Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[75A]

Let's hope so.

 

[Broucek]

Are you disappointed most of the population didn't become zombies at 3pm on Sunday?

It's a delayed reaction, obviously

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2023 ==

Why would Sunak want to commit political suicide?

I can see why, say, Truss would want that to happen. If it is a heavy defeat, she could claim that if they had only stuck with her madcap policies we would be in the sunlit uplands right now. If the Conservatives lose next time round, unless it is really close, Sunak is on borrowed time. And a heavy defeat means they are gone for a long time, The longer he can stick it out 'something may turn up' - we know that inflation is likely to fall, some of his other promises may work out. If local election results are bad, just make things tougher for local government, squeeze their revenue raising powers.

What I believe about Sunak, unlike his predecessors, is that he is in touch with reality

Agreed. Sunak is a far more plausible PM than his three predecessors. The public can see that and things may start to improve economically. I think the next election is still Labour's to lose but stranger things have happened.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's a delayed reaction, obviously

Either that or we have actually all become Zombies but we haven't noticed anything wrong because, to a zombie, being a zombie feels normal

 

[nw1]

It's a delayed reaction, obviously

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2023 ==


Agreed. Sunak is a far more plausible PM than his three predecessors. The public can see that and things may start to improve economically. I think the next election is still Labour's to lose but stranger things have happened.

To me it would be very worrying indeed if the Conservatives won next time though.They would then end up being in power for almost 20 consecutive years and many would be seriously concerned whether any opposition parties would have a chance anytime soon if the Tories still win next year when they have gone through a long period of unpopularity.

I suspect the calls for a reform of the voting system would be very loud indeed if they win next year. Non-Conservatives need a voice in government and FPTP makes that very difficult, due to the prime division in politics here, i.e. liberals (various parties) versus conservatives (Conservatives plus whatever Farage's vehicle is called this month).

But I don't think it'll happen. Things becoming "less bad" won't cut it, I suspect. It might mean a narrower result, but either Labour would have to screw up big time, or the Tories get some new charismatic leader to woo everyone, for a Tory majority to happen next year. And the only sufficiently charismatic person they have, really, is Johnson, but I think he's damaged goods now.

 

[Man_with_beard]

It's a delayed reaction, obviously

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2023 ==


Agreed. Sunak is a far more plausible PM than his three predecessors. The public can see that and things may start to improve economically. I think the next election is still Labour's to lose but stranger things have happened.he public can see it. They can see all the corrupt lies and manipulation

It's a delayed reaction, obviously

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2023 ==


Agreed. Sunak is a far more plausible PM than his three predecessors. The public can see that and things may start to improve economically. I think the next election is still Labour's to lose but stranger things have happened.

What makes you think sunak is any better? Which public think that? The same public that believed Boris when he said he will bring energy prices down just before the last election. Truth is Sunak hasnt been in for long so the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

 

[Typhoon]

What makes you think sunak is any better? Which public think that? The same public that believed Boris when he said he will bring energy prices down just before the last election. Truth is Sunak hasnt been in for long so the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

He's been in power for over 49 days and hasn't tanked the economy so that puts him above Truss. He actually seems to put running the country above partying/ holidaying/ writing books/ publicity stunts which puts him above Johnson. I can't remember Johnson saying anything about energy prices but he did say a lot about a lot of things and we all know that he and 'fact' are infrequent bedfellows.

No one is saying that Sunak is a Pitt, a Palmerston, a Gladstone, a Churchill or an Attlee. He is better than the last two in the post, but that is a pretty low bar. Howling Laud Hope may well qualify for that,

 

[takno]

He's been in power for over 49 days and hasn't tanked the economy so that puts him above Truss. He actually seems to put running the country above partying/ holidaying/ writing books/ publicity stunts which puts him above Johnson. I can't remember Johnson saying anything about energy prices but he did say a lot about a lot of things and we all know that he and 'fact' are infrequent bedfellows.

