Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Cross City]

Also there's a chance it could cost them a significant amount of money later in life as they may not be family which they could call on as they age and so have to pay others to help them.

Having kids isn't a guarantee against being looked after later in life either. Care homes of full of lonely old'uns.

 

[The Ham]

Having kids isn't a guarantee against being looked after later in life either. Care homes of full of lonely old'uns.

Of course, although part of that could be due to the likelihood of children dying having changed over time.

Even in the UK the risk of a child dying before their 5th birthday reduced between 2000 and 2020, that's before you consider people dying before their parents (for example a son dying before his mother) or even breakdown in relationships.

In 1960 the rate was 28/1,000 childhood deaths before their 5th birthday, 20 years later (1980) it had roughly halved to 16, with it then roughly halving in each of the next twenty years so that currently it's about 3/1,000. That means that for every child death in 2020 there would have been about 9 in 2060 (if the population was the same).

Whilst it's not going to be the sole cause of lonely older people, it certainly could be a factor for some.

 

[DustyBin]

High rental prices throughout the whole country and decades of poor wage growth making it practically impossible to scrape together a deposit. It's not nice to say but my only hope of getting enough is through a family member dying and leaving me a chunk. Even then most of that will go towards paying off a few grand's worth of built up debt.

I know it sounds rather "mercenary" but this is quite common.

I'm not like we make bad wages (we have a combined income of 45ish K) but most of that goes to just living.

I agree that with two of you working you should be able to save and pay into a pension. The cost of living is a serious issue.

I couldn't afford to pay more into a pension and continue to live in the house we do (small 2 bed terrace in a semi-reasonable area). Every employer I've ever had has only offered the legal minimum pension plan.

That's unfortunate (but I suspect not uncommon). It may be worth getting some advice though if you haven't already.

House prices are outstripping wages so quickly that it's pretty pointless to scrimp, save and live a poor quality of life to save 1000s for a deposit when the goalposts are quickly moved and what you plan to have in a couple of years time wont be enough.

Our situation is far from unique. I'm not mad about it, its just the way things are and I'm content with my life.

I do get it, but it's worth considering saving something so that if the market changes for the better (from your perspective!) you're in a position to take advantage.

The government in charge is going to have a massive headache in 40 years when an entire generation needs care and housing because they haven't been able to accrue wealth through artificially inflated property investments and generous pension pots because just being alive is too expensive after 20 years of wage stagnation.

I completely agree and I can see government support in terms of the state pension etc. decreasing over time. Where that would leave us I dread to think, but I think it's possible.

I've not befitted from inflated property prices (too young!) and I realise how hard it is to get on the ladder. We're very fortunate in terms of household income and live in a generally less expensive part of the country, both of which allowed us to get started. Again though, a secure future really shouldn't be beyond the reach of the average working man/women IMO.

 

[DelayRepay]

The government in charge is going to have a massive headache in 40 years when an entire generation needs care and housing because they haven't been able to accrue wealth through artificially inflated property investments and generous pension pots because just being alive is too expensive after 20 years of wage stagnation.

I completely agree. I am in my 40s and own a house, all be it with a mortgage. I also have a reasonable amount saved in my employer's pension scheme. So I think I will be ok, even if there is no state pension or other support when I retire.

But a very large proportion of my friends, who are roughly the same age, still live in rented housing and don't have much in the way of savings or pensions. Taking one example, a lad who's my age, works in a relatively poorly paid sales job, rents his flat and his pension is just the minimum NEST contribution. He is really going to struggle when he reaches retirement age. And it's not through extravagance, it's through his income being low and costs being high.

Contrast him to my own dad, who was a bus driver (but changed jobs later) and my mum a part-time cook. They owned a house and by the time of retiring had paid off their mortgage, supported their two children, and my dad was lucky to have good pension arrangements including a final salary scheme. My dad and the friend mentioned in the previous paragraph were not that different, but everything was less expensive (relative to wages) in my dad's day.

