Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[nw1]

Pride comes before a fall and I came unstuck in '66, predicting a Labour majority of twenty something (26 or 28, I believe), well out!

I remember having a dream shortly before the 2019 general election that Johnson had achieved a majority of 12. Maybe my subconscious was weighing everything up and calculating that as the expected result.

That seemed like bad news at the time but it would have been better than what actually happened! I think the sheer number of Red Wall gains was the big surprise.

 

[GS250]

I remember having a dream shortly before the 2019 general election that Johnson had achieved a majority of 12. Maybe my subconscious was weighing everything up and calculating that as the expected result.

That seemed like bad news at the time but it would have been better than what actually happened! I think the sheer number of Red Wall gains was the big surprise.

Not so sure it was a surprise. There's absolutely no way Corbynite policies were going to gain much support up North. Once the Brexit Party and Tories did their 'deal'...the outcome was a formality.

However to the current. I'd say Sunak is unlikely to get a majority.....but the next GE is likely to be closer than many predict. All depends on whether the press do a hatchet job on Starmer during the next election. Not sure they will though as he'll very much ensure the wealthy stay wealthy.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Is it the MOR politics that caused our current problems? I'd say the main drivers for the economic problems are Covid after-effects, the Ukraine war, Brexit, and Truss's fun and games (in roughly that order but with Covid and Ukraine in joint first position).

No room for the austerity measures of Cameron/Osborne? Don't see why they should get away scot-free.

 

[takno]

Not sure about that, in the sense that I believe that immigration is a split issue. I'm not convinced that "most people" take a hardline stance on immigration; some do, some don't. And certainly a lot of people are pro-trans-rights. Both issues, I would say, split the population pretty evenly.

Without wishing to derail the thread, it really wasn't the Tories that started the process of turning this into a painful binary debate, and having concerns about self-id or the specifics of self-id as proposed in Scotland doesn't preclude one from being pro trans rights. In terms of whether it's a 50-50 issue in terms of population support, it depends on the question you ask, but some of the questions Starmer is (like most of the rest of us) prudently avoiding answering on the topic are ones where surveys show that people generally are quite heavily in support of the status quo.

 

[MikeWM]

But surely it's got to be better than reactionary politics.

Are Labour any less reactionary? Look at their ever-shriller calls for even more state censorship than the Tories are proposing in the Online 'Safety' Bill, for example. Not to mention their behaviour during covid. I'd say they are better on some issues but significantly worse on others.

Is it the MOR politics that caused our current problems? I'd say the main drivers for the economic problems are Covid after-effects, the Ukraine war, Brexit, and Truss's fun and games (in roughly that order but with Covid and Ukraine in joint first position).

There have been a number of shocks - and very poor reactions to those shocks - over the last few years, certainly, which have made things significantly worse, whatever priority you ascribe to them. But I'd argue the rot had set in long before that. Were the majority of the country happy at the way things were going in 2015, for example? I've long said one of the key issues in modern politics is that people no longer believe their children will have a better life than them - and I was saying that well before 2015.

What disturbs me about the current politics is that it's actually too extreme at both wings. The right-wing is the most problematic, as it's in power, but there are also elements of the hard-left which disturb me a bit too, such as inflexible thinking on some issues, an intolerance of compromise, and what I call "inverse prejudice" (such as anti-male sexism, when surely equality should be the aim).

I'd say much of the root of the problem is the state (whoever is in power) trying to do too many things and hence doing all of them rather poorly - and a bizarre expectation from the public that the state should be doing all these things, and in fact even more besides. Covid was a perfect example of that but the issue is much wider. The state should concentrate on the things it ought to be doing - such as running the economy - and then it may do a better job.

 

[edwin_m]

'Extreme right wing policies'......

That's made my day.

Just before that quote I included the word relatively. The policies are extreme relative to a more moderate policy.

Kindly don't quote me out of context.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There's absolutely no way Corbynite policies were going to gain much support up North

You mean policies like rail nationalisation, raising the minimum wage, putting more money in the NHS, keep the pension age where it is, the discussions about a national care service, building more council houses etc etc, all which are popular nationwide let alone in traditionally working class areas. Even the more "controversial" ones like a vote on rejoining the EU aren't as controversial as you may thing (nationwide more people support rejoining than not now).

