, some MPs actually have no regard for their area at all, honestly if Bojo really cared about his constituents/constituency then he would've moved to Uxbridge/South Ruislip.

 

[Lost property]

Boris' original seat as an MP was Henley so it's not of the question for him to go for a non London seat but I think it's unlikely.

To be fair Henley isn't exactly remote from London...I understand the branch line was saved for that very reason.

 

[Typhoon]

To be fair Henley isn't exactly remote from London...I understand the branch line was saved for that very reason.

It's also not a million miles from School. The local Association were probably the types he liked to mix with, the types that he could use to get a leg up in the world.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Even more so the fact that the OBR offered to publish an assessment and were rebuffed.

Yup absolutely daft all they had to do was play along with the game. OBR didn't have to approve what they were doing just publish an impact assessment and then let markets decide. Of course though largely typical Tories they think they know better than anyone else and and can do what they want.

The real damage though is mortgage rates they spiked up above 6% and whilst government bonds also spiked up above 5% they've dropped back to where they were pre Kamikaze fiscal event but banks as usual have spotted an opportunity to make money and hide behind Kamikaze as they have hardly lowered rates.

 

[Busaholic]

Its a byelection. They always get a lower turnout.
In this case turnout was 41% compared to 71% in 2019.
Which is why the percentages matter rather than the number of voters, and in this case Labour increased their percentage lead by a decent amount.

It was also in December, when turnout is always lower than at other times, especially when the bye election hasn't an added piquancy, which this didn't. The election expert John Curtice thought it about what he expected on the basis of national poll figures i.e. it would produce a Labour government, but not the landslide that was being speculated about a few short weeks ago during the Truss era.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Dec 2022 ==

Yes it is a classic example how representatives don’t actually care about their area, and just want the power.

Doesn't always work out either - look up the case of Patrick Gordon-Walker, Labour grandee in the 1960s.

 

[Lost property]

With apologies to Kenny Rogers..." and somewhere in the darkness, the gambler didn't break even "...if only she'd stuck with pork, and cheese, and fashion photo-ops....

Eleven gambles that went wrong for Liz Truss

Nick Robinson looks at the biggest risks taken by Liz Truss during her seven weeks in No 10 - and why they did not succeed.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jfollows]

With apologies to Kenny Rogers..." and somewhere in the darkness, the gambler didn't break even "...if only she'd stuck with pork, and cheese, and fashion photo-ops....

Eleven gambles that went wrong for Liz Truss

Nick Robinson looks at the biggest risks taken by Liz Truss during her seven weeks in No 10 - and why they did not succeed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Also on the radio last night, Archive on 4, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fvj3

Nothing in this is a major surprise, but it was still interesting to hear some of the people relatively closely involved give their stories.
At the time I felt that Liz Truss built on Boris Johnson's big mistake of appointing a cabinet of supporters rather than a cabinet of the most talented people including those who hadn't supported her. She then built on this further by being unwilling or - probably more likely - incapable of taking advice from anyone who didn't agree with her dogmatic position. So, as Nick Robinson says, she believed in herself and just about nobody else and blew up everyone around her as a human hand grenade. He also only mentions peripherally the huge problem caused by allowing the members of the Conservative Party to appoint her prime minister, based on a shared ideology or by being bribed.
Fundamentally, Liz Truss never listened to anyone else and their thoughts and ideas. Her idea of leadership was to be a human steamroller with her ideas and the policies she developed from them. Some probably saw this coming, because she was the same as Foreign Secretary.

 

[DustyBin]

Also on the radio last night, Archive on 4, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fvj3

Nothing in this is a major surprise, but it was still interesting to hear some of the people relatively closely involved give their stories.
At the time I felt that Liz Truss built on Boris Johnson's big mistake of appointing a cabinet of supporters rather than a cabinet of the most talented people including those who hadn't supported her. She then built on this further by being unwilling or - probably more likely - incapable of taking advice from anyone who didn't agree with her dogmatic position. So, as Nick Robinson says, she believed in herself and just about nobody else and blew up everyone around her as a human hand grenade. He also only mentions peripherally the huge problem caused by allowing the members of the Conservative Party to appoint her prime minister, based on a shared ideology or by being bribed.
Fundamentally, Liz Truss never listened to anyone else and their thoughts and ideas. Her idea of leadership was to be a human steamroller with her ideas and the policies she developed from them. Some probably saw this coming, because she was the same as Foreign Secretary.

I can’t really disagree with any of this. The only thing I’d say is that it is massively politically expedient to blame her for anything and everything. The current PM emptied the piggy bank as chancellor and the opposition were happy to do the same (only a bit harder and faster). I recall being warned a year ago (or certainly early in 2022) where we were heading and here we are, a few months early admittedly.

