WizCastro197
Established Member
Fresh Labour faces.
I think I’ll miss Nadine’s stupidity. She was definitely one of the more comedic MPs although for all the wrong reasons.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
- Status
I think I’ll miss Nadine’s stupidity. She was definitely one of the more comedic MPs although for all the wrong reasons.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
They could call the show "Sarah Palin's Flying Circus", and have the whole thing as a love-in for the right-wing and/or Johnsonist types. All the usual lot could be regular guests: JRM, Anderson, Boris, Truss, Bone, Hollowbone, Rosindell, Chope, Cash, Paterson, Patel, Braverman, Fabricant, Farage, etc etc etc. Who knows, they could even have The Donald himself as VIP guest every month or two.
That lot would make the Piranha Brothers or the Spanish Inquisition seem sane.
Last edited:
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,861
Something very odd happened yesterday. The radio played a clip of Michael Fabricant giving a sensible answer to a question - asked about 30p Lee’s comments on the restoration of the death penalty he said “I don’t agree with it, but it’s good to debate it occasionally”
As I said above, Anderson appears to be the right of Fabricant on this matter, and probably equal to Fabricant on most other matters.
One wonders whether Anderson always was a right-winger, but had to keep it hidden when he was a Labour member. It seems strange that someone can suddenly lurch so far rightwards aged 50 or so. Cynically one wonders if he planned the whole thing: until around 2016 it was not culturally acceptable to be a Tory of any sort in Ashfield, let alone a right-wing one, so he was biding his time, waiting for the moment when he could move to his party of choice and not be castigated in the area for doing so.
And trying to get people to vote Tory from what looks like a luxury holiday in Uruguay (https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1623378415435845684?cxt=HHwW6MC4wauEs4ctAAAA) doesn't look good if he wants to cultivate an "I speak up for the working person" image. But 30p Lee already has form for that, of course. A nouveau-riche ideologue speaking down at people whose misfortunes he will never have to share. (And he doesn't make a good salesman either.. he comes across desperate. "Please, please give £2 a month to the poor, oppressed Tory Party....").
And doing that thing of conflating the "working class" (I have little time for the class system, but anyway) with right-wing, reactionary, pro-Brexit views. Quite an insult to people who identify as "working class" who do not have these views - and I know a few such people.
Last edited:
Almost certainly would have - remember the fuss over Mellor?
More recently Johnson, at the time still married to his second wife (who had recently been diagnosed with cancer), took his '
(Sorry, I have a real problem with describing someone over 30 as a 'girl'; I would never describe a male over 30 as a 'boy').
It was said on here that Lee was given a role so the party can show it still represents the working class, and Lee is the token gesture to appeal to the ex-Labour vouters.
I did notice that a lot of politicians all went with the same line (presumably told to on their WhatsApp group) that they don't agree with what he said, but isn't it great that the party can have a mix of opinions and encourage debate.
One might almost think the whole thing was a setup, and Lee's job will be to go against the grain to give credibility to the party - while ultimately still ignoring everything he says and does.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They do say you get more right wing as you get older, but I also think that a lot of people who traditionally support(ed) Labour as working class may share many views of the far-right, such as topics like immigration.
That's probably why it was so easy to get lifelong Labour voters to switch to voting Tory to 'get Brexit done'.
Lee does come over to me as someone who will do and say whatever he can to feather his nest.
317 forever
Established Member
Penny Mordaunt would be the ideal successor to Rishi Sunak as Tory leader. They have both been fined for not wearing their seatbelts.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I bet she's a Lionel Richie fan on the quiet
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
There's a much more plausible and less cynical explanation: Much of what Lee Anderson has said is quite consistent with a working class culture (and particularly, Northern working class culture) of self reliance and personal responsibility. That culture wouldn't have been remotely out of place in the Labour Party of 60-70 years ago, but Labour has been steadily abandoning that ground to the Tories - since at least the early 80s (and possibly earlier - my memory doesn't go back that far
). (As an aside, I would say that, beside Brexit, that's likely a big part of why the 'red wall' had been steadily weakening and why the Tories took so many red wall seats in 2019: A lot of working class people do actually strongly believe in personal responsibility). You might also note that Anderson's defection to the Tories happened while Corbyn was Labour leader. Lee appears to have defected at a time Labour had all but completely abandoned those values.In a way Lee's political path somewhat matches my own, so it doesn't seem that remarkable to me.