 

[Broucek]

Contrast him to my own dad, who was a bus driver (but changed jobs later) and my mum a part-time cook. They owned a house and by the time of retiring had paid off their mortgage, supported their two children, and my dad was lucky to have good pension arrangements including a final salary scheme. My dad and the friend mentioned in the previous paragraph were not that different, but everything was less expensive (relative to wages) in my dad's day.

My dad repaired domestic appliances. When he lost his job, my mum went out to work as a receptionist. They had reasonable workplace pensions and our (outer London) house is now worth around £750k!!!!* To have that kind of house today, you'd need two high (or one very high) earners...
* they sold it to retired when it was worth much, much, much less

We've had disparities of housing variation by generation for many years. But ultimately, whilst owning an expensive home in retirement gives more options that owning a less expensive one it's all VERY different to still having to pay rent. And so I fear we're heading for a world where there is a BIG retirement have/have not divide between those who own their homes (and/or have long service in public/para-public sector pension schemes) and those who don't

 

[DelayRepay]

We've had disparities of housing variation by generation for many years. But ultimately, whilst owning an expensive home in retirement gives more options that owning a less expensive one it's all VERY different to still having to pay rent. And so I fear we're heading for a world where there is a BIG retirement have/have not divide between those who own their homes (and/or have long service in public/para-public sector pension schemes) and those who don't

The other difference, going further back, is that rented accommodation was of a better standard and more readily available. My grandparents never owned their own home, they moved into a newly built council house when they got married after the war, and lived there until they died. They could have used Right to Buy but had a moral objection to what they saw as 'stealing' an asset that had been built with public money for public good. They never really had an aspiration to own a home, they thought their council house, with a garden and an inside toilet and enough bedrooms that the children didn't have to share, was wonderful compared to the slums where they'd spent their own childhoods.

Sadly the people who moved in after them didn't share their principals, the whole estate is now almost all in private ownership. Leaving many lower-income households, whether working or pensioners, at the mercy of private landlords.

 

[Thirteen]

Slightly off-topic but did anyone watch the documentary about assisted dying with Prue Leith and her son Danny Kruger who's a Tory MP. I know the Tories have this image of being the nasty party but I thought Danny came across well on a subject matter which is quite morally difficult.

 

[Gloster]

One person who looks as though he won’t have to bother with rent difficulties, even if he is currently being helped out by a generous benefactor, is Johnson. The Grauniad is reporting that he is believed to have had an offer accepted for a house in Oxfordshire valued at £4 million. It even has a moat, which one trusts he will keep clean, but there is no information about any duck houses. The report says ‘he has received earnings, hospitality and donations worth over £5 million over the six months since leaving office.’

(Source: The Grauniad. Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

 

[Typhoon]

One person who looks as though he won’t have to bother with rent difficulties, even if he is currently being helped out by a generous benefactor, is Johnson. The Grauniad is reporting that he is believed to have had an offer accepted for a house in Oxfordshire valued at £4 million. It even has a moat, which one trusts he will keep clean, but there is no information about any duck houses. The report says ‘he has received earnings, hospitality and donations worth over £5 million over the six months since leaving office.’

(Source: The Grauniad. Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...uy-4m-nine-bed-georgian-manor-house-with-moat

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But surely that is a good thing. I might agree with you that we have come too far in some areas but that is not down to Attlee's government (rather governments have been reluctant to court unpopularity by making a stand), I would add that governments adding successive layers of bureaucracy, and reorganisations haven't helped. The arguments made by @ainsworth74 in #1630 are well made - we are living longer. Not only because of the health provision but because of working practices - my grandfather spent all his working life (and it would have been a long one) in factories, I have a photograph of him shortly after his retirement, he looks like a man in their late 80s would now, hearing was awful (what a surprise), frail, stooping, body worn out. This is unlikely to be the case now thanks to governments of both parties. Yet there are those on the government benches, including those currently in office, who want to do away with some of this legislation for entirely dogmatic reasons, and because they can't get their act together to replace it.

