Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[The Ham]

This does depend on how you count. I can’t find the article now, but I did see one saying that the average nurse has had above inflation pay rises over the last decade. The number the union presents is adding up all the cost of living increases, which hasn’t kept up. However nurses, like many other workers, also have their pay progress up the pay scales.

Pay scales, whilst increasing pay for the individual, have limits.

For example the maximum range for a band 6 is about 5% from bottom to top and according to this website you can't have an increase for 2 years:

Pay scales for 2022/23 [Archived]

NHS terms and conditions annual, hourly and HCAS pay values scales for 2022/23

www.nhsemployers.org

As such someone being promoted 12 years ago to the very bottom of that grade will have only just not seen their pay decrease of they now sit at the very top of that band (assuming a 5% reduction in band pay rates over that 12 year window). However, unless they get a promotion to the next band they are now at the very top of their band and so pay scales won't help.

However for new entrants to a given band they are now being paid less than someone promoted to that grade before them.

Whilst that's going to encourage people to try and move up bands faster.

Have pay brands seen an increase, well according to:

Agenda for Change pay bands | Nursing Times

Pay rates from 1 April 2010 Band 1 Point 1 13,653 Point 2 14,008 Point 3 14,364 Band 2 Point 1 13,653 Point 2 14,008

www.nursingtimes.net

Band 6 was (lower end) £25,472 putting this through the Bank of England inflation calculator:

Inflation calculator

Check how prices in the UK have changed since 1209

www.bankofengland.co.uk

This would be worth £36,088 now, rather than £33,706 (lower end) or £35,572 (upper end). As such even someone starting in band 6 in 2010 would, even allowing for them now being at the top end of their pay band, would be about 1.5% worse off in real terms.

 

[Yew]

Did this large increase in vote share lead to a period in government where their ideas could be put into practice? That’s the only real measure of effectiveness.

Due to our flawed voting system, it did not; however neither did David Cameron between 2005-2010.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

and one problem seems to have been that other possible candidates wanted the right to start their own investigations. Sir Laurie has accepted that he can only carry out investigations authorised by the PM.

I can't see that is going to make any difference in practice. If something comes up that looks like it needs an investigation, you can probably rely on the opposition to kick up such a fuss that it becomes politically impossible for the PM not to authorise an investigation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2022 ==

Which is only the second worst thing about it - the worst is that (again) the PM isn't obliged to accept his findings.

Should the PM be obliged to accept his findings? He is after all an advisor, not a judge. Basic politics means that any PM who refuses to accept the advisor's findings is likely to attract considerable adverse media publicity in any case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2022 ==

Due to our flawed voting system, it did not; however neither did David Cameron between 2005-2010.

I think it was more due to the fact that, in 2017, for all the increase in Labour's share of the vote, the Conservatives still got more votes than Labour: So even under a more representative system, it would've been pretty strange for Labour to have formed a Government (unless they could cobble together a coalition).

(Which isn't to say that our voting system isn't flawed: Clearly, it is).

 

[SuspectUsual]

Should the PM be obliged to accept his findings? He is after all an advisor, not a judge. Basic politics means that any PM who refuses to accept the advisor's findings is likely to attract considerable adverse media publicity in any case.

True, the role is only advisory, but for it to have any credibility the advice really does need to be heeded. In times gone by, the advice would have been acted on (if it was ever necessary of course, as things were a bit more honourable then), but as we’ve seen with Johnson that isn’t the case nowadays.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

True, the role is only advisory, but for it to have any credibility the advice really does need to be heeded. In times gone by, the advice would have been acted on (if it was ever necessary of course, as things were a bit more honourable then), but as we’ve seen with Johnson that isn’t the case nowadays.

Possibly, though I think it's more correct to say that in times gone by, there wouldn't have been any advice anyway because the role didn't exist! As far as I can make out, it was only created by the Blair Government sometime during the 2000's. To be honest, thinking about stories like Ernest Marple's involvement with promoting road-building, I'm rather suspicious of any claim that things were more honourable in times past. I suspect it's more the case that unethical things come to light far more easily now because there's massively more scrutiny, whereas 30+ years ago you'd be much less likely to even know that anything dodgy was happening. But I guess that's for another discussion.