No one is saying that Sunak is a Pitt, a Palmerston, a Gladstone, a Churchill or an Attlee. He is better than the last two in the post, but that is a pretty low bar. Howling Laud Hope may well qualify for that,

I was about to loudly protest that he isn't better than May, but then I realised you said last two, and I forgot the lettuce

 

[brad465]

I was about to loudly protest that he isn't better than May, but then I realised you said last two, and I forgot the lettuce

The "lettuce", for all the damage she did, will be easily forgotten in years to come, perhaps only remembered when she turns out at the Cenotaph every Remembrance Sunday from here (last year was somewhat amusing as she had been and gone without being the PM for that service).

What makes you think sunak is any better? Which public think that? The same public that believed Boris when he said he will bring energy prices down just before the last election. Truth is Sunak hasnt been in for long so the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

As said above it's not difficult to beat the previous 2 PMs. At the moment most of Sunak's trouble is coming from his appointments rather than himself, which while highlighting his poor judgement isn't a huge cause of damage to Sunak's image. His approval ratings though are not very high and have fallen since taking office as one would expect, and with a standard's investigation affecting him and high inflation persisting things don't look up for him.

 

[jfollows]

He's been in power for over 49 days and hasn't tanked the economy so that puts him above Truss. He actually seems to put running the country above partying/ holidaying/ writing books/ publicity stunts which puts him above Johnson. I can't remember Johnson saying anything about energy prices but he did say a lot about a lot of things and we all know that he and 'fact' are infrequent bedfellows.

No one is saying that Sunak is a Pitt, a Palmerston, a Gladstone, a Churchill or an Attlee. He is better than the last two in the post, but that is a pretty low bar. Howling Laud Hope may well qualify for that,

I was going to object that he’s not better than Attlee, but then I read your post again.

 

[Falcon1200]

we have been completely betrayed and sold out to faceless controllers who hold the real power

Spot on! Although I'm not entirely sure who the faceless controllers actually are; The Illuminati, the Lizard People.... or the Borg?

 

[Typhoon]

I was going to object that he’s not better than Attlee, but then I read your post again.

I could have listed a whole lot more. I know that we are living at a time where there are so many sources of information and misinformation but I am conscious that Paxman put Cameron into Room 101, describing him as the worst Prime Minister since Lord North and I'm thinking 'he wasn't so bad after all' (even allowing for Greensill and all).

The "lettuce", for all the damage she did, will be easily forgotten in years to come, perhaps only remembered when she turns out at the Cenotaph every Remembrance Sunday from here (last year was somewhat amusing as she had been and gone without being the PM for that service).

I don't know about that, at 47 she has probably got a lot more years in her yet. There is every likelihood that she will be mentioned in school history lessons as a side note. Less-than-taxing TV and radio quizzes can now ask the question of who was the shortest service PM ever,a question previously reserved for the likes of Mastermind and Brain of Britain. And the Aussies will still confuse her for a minor royal.

 

[Yew]

Spot on! Although I'm not entirely sure who the faceless controllers actually are; The Illuminati, the Lizard People.... or the Borg?

They're called the bourgeoisie.

 

[jfollows]

Rishi Sunak is definitely a more moderate, reasonable, conciliatory and capable prime minister than either of his two predecessors. He is also able to accomplish things that Theresa May couldn't, but that was because of the rest of the party in the main. It's still, however, a party in which people like Robert Jenrick (yesterday) makes comments described as "dog-whistling to the far right" (quoted in https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...efugees-threaten-social-cohesion-says-jenrick) so if this sort of nonsense is going to be pushed out he's implicitly approving it, and I guess he's trying to hold together his coalition which has always been the case.
Jenrick was essentially saying that uncontrolled illegal migration alters (he said "cannibalise") the lifestyle, culture, values and compassion of the British people. I guess my view is that, in as much as it does change things, it generally changes things for the better, and in that I'm not in sympathy with the right wing of the Conservative party for sure.
EDIT And, unsurprisingly, Suella Braverman (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...arrivals-have-values-at-odds-with-our-country):

Suella Braverman has said people who illegally enter the UK after crossing the Channel on small boats “possess values which are at odds with our country” and “heightened levels of criminality”.

The home secretary refused to criticise claims by the immigration minister Robert Jenrick that people who cross the Channel to seek asylum in the UK threatened to “cannibalise” the UK’s compassion.