As @takno implies in #1631, medicine has come along way since 1947. For instance, not only do we give newly developed but more expensive drugs, to those with varying degrees of illness but we provide resources for those who have disabilities - either from birth and developed through life - that are way beyond what was available in 1947 and, as @brad45 has suggested in #1632, it has meant that many of those who would have ceased to be a productive member of society in 1947, have been able to be productive, for their own good as well as the country's. I think there is a case for arguing that treatments can be expensive because there are parts of the world (principally the US) who have an almost entirely private health system, where drug companies know they can charge the earth because the patient has no bargaining power.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Churchill regarded the NHS as a first step towards National Socialism (as though there was any link between Hitler and socialism). More recently, Javid and his calls for changing for GP appointments and A&E visits would just be the start of a slippery slope and was something Attlee never envisaged.. I am aware that the last Attlee government introduced charges for opticians and dentists, but only with the greatest reluctance.


True, but you have to start somewhere. The Attlee government laid the foundations on which others have built. No foundations, no building. We are at risk of underestimating the task that his government had, to rebuild the country, now deeply in debt thanks to largely fighting a war largely with just the help of our Commonwealth friends until the Japanese made a strategic mistake, and Hitler overreached himself. Yet they made a more significant impact on the life of the nation since at least 1870, 1846, perhaps ever. I would also add that with a few exceptions (Butler being one, Macmillan another) social reforms put into law from the Blue benches do seem to have been done with reluctance. I certainly don't see anyone with their vision on the current government benches, most are too busy looking after themselves.

Interesting background on the NHS at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsand...ple-wait-any-longer-how-labour-built-the-nhs/

You could say Churchill didn't most to create the welfare state as he was only interested in WW2 and as a result paved the way for Atlees majority. Todays Tories would have hijacked the policy for themselves if they thought that what it would take to win.

 

[duncanp]

You could say Churchill didn't most to create the welfare state as he was only interested in WW2 and as a result paved the way for Atlees majority. Todays Tories would have hijacked the policy for themselves if they thought that what it would take to win.

But within a year of the founding of the NHS, Attlee's government had to pass the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949, allowing for prescription charges of 1 shilling to be introduced.

National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6, c. 93) is an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act safeguarded the independence of GPs, who were allowed to treat private patients.[1] It also proposed prescription charges of not more than 1s. for every National Health Service prescription.[2] However, due to the intense opposition aroused by this proposal, the charges were not implemented till 1952.[3]

The Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, announced on 24 October 1949: "There has been some excessive and unnecessary resort to doctors for prescriptions. This must be checked. A charge not exceeding one shilling, for each prescription will now be imposed. Arrangements will be made to relieve old age pensioners of this charge".[4] The Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan, told students at University College, London on 15 November: "Now that we have got the National Health Service based on free prescriptions, I shudder to think of the ceaseless cascade of medicine which is pouring down British throats at the present time. I wish I could believe that its efficacy was equal to the credulity with which it is being swallowed".

Although the Conservatives were in power by 1952 when prescription charges were first introduced, it was the Labour government that passed the enabling legislation, and most likely they would have introduced charges had they not lost the 1951 general election.

But Attlee's comments, which I have underlined in bold, illustrate the problem of a health service which is free at the point of delivery, and particularly how to fund it.

The problem of how to fund the NHS has been around ever since it was created 75 years ago.

Anyone who says the NHS is "underfunded" should say how much money it needs so that it is not underfunded, and how the government should raise the money on a long term basis.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But within a year of the founding of the NHS, Attlee's government had to pass the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949, allowing for prescription charges of 1 shilling to be introduced.

National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although the Conservatives were in power by 1952 when prescription charges were first introduced, it was the Labour government that passed the enabling legislation, and most likely they would have introduced charges had they not lost the 1951 general election.

But Attlee's comments, which I have underlined in bold, illustrate the problem of a health service which is free at the point of delivery, and particularly how to fund it.

The problem of how to fund the NHS has been around ever since it was created 75 years ago.

Anyone who says the NHS is "underfunded" should say how much money it needs so that it is not underfunded, and how the government should raise the money on a long term basis.

It will be underfunded because health care is always getting better and cleverer which doesn't come cheap. It will only ever get sorted when it totally implodes and whoever is in power will have to be honest with the public that if you want to have this service you are going to have pay more for it thats not to say its inefficiencies shouldn't be tackled.