 

[najaB]

I can't see that is going to make any difference in practice. If something comes up that looks like it needs an investigation, you can probably rely on the opposition to kick up such a fuss that it becomes politically impossible for the PM not to authorise an investigation.

With the scope and terms of the investigation set by the subject of the investigation. Can't see that having any impact on the outcome...

 

[brad465]

They lost though, against a not particularly popular Tory government!

It's arguably this sustained period of ineffective opposition that led us to where we are now. There were plenty of Tory voters who rejoiced at Labours self-destruction under Corbyn, but I didn't. It was bad for politics and democracy.

I suspect a lot of this is systemic in origin: our FPTP voting system allows measly politicians to occupy safe seats with the knowledge they're unlikely to lose it, while the most competent are put in the swing seats as they stand the best chance there, but in turn if they lose it then by default they're not in any position of influence. Also smaller parties who can bring new ideas are rejected simply because voters cannot see them as having a realistic chance of winning. While PR would not eliminate the presence of rubbish politicians, it would reduce them and make incumbents work harder knowing they cannot hold power so easily.

What also doesn't help is the population at large are not taught critical thinking, so misinformation and post-truth stuff can easily be sold to a critical mass of the public and allow certain narratives to prevail despite being unworkable/stupid ones. This in turn fuels incompetent politicians being enabled. On top of that for a long time our constitution seems to only work if all the politicians in it have good morals, but recently we've seen this to be completely flawed, not just here but also in the US.

 

[DustyBin]

I suspect a lot of this is systemic in origin: our FPTP voting system allows measly politicians to occupy safe seats with the knowledge they're unlikely to lose it, while the most competent are put in the swing seats as they stand the best chance there, but in turn if they lose it then by default they're not in any position of influence. Also smaller parties who can bring new ideas are rejected simply because voters cannot see them as having a realistic chance of winning. While PR would not eliminate the presence of rubbish politicians, it would reduce them and make incumbents work harder knowing they cannot hold power so easily.

What also doesn't help is the population at large are not taught critical thinking, so misinformation and post-truth stuff can easily be sold to a critical mass of the public and allow certain narratives to prevail despite being unworkable/stupid ones. This in turn fuels incompetent politicians being enabled. On top of that for a long time our constitution seems to only work if all the politicians in it have good morals, but recently we've seen this to be completely flawed, not just here but also in the US.

I can’t disagree with any of this to be honest.

 

[Gloster]

A poll (for GBNews) has ended up with 32% of those polled saying that Johnson was the most competent PM of 2022; 29% said Sunak and 3% said Truss. Amongst Conservative party members it was 62% Johnson, 22% Sunak and 4% Truss.

So an unexpectedly good result for Truss there. I presume that if they had asked who was the most competent resident of Number 10 it would have been a clear win for Larry the Cat.

Source: DailyTelegraph via my yahoo news feed.

 

[Thirteen]

Possibly, though I think it's more correct to say that in times gone by, there wouldn't have been any advice anyway because the role didn't exist! As far as I can make out, it was only created by the Blair Government sometime during the 2000's. To be honest, thinking about stories like Ernest Marple's involvement with promoting road-building, I'm rather suspicious of any claim that things were more honourable in times past. I suspect it's more the case that unethical things come to light far more easily now because there's massively more scrutiny, whereas 30+ years ago you'd be much less likely to even know that anything dodgy was happening. But I guess that's for another discussion.

The Profumo Affair and John Stonehouse faking his own death somewhat prove that politics wasn't exactly squeaky clean in the past.

 

[yorksrob]

The Profumo Affair and John Stonehouse faking his own death somewhat prove that politics wasn't exactly squeaky clean in the past.

Somewhat topical for this forum, don't forget Mr Marples' moonlight flit !

 

[brad465]

A poll (for GBNews) has ended up with 32% of those polled saying that Johnson was the most competent PM of 2022; 29% said Sunak and 3% said Truss. Amongst Conservative party members it was 62% Johnson, 22% Sunak and 4% Truss.

So an unexpectedly good result for Truss there. I presume that if they had asked who was the most competent resident of Number 10 it would have been a clear win for Larry the Cat.

Source: DailyTelegraph via my yahoo news feed.

Is this what you meant to say, given she was most competent among 3-4% of those polled?