Penny Mordaunt would be the ideal successor to Rishi Sunak as Tory leader. They have both been fined for not wearing their seatbelts.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I bet she's a Lionel Richie fan on the quiet
"Three Times A Loser" by Penny Mordaunt.
Another one to add to "Now That's What I Call Right Wing", the album of dire cover versions by right-wingers. See "Brexit Mash" by Alexander "Boris" Johnson and the Woke-Kickers, "God Save The Queen '94" by Liz Truss, and of course, Peter Lilley's "Land of Pseudo-Tories".
brad465
Veteran Member
Apologies if I've not been following this properly, but where did personal responsibility come from on this subject?There's a much more plausible and less cynical explanation: Much of what Lee Anderson has said is quite consistent with a working class culture (and particularly, Northern working class culture) of self reliance and personal responsibility. That culture wouldn't have been remotely out of place in the Labour Party of 60-70 years ago, but Labour has been steadily abandoning that ground to the Tories - since at least the early 80s (and possibly earlier - my memory doesn't go back that far
In a way Lee's political path somewhat matches my own, so it doesn't seem that remarkable to me.
Arglwydd Golau
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,450
Are you trying to say that the Labour Party of yore held the same beliefs that Anderson now holds?There's a much more plausible and less cynical explanation: Much of what Lee Anderson has said is quite consistent with a working class culture (and particularly, Northern working class culture) of self reliance and personal responsibility. That culture wouldn't have been remotely out of place in the Labour Party of 60-70 years ago, but Labour has been steadily abandoning that ground to the Tories - since at least the early 80s (and possibly earlier - my memory doesn't go back that far
In a way Lee's political path somewhat matches my own, so it doesn't seem that remarkable to me.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The 30p comments and the one about people on benefits spending on fags and Netflix?
At least in his early years, Blair managed to bring together the traditional and the "metropolitan" Labour factions with comments like "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and Starmer is seeking to do the same - not so well, but probably well enough to surmount the low bar of beating the current government.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I think that the Labour Party of yore - without necessarily agreeing with Anderson - would have understood where he's coming from, and would have recognised that he's expressing concerns shared by a lot of their working class voters. The Labour Party of yore would have understood that there are good arguments both for and against capital punishment, and wouldn't have unthinkingly dismissed pro-capital-punishment views as some kind of aberration. Similarly, the Labour Party of yore wouldn't have been totally shocked by the concept that, if a tenant is behaving really anti-socially and making their neighbours' lives hell, you kick the offending tenant out, nor by the concept that, if you're giving food to people who are really struggling, it'd be a good idea to also make sure that those people know how to budget etc. (Which appear to be the kinds of things Lee Anderson is getting at, behind his rather rough choice of words).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's not really been mentioned explicitly (Rather regrettably to my mind, the words 'personal responsibility' seem to have become a bit of a dirty phrase in UK politics), but it seems pretty clear to me that the idea of people taking responsibility for their own lives rather than just expecting the State to provide everything (a) constitutes much of the philosophical dividing line between the left and the right, and (b) is what typically motivates many of the kinds of beliefs Anderson seems to express.
Last edited:
There are no good arguments in favour of capital punishment. There are, unfortunately, politically expedient ones.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's not a fact - it's an opinion with which I would very strongly disagree. But that would be going too far off-topic for this thread, so I guess we should leave it there.
No more or less of an opinion than "there are good arguments for and against".
Any of the "good" arguments is invalidated by one question: "But what if you have told wrong person?"
brad465
Veteran Member
I see, my view is there is a place for both, but currently the balance/locations are all wrong. I would have it that the state must provide sufficient education, especially in financial literacy, food tech, critical thinking and other important skills, which would enable personal responsibility to be better deployed widely. This is not currently the case. My view is that irresponsible behaviour, bar a few cases that will never be stopped, is a result of systemic problems; no-one is born with a fully programmed brain of how to operate in this world, especially one that has advanced considerably from our hunter-gatherer days, we have to learn things.
I am not convinced that's the case unfortunately. It's easy for politicians to just shift the blame onto something else for their inaction - whether that's the pesky EU, Putin, energy prices, the previous Government, immigrants, the weather...