 

[yorksrob]

I think on the NHS funding question, we simply need to do two things:

- benchmark overall costs per head of population against other developed countries
- benchmark overall outcomes against other developed countries.

If outcomes are worse but costs are lower than other countries, it needs more funding.

If outcomes are worse, but costs are higher than other countries, it needs more reform.

If costs are lower, but outcomes are better than other countries, we've got it right.

 

[takno]

I think on the NHS funding question, we simply need to do two things:

- benchmark overall costs per head of population against other developed countries
- benchmark overall outcomes against other developed countries.

If outcomes are worse but costs are lower than other countries, it needs more funding.

If outcomes are worse, but costs are higher than other countries, it needs more reform.

If costs are lower, but outcomes are better than other countries, we've got it right.

Splendidly put. The NHS right now is a surprisingly good service given how cheap the government are being, but an awful service compared to what it could be if the government was willing to fund it like healthcare in other countries.

 

[Lost property]

A moat eh ?....didn't Boris once say something about "being seen dead in a ditch " ? ....this is just an idle passing thought you understand and shouldn't be taken as hope for the future...still, it's always nice to see homeless people get a place of their own....

Boris Johnson ‘agrees to buy’ £4m nine-bed Georgian manor house (with moat)

The 400-year-old Grade II-listed property has five acres and a moat fed by its own natural spring

www.theguardian.com

 

[ainsworth74]

The recent posts about housing were interesting but we were getting slightly away from the topic of the current travails of the Tory Party and Rishi Sunak so you can find those posts here. If we could try and stick a bit closer to the topic at hand that would be appreciated. On which note I'm going to give myself a stern talking to, as I was very much part of the problem in sending us off-topic

 

[yorksrob]

The only thing I care about, is being rid of the Tories.

I want them gone.

 

[jfollows]

I think the next few days will be telling for the future direction of the Conservative party.

In my view, Rishi Sunak has been commendable for his work on trying to sort out the mess around Northern Ireland, and is moving towards a potential deal which I think just about everyone wants with the EU.

Northern Ireland was always going to be a big problem, observed by wise people in 2016, and ignored by fools since. Theresa May tried to come up with a solution but wasn't allowed to by her own party. Boris Johnson signed an agreement which he was then prepared to break unilaterally. We are where we are.

But Sunak seems to be close to a compromise, but there are people on the sidelines doing what Michael Gove always went on about - they are not prepared to compromise in pursuit of their view of perfection. The world's not like that.

At the moment Boris Johnson is making trouble in his usual way.

So I guess this could play out in two ways:

1. The good way, in which Rishi tells Boris to butt out and manages to achieve agreement despite Boris and the DUP.
2. The bad way, in which Boris and his ilk continue to derail progress.

Obviously I know which route I'd prefer, but I think also that - dependent on the outcome - we'll either get to a position in which Boris and his mates get sidelined, which I think is in the long-term good of the country and the Conservative party, or to a position in which the prime minister can't act (echoes of Theresa May) because of the bonkers people in his own party.
I note that some of the formerly-bonkers people are now on the sensible side - Steve Baker for example - so I'm hoping that the power in the party has shifted towards the sensible side. But I think we'll see the reality play out in the next few days.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the next few days will be telling for the future direction of the Conservative party.

In my view, Rishi Sunak has been commendable for his work on trying to sort out the mess around Northern Ireland, and is moving towards a potential deal which I think just about everyone wants with the EU.

Northern Ireland was always going to be a big problem, observed by wise people in 2016, and ignored by fools since. Theresa May tried to come up with a solution but wasn't allowed to by her own party. Boris Johnson signed an agreement which he was then prepared to break unilaterally. We are where we are.

But Sunak seems to be close to a compromise, but there are people on the sidelines doing what Michael Gove always went on about - they are not prepared to compromise in pursuit of their view of perfection. The world's not like that.

At the moment Boris Johnson is making trouble in his usual way.

