Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[bspahh]

The 2023 constituency reform currently going through is only going to make this worse, estimates are the Tories will gain 10 seats under this gerrymandering essential modernisation. The changes in and around Blackpool are…interesting.

This is a comment from Jacob Rees Mogg at the National Conservativism conference

"Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding that their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well."

Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg

The ex-minister suggests his party brought in the controversial measure to boost their election chances.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[nw1]

This is a comment from Jacob Rees Mogg at the National Conservativism conference

Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg

The ex-minister suggests his party brought in the controversial measure to boost their election chances.

www.bbc.co.uk

So is Mogg making allegations of foul play within his own party and admitting that the rule was brought in to boost the Tory vote?

I note he also accuses Labour of supposed foul play in the same article:

Speaking at a conference for Conservatives in London, he accused Labour of "gerrymandering" - fixing rules to gain electoral advantage - by potentially extending voting rights to some EU citizens if they enter government.
He told delegates Labour's idea was "particularly silly," adding: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding that their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections.

Why it's "particularly silly" to allow EU citizens with long-term residence here to vote, I don't know. They live here, they pay taxes, why should they be denied the vote? I realise British citizens probably don't get the vote if they reside elsewhere in the world, but that is no reason for the UK to follow other countries' bad example. But the comment is not unexpected from Mogg.

 

[MikeWM]

Why it's "particularly silly" to allow EU citizens with long-term residence here to vote, I don't know. They live here, they pay taxes, why should they be denied the vote?

Why only EU citizens then? Why not all non-citizens with long-term residence? Or if you are going to restrict it, I'd say that citizens of Commonwealth countries would make more sense than EU citizens, for example. (Edit : oh, okay, it turns out they do - I actually didn't know that, I thought it was just Irish citizens).

 

[DustyBin]

Interpreting it charitably, it's a poor choice of words because people can read it as the first meaning (which is incidentally incorrect as an invasion doesn't always involve taking control of a country).

A term such as "influx" could be used. The fact it wasn't suggests it's a dog-whistle to the far right and/or deliberately intended to offend others.

I agree with you that that it's a poor choice of word in so far as it's emotive and divisive. The Home Secretary should, in my opinion, be above that kind of thing.

I disagree however that it's a dog-whistle to the far right, or deliberately offensive. A significant number of ordinary (i.e. not far right) people are absolutely fed up with illegal immigration, and I believe it's those people this was aimed at. For political gain of course....

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why it's "particularly silly" to allow EU citizens with long-term residence here to vote, I don't know.

Because they won’t support the Brexit Party, silly.

I don’t understand why it’s remotely controversial to give permanent residents the vote, but it isn’t something many countries do without citizenship.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2023 ==

I disagree however that it's a dog-whistle to the far right, or deliberately offensive. A significant number of ordinary (i.e. not far right) people are absolutely fed up with illegal immigration, and I believe it's those people this was aimed at. For political gain of course....

There’s a fine line between aiming a speech at an electorate and dog-whistling, and I do think Braverman crossed it. Certainly in context, as she wittered on at length about the “ethnicity of grooming gang perpetrators” despite the fact the Home Office’s own research shows that most grooming gang members are white men aged under 30. Perhaps she was referring to the biggest grooming gang in West Midlands’ Police history. But perhaps not.

And then we had the Tory MP for Penistone saying a low birth rate is an “existential threat”, something lifted straight out of the Great Displacement conspiracy playbook.

 

[nw1]

Why only EU citizens then? Why not all non-citizens with long-term residence? Or if you are going to restrict it, I'd say that citizens of Commonwealth countries would make more sense than EU citizens, for example. (Edit : oh, okay, it turns out they do - I actually didn't know that, I thought it was just Irish citizens).

Agree, why not?

 

[birchesgreen]

Jesus H Corbett, she is so far beyond self-parody now

Suella Braverman rails against ‘experts and elites’ in partisan speech

Home secretary attacks ‘radical left’ and identity politics and warns against ‘fratricide’ on right

www.theguardian.com

Suella Braverman has railed against “experts and elites” and what she called the divisive politics of identity, in a highly partisan speech that is likely to be viewed as setting out ideas for a post-election Conservative leadership bid.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Jesus H Corbett, she is so far beyond self-parody now

I suppose it’s simpler than having a grown-up conversation about immigration and setting out how she’s going to have a sensible and grown-up policy relating to immigration.

 

[Typhoon]

Suella Braverman has railed against “experts and elites” and what she called the divisive politics of identity, in a highly partisan speech that is likely to be viewed as setting out ideas for a post-election Conservative leadership bid.