With Corbyn, policies that the party were pushing were never really the issue. It was more a combination of his and his teams own goals and issues, a half genuine and half BS concern about potential harder left policies that Corbyn and his supporters believe in but were never part of the the Labour manifesto's under his leadership and the media's portrayal of him.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You mean policies like rail nationalisation, raising the minimum wage, putting more money in the NHS, keep the pension age where it is, the discussions about a national care service, building more council houses etc etc, all which are popular nationwide let alone in traditionally working class areas.

Most people have enough sense to know that if you are proposing lots of things that involve spending more money, then you are going to have to find the money somewhere. So while many of those policies you cite might be individually popular, put them all together and a lot of people are going to end up with an uneasy sense of, something not adding up.

 

[DC1989]

One issue is that after the Liz Truss debacle, governments need to make sure things are fully costed for fear of a repeat. This is also why Starmer has had to scrap some policies.

 

[JamesT]

One issue is that after the Liz Truss debacle, governments need to make sure things are fully costed for fear of a repeat. This is also why Starmer has had to scrap some policies.

Though I've seen some claims that Labour appear to have proposed spending the money from increasing the windfall tax several times over.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Though I've seen some claims that Labour appear to have proposed spending the money from increasing the windfall tax several times over.

Haha! That reminds me of the time during the Corbyn era when Labour was proposing to nationalise the water industry and were telling us that

(a) Nationalizing the industry would be effectively free because the cost of buying it could be recouped from the future profits, which would now be available to the Government, and ...
(b) Nationalizing the industry would save everyone money because any profits could be ploughed back into reducing prices.

Ummm...

I'd like to think that Keir Starmer has a better grasp of logic

 

[Pete_uk]

This country is lacking education in critical thinking.

Some might say that's by design.

 

[nw1]

No room for the austerity measures of Cameron/Osborne? Don't see why they should get away scot-free.

Maybe, yes. But probably eclipsed by everything that has gone since; things weren't great, and were bad for many, but didn't seem quite as bad as 2020 onwards.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Some might say that's by design.

'Conspiracy theory' does not equal 'critical thinking'

 

[nw1]

'Conspiracy theory' does not equal 'critical thinking'

"Questioning the motives of the government" does not equal "conspiracy theory".

I'm not agreeing with the previous poster that there is indeed a lack of critical thinking "by design", but rather making a general point that I don't think terms like "conspiracy theory" should be bandied about when people question the motives of the government and in particular question whether the government has our best interests at heart.

Certainly there's been enough going on in the past few years to make scepticism of the government quite a reasonable attitude to take.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"Questioning the motives of the government" does not equal "conspiracy theory".

It does if you are coming up with a theory that the state is deliberately doing something bad, for which have absolutely no evidence, and there's no serious reason to believe that your suggestion is correct.

 

[nw1]

It does if you are coming up with a theory that the state is deliberately doing something bad, for which have absolutely no evidence, and there's no serious reason to believe that your suggestion is correct.

I think most people, when they are sceptical of the government and its motives, don't believe it's doing something deliberately and malevolently "bad", but rather looking after the interests of various special-interest groups over the population as a whole.

 

[brad465]

"Questioning the motives of the government" does not equal "conspiracy theory".

I'm not agreeing with the previous poster that there is indeed a lack of critical thinking "by design", but rather making a general point that I don't think terms like "conspiracy theory" should be bandied about when people question the motives of the government and in particular question whether the government has our best interests at heart.

Certainly there's been enough going on in the past few years to make scepticism of the government quite a reasonable attitude to take.

It does if you are coming up with a theory that the state is deliberately doing something bad, for which have absolutely no evidence, and there's no serious reason to believe that your suggestion is correct.

Whether or not by design, there are definitely shortcomings in our education policy that are not being addressed which need to be, critical thinking being one of the biggest. Incidentally under the last Labour Government while they did increase/enable the provision of this education subject, they didn't roll it out very widely so the impact was minimal.

 

[jfollows]

I think most people, when they are sceptical of the government and its motives, don't believe it's doing something deliberately and malevolently "bad", but rather looking after the interests of various special-interest groups over the population as a whole.

I think the interests of the people running government themselves feature more prominently with the government we have had since 2019 than they should have done, led initially by a totally self-interested man. I think the feeling is now very much "they are in it for themselves" which always features to some extent, but - rightly - has much more prominence currently. Definitely not conspiracy theory, I don't even think it's all that much of a secret.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Whether or not by design, there are definitely shortcomings in our education policy that are not being addressed which need to be, critical thinking being one of the biggest.