So I guess this could play out in two ways:

1. The good way, in which Rishi tells Boris to butt out and manages to achieve agreement despite Boris and the DUP.
2. The bad way, in which Boris and his ilk continue to derail progress.

Obviously I know which route I'd prefer, but I think also that - dependent on the outcome - we'll either get to a position in which Boris and his mates get sidelined, which I think is in the long-term good of the country and the Conservative party, or to a position in which the prime minister can't act (echoes of Theresa May) because of the bonkers people in his own party.
I note that some of the formerly-bonkers people are now on the sensible side - Steve Baker for example - so I'm hoping that the power in the party has shifted towards the sensible side. But I think we'll see the reality play out in the next few days.

Indeed. You haven't mentioned the ERG explicitly but they are probably more of a problem than the DUP. Sunak can ignore the DUP if he likes, at the cost of keeping the Assembly suspended but nobody that matters to him worries much about that anyway. He can override the ERG, but if they vote en masse against the deal then he will have to rely on Starmer's "kind" offer of Labour votes to support, which will weaken him significantly. And if the ERG remains united they have the numbers to vote down other legislation that doesn't have that support. There's also the possibility that Baker and others will resign their government roles and return to being rebels.

 

[dosxuk]

It's lovely to see the referendum on the EU, with it's intention to sort out the splits in the Conservative party, has succeeded so well.

Surely there's got to be a point where the two ideological groups realise they're not the same team and get on with splitting up?

 

[edwin_m]

It's lovely to see the referendum on the EU, with it's intention to sort out the splits in the Conservative party, has succeeded so well.

Surely there's got to be a point where the two ideological groups realise they're not the same team and get on with splitting up?

Under our voting system that would probably condemn both parts to opposition - look at what happened to the various split-off groups since the SDP in the 1980s. That's actually how UKIP got Brexit onto the political agenda in the first place - threatening to stand against the Tory party, probably winning few to no seats for themselves but allowing many others to fall to Labour.

 

[nw1]

One question might be: for those of us who want the Tories out, ASAP, is weakening Sunak good or bad?

An argument for weakening Sunak might be that it hastens the arrival of the GE that many of us want.

An argument against might be that it lets Boris back in. On the other hand, perhaps Boris getting back in would be even worse for the Tories, so it might be a blessing in disguise!

 

[AM9]

One question might be: for those of us who want the Tories out, ASAP, is weakening Sunak good or bad?

An argument for weakening Sunak might be that it hastens the arrival GE that many of us want.

An argument against might be that it lets Boris back in. On the other hand, perhaps Boris getting back in would be even worse for the Tories, so it might be a blessing in disguise!

Such is the lottery that is the UK version of demopcracy.

 

[jfollows]

One question might be: for those of us who want the Tories out, ASAP, is weakening Sunak good or bad?

An argument for weakening Sunak might be that it hastens the arrival of the GE that many of us want.

An argument against might be that it lets Boris back in. On the other hand, perhaps Boris getting back in would be even worse for the Tories, so it might be a blessing in disguise!

Whilst I agree with you in the broad scope that it'd be good to get rid of the current government sooner rather than later, I also feel that Sunak is trying to do something I approve of at the moment and I would rather he succeed for the good of the country and because I approve of it.
Anything which gives Boris Johnson "approval" or "success" is bad in my view also.
So in this case I want him (Sunak) to succeed because I know his political life is limited anyway. If he succeeds he deserves credit for it but it won't be enough to win the next election.

 

[nw1]

Whilst I agree with you in the broad scope that it'd be good to get rid of the current government sooner rather than later, I also feel that Sunak is trying to do something I approve of at the moment and I would rather he succeed for the good of the country and because I approve of it.
Anything which gives Boris Johnson "approval" or "success" is bad in my view also.
So in this case I want him to succeed because I know his political life is limited anyway. If he succeeds he deserves credit for it but it won't be enough to win the next election.

I know what you mean, but from my point of view (if it's the Brexit related discussions) it's "not enough" and we can only achieve movement in the right direction regarding Brexit (and a good number of other issues, too) once the Tories are out of power.