 

[Gloster]

Is this what you meant to say, given she was most competent among 3-4% of those polled?

It was said tongue in cheek.

 

[DustyBin]

So an unexpectedly good result for Truss there.

 

[brad465]

It was said tongue in cheek.

Fair enough, it's certainly something that a poll on best PM of the year was 3 way.

 

[The Ham]

A poll (for GBNews) has ended up with 32% of those polled saying that Johnson was the most competent PM of 2022; 29% said Sunak and 3% said Truss. Amongst Conservative party members it was 62% Johnson, 22% Sunak and 4% Truss.

So an unexpectedly good result for Truss there. I presume that if they had asked who was the most competent resident of Number 10 it would have been a clear win for Larry the Cat.

Source: DailyTelegraph via my yahoo news feed.

There can't be many years where there's 2 PM's from the same party, or even 3 PM's, let alone 3 PM's from the same party.

 

[birchesgreen]

You know being ranked in the top 3 is a good result for Truss, bronze medal position.

 

[Lost property]

" do you come here often ? "....surprised Sunak didn't ask this as well really...and we thought, well actually always knew, Nadine was bad...

‘Do you work in business?’ Sunak mocked for ‘excruciating’ exchange with homeless man

PM filmed asking man if he would like to ‘get in to’ financial services during visit to London shelter

www.theguardian.com

 

[jon0844]

Rishi seems as intelligent as Elon Musk.

 

[Typhoon]

There can't be many years where there's 2 PM's from the same party, or even 3 PM's, let alone 3 PM's from the same party.

Three PMs is not particularly uncommon in the 18th and 19th centuries when party affiliation was fluid (and there were factions within parties - Momentum and ERG is nothing new).

The only case I could come up of 3 MPs of the same party was in 1827 when Lord Liverpool, George Canning and Viscount Goderich were PMs. The latter becoming PM on the death of Canning,

 

[Mojo]

" do you come here often ? "....surprised Sunak didn't ask this as well really...and we thought, well actually always knew, Nadine was bad...

‘Do you work in business?’ Sunak mocked for ‘excruciating’ exchange with homeless man

PM filmed asking man if he would like to ‘get in to’ financial services during visit to London shelter

www.theguardian.com

Of course having watched the full clip it was a perfectly normal interaction, with the man saying he is interested in business and would like to work in it, after having first mentioned the economy. Not surprised to see the Grauniad and Labour Party taking it out of context.

 

[Thirteen]

Of course having watched the full clip it was a perfectly normal interaction, with the man saying he is interested in business and would like to work in it, after having first mentioned the economy. Not surprised to see the Grauniad and Labour Party taking it out of context.

I'm no fan of Rishi Sunak but there's nothing excruciating about that conversation in the slightest. I've honestly seen worse from previous PMs.

 

[jon0844]

I'm no fan of Rishi Sunak but there's nothing excruciating about that conversation in the slightest. I've honestly seen worse from previous PMs.

The problem is that these days making comparisons to previous PMs doesn't really mean much.

 

[brad465]

There were certainly flaws in the scene, and any senior politician going to a soup kitchen really needs to have some comprehensive plan to end reliance on them and other homeless issues in order to avoid the "PR stunt" tag. I think though it was not as damaging to Sunak as his Tunbridge Wells' leaked speech, as he not only highlighted active policy to deepen regional inequality, but how Labour policy was designed to reduce it.

 

[Gloster]

Great news on the Brexit Pork Market front! Thanks to Brexit we have been able to sign a deal with South Korea which will be worth over £1 million: yes, one whole million (over five years). If only Liz Truss had lived to see this!

Source: The London Economic, which includes Trade Minister Greg Hands‘ tweet.

 

[birchesgreen]

You see Remoaners?! This is Britain unleashed! Unshackled!

 

[najaB]

If only Liz Truss had lived to see this!

What about cheese? The state of the cheese market. Is. A. Disgrace.

 

[nw1]

You see Remoaners?! This is Britain unleashed! Unshackled!

Unchained, even! Praise Liz! Praise Kwasi!

 

[edwin_m]

Some of the big cheeses of recent years are looking a tad mouldy just now.

 

[birchesgreen]

Unchained, even! Praise Liz! Praise Kwasi!

Unhinged for sure.