I've long known that Suella Braverman's values are at odds with mine. But it's rubbish, it's made up nonsense to feed the raw meat eating Tory right-wing. Of course some of the people who enter illegally are criminals in other ways, and of course they sometimes hold different values, but that's just a statement of fact because it's true of any arbitrary collection of people.

 

[DustyBin]

Jenrick was essentially saying that uncontrolled illegal migration alters (he said "cannibalise") the lifestyle, culture, values and compassion of the British people. I guess my view is that, in as much as it does change things, it generally changes things for the better, and in that I'm not in sympathy with the right wing of the Conservative party for sure.

Really?

Whilst I agree that the choice of language plays to a particular faction on the right, my view (and indeed concern) is that the silent majority absolutely do not support uncontrolled immigration. To ignore this risks growing the aforementioned faction, which is something I'd rather avoid.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Rishi Sunak is definitely a more moderate, reasonable, conciliatory and capable prime minister than either of his two predecessors. He is also able to accomplish things that Theresa May couldn't, but that was because of the rest of the party in the main. It's still, however, a party in which people like Robert Jenrick (yesterday) makes comments described as "dog-whistling to the far right" (quoted in https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...efugees-threaten-social-cohesion-says-jenrick) so if this sort of nonsense is going to be pushed out he's implicitly approving it, and I guess he's trying to hold together his coalition which has always been the case.
Jenrick was essentially saying that uncontrolled illegal migration alters (he said "cannibalise") the lifestyle, culture, values and compassion of the British people. I guess my view is that, in as much as it does change things, it generally changes things for the better, and in that I'm not in sympathy with the right wing of the Conservative party for sure.

To my mind this shows up a real problem on the *left*, not on the right. Robert Jenrick was making a serious point about the differences in values and culture between the UK and many migrants from other parts of the World and the difficulties that the UK (any country) faces in trying to maintain cultural cohesiveness if the rate of immigration is too high. But instead of engaging with those kinds of points, too many people and politicians on the left (as well as, apparently the Guardian) seem to think that it's OK to just shout 'dog-whistle' and make out that that's the end of the debate. That's not constructive and it's not acknowledging the very valid concerns that many people have.

EDIT And, unsurprisingly, Suella Braverman (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...arrivals-have-values-at-odds-with-our-country):

I've long known that Suella Braverman's values are at odds with mine. But it's rubbish, it's made up nonsense to feed the raw meat eating Tory right-wing. Of course some of the people who enter illegally are criminals in other ways, and of course they sometimes hold different values, but that's just a statement of fact because it's true of any arbitrary collection of people.

But it's not rubbish, is it! It's actually a valid point that appears to be largely correct. Look at Sweden... they took in vast numbers of people very suddenly, and now they have a huge problem with crime and gangs and gang-based violence that they did not previously have. And it's not hard to see possible reasons: It's surely rather self evident that if people come from a country/culture where there isn't that much law and order or where corruption is rife, then those people are likely to have less respect for the law than someone in the UK might typically have. And if someone has entered the UK illegally by paying people traffickers, then that person has already demonstrated a willingness to break the law and work with criminals that doesn't bode well for the future. Add to that that a high proportion of migrants appear to be young (often single) men - exactly the demographic most likely to commit crimes, and the potential problem is not hard to see.

Maybe you're of the opinion that the need of these people for help is so great that we should just accept that risk - if you so then you should argue that point. But once again, if you're just responding to anyone who makes those valid points with derogatory phrases like 'raw meat eating Tory right wing' then you're basically shouting insults instead of engaging with the points being made.

 

[brad465]

Andrew Bridgen has now been expelled from the party after his previous vaccine holocaust remarks:

Andrew Bridgen kicked out of Conservative party after Holocaust vaccines tweet

Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative party after comparing the Covid vaccination rollout to the Holocaust.

www.standard.co.uk

Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative party after comparing the Covid vaccination rollout to the Holocaust.
The North West Leicestershire MP lost the Tory whip earlier this year for making the controversial comments.

But he has now been thrown out as an ordinary member of the party.

A Tory spokesman said: “Mr Bridgen was expelled from the Conservative Party on April 12 following the recommendation of a disciplinary panel."

He has until May 12 to appeal the decision.

 

[jfollows]

Really?