 

[philosopher]

Whilst I agree with you in the broad scope that it'd be good to get rid of the current government sooner rather than later, I also feel that Sunak is trying to do something I approve of at the moment and I would rather he succeed for the good of the country and because I approve of it.
Anything which gives Boris Johnson "approval" or "success" is bad in my view also.
So in this case I want him to succeed because I know his political life is limited anyway. If he succeeds he deserves credit for it but it won't be enough to win the next election.

While I would currently not vote for the Tories, ultimately I want good government rather than a government from a particular party. I think if Boris were to get his way, it would damage the Tories further and they could end up with a larger defeat, but it would also not be good for the country. Sunak I think is trying to do the right thing here, so should be supported.

 

[Typhoon]

Whilst I agree with you in the broad scope that it'd be good to get rid of the current government sooner rather than later, I also feel that Sunak is trying to do something I approve of at the moment and I would rather he succeed for the good of the country and because I approve of it.
Anything which gives Boris Johnson "approval" or "success" is bad in my view also.
So in this case I want him to succeed because I know his political life is limited anyway. If he succeeds he deserves credit for it but it won't be enough to win the next election.

I agree. I feel Sunak is trying to do the right thing, despite obstruction from within his own party, in (what he sees are) the interests of the country.
Truss was trying to implement policies that were in the interests of a select minority of the country.
Johnson is causing disruption in the interests of a very small minority of the country - himself.

He will not change, the sooner he is ejected from the Commons, the better. I worry about a Johnson return to power as he can make things worse, and I don't think he will care if it does.

 

[brad465]

Damian Green (former Deputy to May) has been deselected in the new constituency replacing his Ashford constituency, with reports that grassroots party members did so due to lack of support for Johnson. If true, it sounds comparable to the US mid-terms seeing the GOP field a load of Trump loyalists/election fraud believers, which was one of the suspected reasons for a poorer than expected showing for the GOP:

Damian Green rejected as Tory candidate for Weald of Kent

Deselection fuels speculation that those deemed responsible for Boris Johnson’s exit are being targeted

www.theguardian.com

The Conservative MP Damian Green, the former de facto deputy prime minister, has been rejected as the party’s candidate for the newly created Weald of Kent constituency.

Despite having served in the House of Commons since 1997, Green was deselected, fuelling speculation that grassroots campaigners are targeting those seen as responsible for Boris Johnson’s exit from No 10.

Green said he was “disappointed” at the news, and was “now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work” for those in his current Ashford constituency and to support the government.

David Campbell Bannerman, the chairman of the Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which plans to “restore democracy” within the party, said: “There is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members.”

The organisation, led by Brexiters and Johnson loyalists, takes issue with Rishi Sunak having been elevated to No 10 without a membership vote because no other candidate met the high threshold of nominations needed.

 

[nw1]

Damian Green (former Deputy to May) has been deselected in the new constituency replacing his Ashford constituency, with reports that grassroots party members did so due to lack of support for Johnson. If true, it sounds comparable to the US mid-terms seeing the GOP field a load of Trump loyalists/election fraud believers, which was one of the suspected reasons for a poorer than expected showing for the GOP:

Damian Green rejected as Tory candidate for Weald of Kent

Deselection fuels speculation that those deemed responsible for Boris Johnson’s exit are being targeted

www.theguardian.com

If the grassroots members want to stand foaming-at-the-mouth ERG/Anderson types in every constituency next time, they obviously aren't interested in seeing their party return to power.

Which for some of us might be good, but even still it's amazing that they should adopt such an obviously losing strategy.

But I suppose these were the people that put Liz Truss in power. Self-evidently illogical and irrational fundamentalists.

 

[Gloster]

With Green having been deselected, there may be plenty of Conservatives MPs who will now lay down their country for their political life and vote against any agreement that Sunak makes over the NI Protocol. He is likely to get it through if Labour support him, but as Johnson has criticised it, although he probably isn’t clear what he is criticising (Details, what details?), there are going to be plenty of constituency activists who will demand that their MP bow down to him. If many more than the usual group of hard-core barking ERG nutters vote against, Sunak is in trouble and the profligate (with other’s money) son will be waiting to make his return.