I would agree with that. There's a lot that people appear to be coming out of school not knowing that people arguably need to know in order to have a mature, functioning, democracy and civic society, and critical thinking is certainly one of those. The trouble is, adding stuff to the curriculum means you either need to teach people more (longer school days, anyone?) or remove something else from the curriculum, and I'm not sure how you square that. Is there anything that is in the curriculum that doesn't need to be there? In the case of critical thinking, the problem is arguably more acute because for it to be very useful you'd also need to teach some knowledge of statistics and about the ways that you can use and abuse statistical data.

Incidentally under the last Labour Government while they did increase/enable the provision of this education subject, they didn't roll it out very widely so the impact was minimal.

That's interesting - I wasn't aware of that. Is there any other information online about that?

 

[brad465]

I would agree with that. There's a lot that people appear to be coming out of school not knowing that people arguably need to know in order to have a mature, functioning, democracy and civic society, and critical thinking is certainly one of those. The trouble is, adding stuff to the curriculum means you either need to teach people more (longer school days, anyone?) or remove something else from the curriculum, and I'm not sure how you square that. Is there anything that is in the curriculum that doesn't need to be there? In the case of critical thinking, the problem is arguably more acute because for it to be very useful you'd also need to teach some knowledge of statistics and about the ways that you can use and abuse statistical data.

That's interesting - I wasn't aware of that. Is there any other information online about that?

My initial source was a teacher I know who happened to have been in the profession before, during and after New Labour's tenure, but I've found this page that reveals Critical thinking was an AS level option until 2014 (as I did my A-Levels in 2012-14 I remember it being around as well but I didn't study it then). Apparently it's also embedded into the International Baccalaureate, but again not everyone does that.

Also while it is easy to be cynical about certain Governments not wanting critical thinking introduced, by the same logic it could be argued certain businesses/corporations would rather the population didn't learn it, as more people would resist their marketing tricks/advertising and thus not buy their products as much/at all.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My initial source was a teacher I know who happened to have been in the profession before, during and after New Labour's tenure, but I've found this page that reveals Critical thinking was an AS level option until 2014 (as I did my A-Levels in 2012-14 I remember it being around as well but I didn't study it then). Apparently it's also embedded into the International Baccalaureate, but again not everyone does that.

Thanks! That certainly seems like progress to me. But as you say in your previous post, an AS level subject would have minimal impact as so few people would end up studying it.

by the same logic it could be argued certain businesses/corporations would rather the population didn't learn it, as more people would resist their marketing tricks/advertising and thus not buy their products as much/at all.

That seems implausible to me. In order to think that way, the people running those businesses would have to actually believe that they are themselves using misleading marketing to sell poor goods, and therefore - in effect, believe that they are con artists. While that will be true of a few business people, in practice that's going to be a tiny minority of businesses. I'd say what tends to happen much more is, people get fooled by their own marketing hype etc. and so they believe they are being ethical when they aren't. (One obvious example I can think of is the health supplement industry - full of claims of dubious scientific value, pushing products that are probably ineffective, but everyone I've known who's got into that industry has - so far as I can tell - actually believed that their products were great). If you genuinely believe that your products are good then, even if you're mistaken, you're probably not going to feel threatened by the prospect of people learning critical thinking - at least until it's too late and you find a new generation of people are actually questioning your products

I'd expect rather that the vast majority of businesses would think something more like, Critical thinking? That means our staff will be able to make better decisions so we'll end up even more profitable! [*] Yay! Let's do it!

( [*] They won't of course - because their competitors' staff will also make better decisions, so the competition will get stiffer. But when you haven't been taught critical thinking, it's easy not to notice those biases that make you think you're the best )

 

[Broucek]

Business does NOT want worse education! Better critical thinking amongst the workforce will improve performance

 

[birchesgreen]

That seems implausible to me. In order to think that way, the people running those businesses would have to actually believe that they are themselves using misleading marketing to sell poor goods, and therefore - in effect, believe that they are con artists.

Welcome to the world of marketing.

 

[Intercity110]

with less then a day to go until the local elections, i wonder how much the tories are panicking?