Whilst I agree that the choice of language plays to a particular faction on the right, my view (and indeed concern) is that the silent majority absolutely do not support uncontrolled immigration. To ignore this risks growing the aforementioned faction, which is something I'd rather avoid.

Yes, really, but I accept that I'm an outlier, but I didn't say that I supported uncontrolled illegal migration and of course I accept that many people are significantly more concerned about it than I am, and it's not wrong that political parties need to play to this to some extent, and that the majority of the concerned people aren't doing so for reasons such as racism either. Let's leave it at that?

 

[Broucek]

Many thanks to @DustyBin and @DynamicSpirit for putting into elegant words what I was thinking.

Not everyone with concerns about uncontrolled and illegal migration is a racist. In fact that's probably what the majority of voters, including ethnic minority voters, think.

One of the things I like about this forum is the scope for constructive discourse and a search to understand why someone sees things differently to us. I hope we don't lose that ability by automatic assumptions of bad faith by the "other side".

 

[Herefordian]

To my mind this shows up a real problem on the *left*, not on the right. Robert Jenrick was making a serious point about the differences in values and culture between the UK and many migrants from other parts of the World and the difficulties that the UK (any country) faces in trying to maintain cultural cohesiveness if the rate of immigration is too high. But instead of engaging with those kinds of points, too many people and politicians on the left (as well as, apparently the Guardian) seem to think that it's OK to just shout 'dog-whistle' and make out that that's the end of the debate. That's not constructive and it's not acknowledging the very valid concerns that many people have.



But it's not rubbish, is it! It's actually a valid point that appears to be largely correct. Look at Sweden... they took in vast numbers of people very suddenly, and now they have a huge problem with crime and gangs and gang-based violence that they did not previously have. And it's not hard to see possible reasons: It's surely rather self evident that if people come from a country/culture where there isn't that much law and order or where corruption is rife, then those people are likely to have less respect for the law than someone in the UK might typically have. And if someone has entered the UK illegally by paying people traffickers, then that person has already demonstrated a willingness to break the law and work with criminals that doesn't bode well for the future. Add to that that a high proportion of migrants appear to be young (often single) men - exactly the demographic most likely to commit crimes, and the potential problem is not hard to see.

Maybe you're of the opinion that the need of these people for help is so great that we should just accept that risk - if you so then you should argue that point. But once again, if you're just responding to anyone who makes those valid points with derogatory phrases like 'raw meat eating Tory right wing' then you're basically shouting insults instead of engaging with the points being made.

To be honest, I don't agree with much of what you say. I do here.

The evidence really is clear. It's the same in this country.

I can use a friend of mine on Merseyside as an example.

They lived in an area with a growing number of Eastern European migrants.

At the exact same time, anti social behaviour increased in their area. Was barely an issue before.

I am generally pro-immigration. But, the points you make are valid concerns I agree with.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2023 ==

Many thanks to @DustyBin and @DynamicSpirit for putting into elegant words what I was thinking.

Not everyone with concerns about uncontrolled and illegal migration is a racist. In fact that's probably what the majority of voters, including ethnic minority voters, think.

One of the things I like about this forum is the scope for constructive discourse and a search to understand why someone sees things differently to us. I hope we don't lose that ability by automatic assumptions of bad faith by the "other side".

I vote Labour and I voted Remain.

I still have concerns about immigration.

It absolutely is not racist to have said concerns.

 

[Broucek]

Yes, really, but I accept that I'm an outlier, but I didn't say that I supported uncontrolled illegal migration and of course I accept that many people are significantly more concerned about it than I am, and it's not wrong that political parties need to play to this to some extent, and that the majority of the concerned people aren't doing so for reasons such as racism either. Let's leave it at that? (added emphasis)

It's not a case of "playing to this". It's recognising that uncontrolled and illegal migration poses social and economic risks to the interests of the nation and its citizens. It's not even a left-right issue. For example, Andy Burnham is on record as having concerns about this.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Nobody is saying having actual sensible concerns about immigration is racist.

What people are saying however is that a lot of people who say they have "concerns about immigration" absolutely are just straight up racist and that the current Tory party is absolutely using "concerns about immigration" as a dog whistle to those racists. Hell one of the local Tory groups near me have gone full on right wing crazy and starting retweeting and supporting Britain First.