She has got a point, It is time someone spoke out against 'elites' - the likes of Etonians (especially Old Etonians), the Bullingdon Club. White's of St James' and the Tufton Street crew have had it far too easy, .

As regards 'experts', how does she think that a small country such as ours found its place on the world stage? It was (and still is) partly through having 'experts' in so many fields. The only difference is that now anyone from any background can become an expert.

I railed against a different right wing MP on a different forum, which was taken down as 'hate speech' because I complained that just because she strung a whole lot of words (in that case long words) together didn't mean she had put forward a coherent argument. Ditto, here.

I just hope Labour and perhaps the LibDems have got some politicians who can be positive, supportive, find the good in people because this shower are, on the whole, actually getting worse. You wouldn't think they have been running the country for over a decade.

 

[MikeWM]

Agree, why not?

Fair enough, I probably agree. So why is Labour restricting the proposal just to EU citizens, rather than everyone 'permanently' living here?

--

Suella Braverman has railed against “experts and elites”

After the last three years of 'rule by experts', when almost everything the experts said turned out to be entirely wrong and has wrought immense damage on the people and the economy of this country and indeed most of the world, I have to say I have quite a bit of sympathy with that view.

Though I think the problem is probably more with picking which experts you want to listen to, while ignoring those who are putting forward inconvenient counter-arguments.

 

[nw1]

Suella Braverman has railed against “experts and elites” and what she called the divisive politics of identity, in a highly partisan speech that is likely to be viewed as setting out ideas for a post-election Conservative leadership bid.

It does make you laugh, senior members of Government wittering on about "elites" as if they are not part of them. A bit Trumpian in some ways, really: the Donald - the very definition of the elite - made similar nonsensical witterings in claiming the elite was a group of people who did not include himself.

She's scarcely had a difficult life. Private school and Cambridge (nothing wrong with that, to make things clear - just highlighting her double standards and hypocrisy) followed by a career as a barrister.

Such is the hypocrisy of the likes of Braverman, that they would no doubt consider a left-winger who left school at 16, struggled on low-paid jobs until they were 40, went to university as a mature student, and then went into parliament as a liberal, pro-EU, "woke" Labour MP, a member of the "elite" !!!

 

[najaB]

Fair enough, I probably agree. So why is Labour restricting the proposal just to EU citizens, rather than everyone 'permanently' living here?

Baby steps.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because they won’t support the Brexit Party, silly.
Certainly in context, as she wittered on at length about the “ethnicity of grooming gang perpetrators” despite the fact the Home Office’s own research shows that most grooming gang members are white men aged under 30. Perhaps she was referring to the biggest grooming gang in West Midlands’ Police history.

Well, according to the 2021 census, 82% of the population of England and Wales are white, so it's hardly surprising if most grooming gang members are white - in fact it would be utterly astonishing if that wasn't the case! The more relevant question is: Is grooming-gang related abuse higher amongst any ethnicity relative to population levels? The text from the report in question that the Guardian quoted in the article you linked to is noteworthy:

The review was published after criticism that victims of child abuse had been failed because of fear of accusations of racism.

It said: “Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white. Some studies suggest an overrepresentation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. “This is due to issues such as data-quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.”

In other words, the report does not deny the possibility that there is a higher level of abuse of girls amongst some ethnic groups: It simply states that we don't have good enough quality data to prove that there is.

It's a delicate issue to talk about because on the one hand, we know that some Asian countries have a culture in which women are seen as inferior/subservient - and basic common sense tells us that some proportion of recent immigrants from those countries are likely to have brought those cultural values with them. And we also know that there have been actual instances of appalling and large scale sexual abuse which appears to have been influenced by that culture. So there really are good reasons to be concerned. On the other hand, obviously you want to be very careful to remember that we are talking about a tiny minority of people and you don't want to tar entire communities/ethnic groups.

Putting all that together, Suella Braverman's comments about grooming gangs are probably not nearly as stupid as you're making out.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Putting all that together, Suella Braverman's comments about grooming gangs are probably not nearly as stupid as you're making out.

The quote from Braverman was reported in the Guardian article above as:

“The ethnicity of grooming gang perpetrators is the sort of fact that has become unfashionable in some quarters,” she said

Now as most grooming gang members are white men, what does she mean by this statement?

So there really are good reasons to be concerned.

I think the concern has to be with saving children from sexual abuse.

On a practical term, if we let the idea take hold that it’s only men from certain ethnic backgrounds who groom children then other groomers will be ignored. I would agree that certain demographics are over-represented in these figures. But the focus should be on the majority as that’s how you save more kids.