Maybe it is time to interrupt this debate with a claim in the Daily Mail :
Whether this is a distraction or there really is an aim at getting some momentum (like what happened when Carswell and Reckless jumped ship) I am not certain but it could explain when those on the right of the Conservative Party (not just Anderson) have been given prominent jobs; to seek to ensure that they are only fighting on a single front.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/othe...pc=U531&cvid=811dedd6b23b401184241ae600222677
Whether this is a distraction or there really is an aim at getting some momentum (like what happened when Carswell and Reckless jumped ship) I am not certain but it could explain when those on the right of the Conservative Party (not just Anderson) have been given prominent jobs; to seek to ensure that they are only fighting on a single front.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/othe...pc=U531&cvid=811dedd6b23b401184241ae600222677
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There's certainly a tendency to appoint people like Anderson and Braverman to pacify the hang-em-an-flog-em wing of the party who might otherwise defect to Reform UK. However, we've seen in recent years that throwing read meat in that direction tends to go the way of most appeasements, that they just ask for more. Threatening to undermine the Tory vote and let Labour in has been the modus operandi of Reform and its predecessors for at least a decade, so this story doesn't really change anything.
Presumably a financial incentive to change parties would have to be declared in the register of members' interests, and would be obvious to anyone who chose to look. So only the most stupid or gullible voters would fall for that one, unless it's possible to work it so the payment is made before an election but the register doesn't get published until after.
There's a much more plausible and less cynical explanation: Much of what Lee Anderson has said is quite consistent with a working class culture (and particularly, Northern working class culture) of self reliance and personal responsibility. That culture wouldn't have been remotely out of place in the Labour Party of 60-70 years ago, but Labour has been steadily abandoning that ground to the Tories - since at least the early 80s (and possibly earlier - my memory doesn't go back that far
In a way Lee's political path somewhat matches my own, so it doesn't seem that remarkable to me.
With Anderson though it's not just that he is right wing. He comes across as a rather unpleasant person. This is why, I think, people are singling him out over other right-wing Tories.
I'll focus on a couple of things which cast serious doubt on his character, and which haven't already been mentioned.
He has called anti-Brexit campaigner Steve Bray "a parasite" (see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-protester-tory-mp-tram-parasite-b2061570.html).
Also from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lee-anderson-food-banks-nurses-claims-b2278989.html:
"In a verbal altercation with activist Steve Bray – who in return brands him "30p Lee", in a nod to the MP’s claims about cooking and budgeting – Mr Anderson said: “You’re nothing but a parasite. We’ve established that. You’re a scrounger. Why are you here dressed like a tramp?"
Hmmm. While I would not use extreme language like "parasite" I think Anderson needs to consider that it is him, and not Bray, who is living off an inflated, taxpayer-funded salary and begging us all to send the Tory Party money from his upmarket-looking holiday in Uruguay.
Quite apart from the outdated, bigoted, out of the ark nonsense "why are you here dressed like a tramp?" Who cares?
Then there's the misogyny on Facebook when out canvassing: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...orstep-chat-is-odious-sexist-says-anna-soubry
Then "Every do-gooder is starting these little projects [foodbanks] to make themselves feel good" (quoted in multiple places, e.g. https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1614875198104403969)
Who cares if the motivation is to "make themselves feel good" if it has positive impact on people? Better that than him and his reactionary right-wing ranting.
So in summary, the "do-gooder" comments, the misogyny, the use of the term "parasite" to describe Steve Bray, the support of the death penalty, and his dehumanising and brutal comments about problem tenants, suggest to me also that he is, really, not a very pleasant person at all.
Last edited:
Halwynd
Member
You have a point...
In my humble opinion the best post-war government this country has had was the Labour government of 1945-51 led by Clement Attlee. Politics, political opinion and values have decended so much since then that Attlee might now be considered a politician to the right of today's Conservative Party. A few of his ministers, Ernest Bevan for example, would probably be considered far-right.
I refuse to vote for any of what is on offer today, and will in all likelihood never vote again.
I don't see a fat lot of tramps in top hats.
I'm from a working class background (admittedly southern, although both of my mother's parents were born and started work in the north - Birkenhead, and my grandmother was very influential in my teenage years). Both of my parents and I were brought up in houses built for factory fodder; both my grandfathers, my father, his brother and my mother's sister worked in factories. Where I lived, although people were expected to take responsibility, they rallied round if you got into difficulties because they knew you would rally round for them. There weren't foodbanks, of course, but anyone who had hit a rough patch might find some groceries on the step. We were in it together!