And I'd also add, very few people in the political world in this country are arguing for "uncontrolled immigration" and a lot of what is being labelled as "uncontrolled immigration" is anything but (see the freedom of movement rules in the EU for an example).

 

[najaB]

Not everyone with concerns about uncontrolled and illegal migration is a racist. In fact that's probably what the majority of voters, including ethnic minority voters, think.

There are very few people who don't want any controls on migration at all. I'd suggest that anyone who does is probably someone whose opinion can safely be ignored.

 

[jfollows]

Now if Pincher would only stand down (heaven knows why he hasn't) it might be a little more interesting. Granted the small-town Midlands has seemed, in recent years, to be the new home of conservatism; but I also get the impression it was Johnson conservatism in particular that was popular in that part of the world. Without Johnson other parties might have a chance. Same goes for that rather controversial Somerton and Frome guy.

It is now reported that Pincher won't stand in the next election (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...incher-will-not-stand-at-next-election-report):

Peter Walker Political correspondent
@peterwalker99
Wed 26 Apr 2023 14.54 BST

Chris Pincher, the former Conservative MP whose alleged misconduct helped to precipitate Boris Johnson’s departure from Downing Street, has reportedly decided not to stand again at the next election.
Pincher has sat as an independent since he lost the Tory whip in July last year over allegations he had drunkenly groped two men.

Pincher, who was Johnson’s deputy chief whip, said he had “embarrassed myself and other people” after reports of his behaviour at the Carlton Club in London’s Piccadilly. The allegation was reported by Conservative MPs who had witnessed it.
According to the BBC’s Stoke and Staffordshire news, the Tamworth MP has told national and local Conservative officials he will not run again. Pincher was contacted for comment.

Downing Street initially insisted that Johnson and his team had not been aware of any specific previous allegations against Pincher before promoting him to the whip’s office. It later emerged that this was not true. Pincher had previously resigned over claims he had made unwanted passes at a fellow Conservative, for which an inquiry cleared him of wrongdoing.
In an unusual move, Simon McDonald, who was the head civil servant in the Foreign Office when Pincher was a junior minister and Johnson foreign secretary, said the latter had been briefed about an allegation against Pincher of groping.
Downing Street’s initial denials, after months of political pressure on Johnson over reports about lockdown-breaking parties in and around No 10, prompted exasperated ministers to resign en masse, and Johnson to announce his departure.
Pincher remains under formal investigation by parliament’s commissioner for standards for a potential breach of rules connected to actions that cause “significant damage to the reputation” of the Commons or MPs in general. That inquiry began in October.
If he is found to have broken the rules, Pincher could be forced to apologise and could face suspension from the Commons. If that were to last 10 days or more, a byelection could be triggered in his constituency.

EDIT It's suggested that Eddie Hughes, MP for Walsall North, is a possible replacement candidate for Chris Pincher given that the former's seat is being abolished as part of the latest boundary changes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2023 ==

One of the things I like about this forum is the scope for constructive discourse and a search to understand why someone sees things differently to us. I hope we don't lose that ability by automatic assumptions of bad faith by the "other side".

I agree.
I've recently posted on a different forum in which the moderators seem happy to allow contributors to insult other contributors in order to prove how clever they are. Here there's much more of an acceptance of difference and both a willingness to understand it and the ability to agree to disagree. It's appreciated.

 

[Typhoon]

Lee Anderson was today embroiled in a confrontation with Andrew Bridgen and a former Conservative councillor in a parliamentary dining room.

The incident took place at lunchtime at the Adjournment restaurant in Portcullis House after it emerged Mr Bridgen had been expelled from the Tory Party for comparing coronavirus vaccines to the Holocaust.

Ex-Conservative councillor Sebastian Leslie, who was Mr Bridgen's guest, claimed the deputy Tory chairman told him to "come outside and we'll sort it out" as they rowed over the MP.

In turn, Mr Anderson claimed Mr Bridgen had been "rude and aggressive" when he and Mr Leslie approached as he lunched with two friends, adding then he then went to Mr Bridgen's table to "express my disapproval".

Mr Bridgen and Mr Leslie said the argument erupted when they saw Mr Anderson in the restaurant.