 

[Lost property]

I can’t really disagree with any of this. The only thing I’d say is that it is massively politically expedient to blame her for anything and everything. The current PM emptied the piggy bank as chancellor and the opposition were happy to do the same (only a bit harder and faster). I recall being warned a year ago (or certainly early in 2022) where we were heading and here we are, a few months early admittedly.

Well given the now established fact she, and the now rapidly distanced from her, Kwarteng came perilously close to crashing the UK economy, then it's perfectly reasonable to blame her...as for Sunak, see also Hancock and Dido here, his so called generosity benefitted a very small and selective group of chums..whose bank balances suddenly looked very attractive to shareholders and their personal wealth.

As the opposition weren't actually responsible for any of the financial policies, it's a bit difficult to try and blame them really.

 

[DustyBin]

Well given the now established fact she, and the now rapidly distanced from her, Kwarteng came perilously close to crashing the UK economy, then it's perfectly reasonable to blame her...as for Sunak, see also Hancock and Dido here, his so called generosity benefitted a very small and selective group of chums..whose bank balances suddenly looked very attractive to shareholders and their personal wealth.

As the opposition weren't actually responsible for any of the financial policies, it's a bit difficult to try and blame them really.

Again, we’re where we were always going to be, albeit slightly early. Truss and Kwarteng recognised that we had a serious problem, attempted to fix it and got things spectacularly wrong.

That doesn’t mean everyone who was complicit in the build up should be let off the hook. You correctly identify Sunak et al which is fine, but the opposition did nothing to oppose any of it. Not once did they ask to see some kind of cost-benefit analysis, which I find deeply worrying. You’re obviously correct to point out that they weren’t in power, but they were very much part of the problem.

As I’ve said previously I’m politically homeless, and I expect I’ll remain so until one (or preferably both) of the main parties has a good clear out. And yes, I realise I’ve just alluded to the possibility of voting Labour one day!

 

[edwin_m]

Also on the radio last night, Archive on 4, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fvj3

Nothing in this is a major surprise, but it was still interesting to hear some of the people relatively closely involved give their stories.
At the time I felt that Liz Truss built on Boris Johnson's big mistake of appointing a cabinet of supporters rather than a cabinet of the most talented people including those who hadn't supported her. She then built on this further by being unwilling or - probably more likely - incapable of taking advice from anyone who didn't agree with her dogmatic position. So, as Nick Robinson says, she believed in herself and just about nobody else and blew up everyone around her as a human hand grenade. He also only mentions peripherally the huge problem caused by allowing the members of the Conservative Party to appoint her prime minister, based on a shared ideology or by being bribed.
Fundamentally, Liz Truss never listened to anyone else and their thoughts and ideas. Her idea of leadership was to be a human steamroller with her ideas and the policies she developed from them. Some probably saw this coming, because she was the same as Foreign Secretary.

It's kind of self-fulfilling - the more intelligent and capable candidates probably saw it was heading for a disaster and didn't want anything to do with it.

One group she did listen to was the party membership, as what they wanted seems to have been the main driver of her policy programme. A friend of a relative went to one of the party hustings and said Sunak came across far better then Truss, so it probably wasn't her rhetorical genius that swung the contest.

 

[DustyBin]

It's kind of self-fulfilling - the more intelligent and capable candidates probably saw it was heading for a disaster and didn't want anything to do with it.

One group she did listen to was the party membership, as what they wanted seems to have been the main driver of her policy programme. A friend of a relative went to one of the party hustings and said Sunak came across far better then Truss, so it probably wasn't her rhetorical genius that swung the contest.

I think the membership wanted anyone but Sunak, ironically.

For what it’s worth I thought the MPs eliminating Mordaunt to make it a Truss v Sunak members vote was a massive act of self harm, which has proven to be the case!

 

[jfollows]

I think the membership wanted anyone but Sunak, ironically.

I'm convinced you're right, I may even have posted here at the time (and you probably said the same also), I thought and said right at the start that the contest would be between Rishi Sunak and A.N.Other and Sunak would lose.
I'm not sure it's racism (although it played a part), but probably more because Sunak was seen as "guilty" in getting rid of Boris Johnson, which I don't believe and my only criticism of him on this particular subject was that he did too little, too late, and sucked up to Boris Johnson for far too long before then.

PS I can't resist ( #4,971 ):

I think Sunak + other, and that the other will win in the constituency of old white men in the south of England.

 

[brad465]

Also on the radio last night, Archive on 4, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fvj3

Nothing in this is a major surprise, but it was still interesting to hear some of the people relatively closely involved give their stories.
At the time I felt that Liz Truss built on Boris Johnson's big mistake of appointing a cabinet of supporters rather than a cabinet of the most talented people including those who hadn't supported her. She then built on this further by being unwilling or - probably more likely - incapable of taking advice from anyone who didn't agree with her dogmatic position. So, as Nick Robinson says, she believed in herself and just about nobody else and blew up everyone around her as a human hand grenade. He also only mentions peripherally the huge problem caused by allowing the members of the Conservative Party to appoint her prime minister, based on a shared ideology or by being bribed.
Fundamentally, Liz Truss never listened to anyone else and their thoughts and ideas. Her idea of leadership was to be a human steamroller with her ideas and the policies she developed from them. Some probably saw this coming, because she was the same as Foreign Secretary.