 

[Typhoon]

Although Sunak has managed to narrow the gap between the Conservatives and Labour, some in the party seem to want to borrow a trick from Labour of old and demonstrate disunity. The Conservative Democratic Organisation is organising a conference on 13th May, doubtless to swipe at the party leadership over losses in the local elections.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...p&cvid=766c2a7ac5724c2f89abcd8f6318693b&ei=26 shows the speakers - the usual suspects - Dorries, Crudas, Gullis, Rees Mogg x 2 (I thought she was in UKIP), Burns. Jenkyns, Dan Wootton(!). Patel appears to be the face of the organisation. Johnson may be getting on board. Apparently, they think they should be making gains in councillors!

Cloud Cuckoo Land!

 

[nw1]

Although Sunak has managed to narrow the gap between the Conservatives and Labour, some in the party seem to want to borrow a trick from Labour of old and demonstrate disunity. The Conservative Democratic Organisation is organising a conference on 13th May, doubtless to swipe at the party leadership over losses in the local elections.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...p&cvid=766c2a7ac5724c2f89abcd8f6318693b&ei=26 shows the speakers - the usual suspects - Dorries, Crudas, Gullis, Rees Mogg x 2 (I thought she was in UKIP), Burns. Jenkyns, Dan Wootton(!). Patel appears to be the face of the organisation. Johnson may be getting on board. Apparently, they think they should be making gains in councillors!

Cloud Cuckoo Land!

"Conservative Democratic Organisation" for the foaming at the mouth wing? As in various well known "democratic republics"?

 

[yorksrob]

Are Labour any less reactionary? Look at their ever-shriller calls for even more state censorship than the Tories are proposing in the Online 'Safety' Bill, for example. Not to mention their behaviour during covid. I'd say they are better on some issues but significantly worse on others.



There have been a number of shocks - and very poor reactions to those shocks - over the last few years, certainly, which have made things significantly worse, whatever priority you ascribe to them. But I'd argue the rot had set in long before that. Were the majority of the country happy at the way things were going in 2015, for example? I've long said one of the key issues in modern politics is that people no longer believe their children will have a better life than them - and I was saying that well before 2015.



I'd say much of the root of the problem is the state (whoever is in power) trying to do too many things and hence doing all of them rather poorly - and a bizarre expectation from the public that the state should be doing all these things, and in fact even more besides. Covid was a perfect example of that but the issue is much wider. The state should concentrate on the things it ought to be doing - such as running the economy - and then it may do a better job.

You are right that the structural problems are deeply rooted, but you are wrong about the cause of them.

Our problems are caused by an obsession with markets and an expectation of them to cure all ills.

The sell offs of all our utilities to multinationals, then our complete surprise when they are more interested in making money than assisting customers.

The gifting of our countries natural resources to private companies, so that they can float them on the international market then sell them back to us at inflated prices.

The over-reliance on products and materials from unfriendly powers in the name of company profits, so that those powers end up undermining our way of life and making us poorer.

 

[MikeWM]

You are right that the structural problems are deeply rooted, but you are wrong about the cause of them.

Our problems are caused by an obsession with markets and an expectation of them to cure all ills.

The sell offs of all our utilities to multinationals, then our complete surprise when they are more interested in making money than assisting customers.

The gifting of our countries natural resources to private companies, so that they can float them on the international market then sell them back to us at inflated prices.

The over-reliance on products and materials from unfriendly powers in the name of company profits, so that those powers end up undermining our way of life and making us poorer.

Well, as I'm still somewhat of an old-school lefty - at least in economic terms - I can't disagree with any of that, and I totally concur that they are major issues that no-one appears to be interested in addressing (apart from perhaps Corbyn, and he wasn't allowed to try a rather mild alternative).

I do think that a good part of what I say - the turning to government to do all sorts of stuff it shouldn't be doing, and the keenness of the government to take those things on, is directly related to the part inability, part unwillingness of the government to do a number of things that it ought to be doing, such as managing the economy. As you say, we've given away so much that there isn't much they can actually do about that, and they have to try to justify their existence somehow.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, as I'm still somewhat of an old-school lefty - at least in economic terms - I can't disagree with any of that, and I totally concur that they are major issues that no-one appears to be interested in addressing (apart from perhaps Corbyn, and he wasn't allowed to try a rather mild alternative).

I do think that a good part of what I say - the turning to government to do all sorts of stuff it shouldn't be doing, and the keenness of the government to take those things on, is directly related to the part inability, part unwillingness of the government to do a number of things that it ought to be doing, such as managing the economy. As you say, we've given away so much that there isn't much they can actually do about that, and they have to try to justify their existence somehow.

The country should be becoming more self-sufficient in its basic needs. That will take a lot of work over the coming years.