The North West Leicestershire MP was angered by his expulsion being made public while he still has time to appeal against the decision.

I hope that there are external witnesses for this. Surely even he realises that this is unacceptable (if true). They should really have called security.

There was a time when Labour had the bruisers on their benches; just when things start to look up for Sunak, Pincher is back in the news and Anderson decides to throw his weight about..

 

[DustyBin]

I agree.
I've recently posted on a different forum in which the moderators seem happy to allow contributors to insult other contributors in order to prove how clever they are. Here there's much more of an acceptance of difference and both a willingness to understand it and the ability to agree to disagree. It's appreciated.

Seconded!

 

[yorksrob]

It will be informative to see what the Government's response to the USA's Inflation Reduction Act. I understand that we're waiting to see the response from the EU before committing.

Will we attempt something similar here, or even some sort of tie-in with the EU/USA, or will we just regurgitate 1980's market philosophy.

 

[nw1]

I hope that there are external witnesses for this. Surely even he realises that this is unacceptable (if true). They should really have called security.

There was a time when Labour had the bruisers on their benches; just when things start to look up for Sunak, Pincher is back in the news and Anderson decides to throw his weight about..

For one thing, it's a bit rich for Anderson to call someone else "rude and aggressive". I suggest he looks in the mirror before making such accusations against others.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

For one thing, it's a bit rich for Anderson to call someone else "rude and aggressive". I suggest he looks in the mirror before making such accusations against others.

Bears to start complaining about arboreal defacation and the Pope to be shocked to discover his adherence to the tenets of tge Roman Catholic faith.

 

[nw1]

I was about to loudly protest that he isn't better than May, but then I realised you said last two, and I forgot the lettuce

Would be interesting to see how people rank recent PMs right now; obviously this is going to be biased by political affiliation.

As a non-Tory I'd say, worst to best (with the caveat that none were great, but the lower members were, shall we say, the least-worst):

1. Truss
2. Johnson
3. Sunak/Thatcher (joint)
[fairly big gap]
5. May/Cameron (joint)
[big gap]
7. Major
8. Blair
9. Brown

A guess at an objective, non-party-political ranking ('best' to 'worst' - and no, I am no fan of Thatcher, but as I said I am trying to remove personal politics from this the best I can):

1. Thatcher/Blair (love them or loathe them, I guess they "got things done" whether you liked them or not)
3. Major/May/Brown (one could argue all three tried to do the best, in their eyes, during a difficult situation)
6. Cameron (the silly, weak and ultimately self-defeating decision to hold the EU referendum puts him well down the rankings)
7. Sunak (weak and in thrall to the party's right-wing)
8. Johnson (no need to discuss his faults again)
9. Truss (ditto)

 

[takno]

A guess at an objective, non-party-political ranking ('best' to 'worst' - and no, I am no fan of Thatcher, but as I said I am trying to remove personal politics from this the best I can):

1. Thatcher/Blair (love them or loathe them, I guess they "got things done" whether you liked them or not)
3. Major/May/Brown (one could argue all three tried to do the best, in their eyes, during a difficult situation)
6. Cameron (the silly, weak and ultimately self-defeating decision to hold the EU referendum puts him well down the rankings)
7. Sunak (weak and in thrall to the party's right-wing)
8. Johnson (no need to discuss his faults again)
9. Truss (ditto)

I'd probably give the same rankings. Thatcher was effective, and it felt like the country was being "run", albeit that I disagreed with many or most of the things that were done.

I'd probably be more scathing of Cameron. His addiction to referenda was poor management and has created nothing but problems, but his grasp of economics was facile. We were already going through a slow economic death from 2010 to 2016, led primarily by Osborne and Cameron pushing an economic programme which was disdained by almost all competent economists whatever their beliefs and political hue.

Cameron's biggest long term impact though comes from his habit of slicking blame onto anybody he thought he could dump it onto, whether friend or foe. That led to him hitting on both the EU and the Lib Dems as convenient scapegoats for many of his own failings, which has had a direct impact. It also led to a culture where people feel like they can stay in power just by blaming others and playing schoolboy games. That really has led to the current Boris-Lettuce-BorisLite sandwich.