I think Anderson is being selective about traditional working class values; true (at the time) I reckon that you would get a majority for the death penalty but it was far from a vote clincher in an election, that was 'how are we going to get through tomorrow'. Similarly, over immigration but that was because of a sudden influx of people from southern Asia who moved into a section of four storey Victorian run down buildings* near the primary school (as well as other nearby roads), and in the days before teaching assistants, classroom teachers were struggling as few spoke much English. Individuals were not treated with disdain, in fact we went to the shop at the bottom of the next road (south Asian owned) in preference to the white-owned shop at the end of ours, the quality was better. My first teacher was almost certainly of West Indian origin, as was a woman in the next road. We would support them in the same way we would the (white) second teacher and the woman's neighbour (in fact, more likely in the second case. She was an extremely pleasant person.)
I fear that Anderson is working on a two-dimensional stereotype of the working class and working class values which does him no credit, nor is the impression he gives of working class values fair on his constituents.
* - no claim of leaving 'white' families homeless. Locals moved out, families wanted a property of their own, not housing of multiple occupation;even prefabs were preferable.
Gloster
Veteran Member
Personally, I think Anderson’s aim is to appeal to a sufficiently large group of swing-voters to get himself re-elected. Some Labour voters will never switch and Conservatives will vote for him whatever (he believes: I am not so sure), so he is aiming to keep those Labour voters who switched to the Conservatives last time. He probably believes that his attitudes represent theirs, so he is going to shout them out loud. It remains to be seen if his right: my guess is that he will lose, but not massively.
Alternatively, he is preparing his way to be selected for a red-meat Conservative seat in a by-election in the next parliament. Or just auditioning for GBNews.
Alternatively, he is preparing his way to be selected for a red-meat Conservative seat in a by-election in the next parliament. Or just auditioning for GBNews.
To be honest I'm struggling to understand what you're driving at. What of either Attlee or Bevan's policies today would be considered far-right? There were obviously some social policies where they didn't make it a priority to challenge the status quo, but what active policies and opinions did they have that were right wing in today's terms?
I ask because there's a weird dog-whistle thing going on at the moment where Johnson and his ring-leaders are trying to push the idea that the current Conservative government is left-wing, and I can't make any sense of that either.
It's quite ironic that there are many instances of Tory councillors turning up to the opening of a food bank and has naively thought it would be a good photo opportunity and PR win.
Food banks shouldn't exist. If you're attending the opening of one, you should look inwards to see what you did - or didn't do - to make it happen.
brad465
Veteran Member
This is likely to be his main personal ambition, or at least something that secures him a prolific career in the event he loses his seat.
I agree about the '45-'51 government being the best post-war government in that it got necessary things done against all opposition at a time when we were recovering from the war. However, Attlee to the right of today's Conservatives? The man whose government devised the NHS (while some of today's Conservatives speak of charges for this that and the other, some even an insurance based scheme), who implemented Beveridge, whose government nationalised left right and centre, whose government introduced rights for workers in a wide range of industries, abolished fees for attending grammar schools so admission was by ability (not whether your parents can afford it), who implemented a programme of slum clearance. When I consider that with the record of Johnson and Truss, and the policies advocated by the ERG and its off-shoots, no comparison. I would say that on many things, he was to the left of Starmer. The closest PM I can think of on the Conservative side is Macmillan.
As regards Bevin (and I assume you mean Bevin), he can rightly be accused of being anti-Semitic, but as regards far right - he was a campaigner for worker's rights for a start. Although he devised some pretty dictatorial legislation during WWII, that was war time. He was far from the perfect Foreign Secretary but surely that was not being able to see the consequences of his actions might be, and too inclined to accept Foreign Office dogma rather than being right-wing. He was in the forefront of the opposition to the expansion of 'Communism' (AKA Stalinist dictatorship) in Eastern Europe, but that make him OK in my book.
Halwynd
Member
I apologise, I wasn't clear enough - I was trying to be concise and avoid too many ripples!
Let me put it this way: forget the policies and look at the men. Both Attlee and Bevin (not the first time I've made that spelling mistake!) were patriots. Attlee admired Churchill. Bevin fought hard for a nuclear deterrent independent of the US (with a big bloody Union Jack on top). Both were men of stature and principle. Each had a backbone. Neither would have had time for the sort of politics all too often put forward by metropolitan liberals today. And in that respect, in the eyes of the metropolitan liberals, Attlee and Bevin might well be branded right or far right today, just for disagreeing with them - that is how muddled and insulting politics has become today.
Last edited:
- Status