I think it wasn't all her ideology, there were lobbyists/think tanks working behind the scenes (or in the case of the Institute for Economic Affairs, openly admitting to it all on the BBC everyday) that Truss was receiving support from, and she was acting hard and fast to please them. When it all started going wrong she initially doubled down on it all to try and keep them happy, but then the political heat from the rest of the party got too much and started u-turning. Those loyal to Truss' plans though didn't actually entirely lose faith with her, they blamed others in the party trying to undermine her, even though it was very much her fault.

 

[Urobach]

Seen Zahawi was on Laura Kuenssberg this morning, I didn't personally see, but reading the BBC News coverage some of it was a bit baffling to me

Zahawi goes on to talk about nurses strikes and acknowledges that the public sector review bodies recommended a £1,400 increase.

"The nurses union is asking for 19%, that would cost the NHS £10bn," he says, adding that it is money which should be put on the NHS front line.

NHS Frontline, like, nurses?

Nadeem Zahawi goes on to talk about immigration. He says: "Dealing with illegal small boats is the real issue that we have to deal with. We need to break the business model of those small gangs and increase the number of patrols.

"They've already turned back about 30,000 people but we need to do much better. As we did on the vaccine, we saved the country."

I know politicians like to answer a different question to what's asked, but what does the vaccine have to do with immigrants?

Kuenssberg asks Zahawi what the government is doing about the strikes.

He responds: "We are operationalising contingency plans with a surge capacity to make sure people are protected. It's unfair for the unions to damage people's lives and Christmasses. Let's not divide let's come together."

"...and just accept what we're offering, which we know many of you don't think is enough or fair"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63846865

 

[Domh245]

Seen Zahawi was on Laura Kuenssberg this morning, I didn't personally see, but reading the BBC News coverage some of it was a bit baffling to me


NHS Frontline, like, nurses?

Let's not forget the utterly bizare "Nurses need to drop their pay demands to send a message to Putin" angle

 

[Gloster]

According to the Observer/Grauniad, Zahawi told Sky News that the striking workers are playing into Putin’s hands. They should call off the strikes so we can all come together to show we are not divided. If this is a fair report, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t be, this is just a further step away from rationality. My worry, only a small one, but it is there, is that the government is heading towards a situation where it will outlaw certain types of industrial action ‘during the current emergency in the national interest’, or similar. As I say, it is not likely, but it has moved from the impossible to the improbable.

(Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

 

[WizCastro197]

For a moment before reading the article in full, I thought he was saying Mick Lynch was Putin! But I don't understand why Putin needs to be used as scapegoat, I ma sure he has got better things to do than to say if the strikes should go ahead or not. Seems like if they use him, it generally brainwashes people into thinking that whatever the Government thinks is 'bad', it is in fact bad because he (Putin) is bad.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Dec 2022 ==

According to the Observer/Grauniad, Zahawi told Sky News that the striking workers are playing into Putin’s hands. They should call off the strikes so we can all come together to show we are not divided. If this is a fair report, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t be, this is just a further step away from rationality. My worry, only a small one, but it is there, is that the government is heading towards a situation where it will outlaw certain types of industrial action ‘during the current emergency in the national interest’, or similar. As I say, it is not likely, but it has moved from the impossible to the improbable.

(Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

Using Putin as a scapegoat again: This will be the new slogan in a few weeks: 'Send Love to Ukraine by losing your homes, freezing to death over winter and don't forget the all important starving while we swim in cash, break rules and mistreat migrants' - This Government.

But this country is sort of united in a way against the government's actions? Not everyone unfortunately. Unfortunately I am not willing to lose my home/ lose electricity/heating/food/water which is basically what he is proposing everyone do to show some guy millions of miles away who won't even care that we aren't divided? Nadhim Zahawi is one of those weirdos.

 

[Thirteen]

According to the Observer/Grauniad, Zahawi told Sky News that the striking workers are playing into Putin’s hands. They should call off the strikes so we can all come together to show we are not divided. If this is a fair report, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t be, this is just a further step away from rationality. My worry, only a small one, but it is there, is that the government is heading towards a situation where it will outlaw certain types of industrial action ‘during the current emergency in the national interest’, or similar. As I say, it is not likely, but it has moved from the impossible to the improbable.

(Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

They'd never get away with outlawing strikes but minimum services requirement is more likely to be pushed through although it wouldn't apply to all sectors.