Sadly Braverman seems more interested in using the suffering of these children as a political dog-whistle rather than doing anything meaningful to save children from sexual abuse. But what could she do to help, it’s not like she’s the Home Secretary or anything.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2023 ==

we also know that there have been actual instances of appalling and large scale sexual abuse which appears to have been influenced by that culture.

We don’t know anything of the sort. And given most groomers and child abusers are white British men, I’d be wary of going too far down that particular rabbit hole.

FWIW I don’t think it is “cultural”, it is simply that some men people are evil and they will exploit people they believe are weak and won’t be believed. The Rotherham gang aren’t any different to, say, Cyril Smith targeting boys in care homes because they’d stay quiet or wouldn’t be believed anyway. Was Cyril Smith a product of his culture, or was he merely a monster?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The quote from Braverman was reported in the Guardian article above as:

“The ethnicity of grooming gang perpetrators is the sort of fact that has become unfashionable in some quarters,” she said

Now as most grooming gang members are white men, what does she mean by this statement?

She rather obviously means (roughly) that there's a reluctance in some quarters to talk about ethnicity in relation to grooming gangs. That is after all what the words mean, so I'm not sure why you'd be asking. (Obviously we can separately debate how accurate the statement is. Personally I suspect there is some truth to it)

I think the concern has to be with saving children from sexual abuse.

Agreed.

On a practical term, if we let the idea take hold that it’s only men from certain ethnic backgrounds who groom children then other groomers will be ignored. I would agree that certain demographics are over-represented in these figures. But the focus should be on the majority as that’s how you save more kids.

Not quite. With any crime, if you want to prevent the most crimes, you need to focus resources on the places/people/situations where the crime is most likely to be committed.

If - say - there's a very large group of people, 0.1% of whom are inclined to abuse children, and there is a much smaller group of people, 0.5% of whom are inclined to abuse children, then in order to save the most children from abuse, you probably need to do some proportionate focusing of resources on the smaller group (even if the total number of crimes is smaller because of it being a much smaller group).

FWIW I don’t think it is “cultural”, it is simply that some men people are evil and they will exploit people they believe are weak and won’t be believed. The Rotherham gang aren’t any different to, say, Cyril Smith targeting boys in care homes because they’d stay quiet or wouldn’t be believed anyway. Was Cyril Smith a product of his culture, or was he merely a monster?

I would say it's both. Yes some people are evil and carry out dreadful abuse. But at the same time, if a man has been brought up in a culture that teaches that women are basically the property of men/are worthless/etc. then it's not hard to see that how that could make that man more likely to think it's OK to abuse women. So, although you are correct that in principle the Rotherham gang weren't any different from Cyril Smith, we can't ignore the influence of culture if we want to solve the problem.

 

[takno]

I would say it's both. Yes some people are evil and carry out dreadful abuse. But at the same time, if a man has been brought up in a culture that teaches that women are basically the property of men/are worthless/etc. then it's not hard to see that how that could make that man more likely to think it's OK to abuse women. So, although you are correct that in principle the Rotherham gang weren't any different from Cyril Smith, we can't ignore the influence of culture if we want to solve the problem.

You seem to be buying fully into the dog-whistle, even with all the carefully-couched hand-wringing. These are not foreign cultures which teach that it's okay to abuse women, albeit that they aren't cultures which value women as equal members of society. More relevantly, most of the gangs I've heard about were largely second or third generation immigrants growing up in a uniquely British culture, and subject to a lot of British stereotypes. Moreover you appear to be implicitly buying into the notion that gang-based abuse of girls is a significant proportion of the child abuse that's happening in this country, and based on the lack of any evidence either way are suggesting that gang based abuse might be twice as common in people based on ethnic origin.

The original observation about the Rotherham gang was that people were wrongly unwilling to consider the possibility that Asians would do this, which is an unhealthy level of reverence. Swinging from that to some lynch mob mentality that they are the first place to look is exactly the sort of appalling development which Braveman profits from.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why it's "particularly silly" to allow EU citizens with long-term residence here to vote, I don't know. They live here, they pay taxes, why should they be denied the vote?

Anyone, from anywhere in the world (not just the sainted and revered EU) who has moved to the UK on a permanent basis can apply for British citizenship and therefore have the right to vote here. Anyone who does not plan to remain here long-term should not have the vote and therefore be able to influence decisions affecting this country long after they have left.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You seem to be buying fully into the dog-whistle, even with all the carefully-couched hand-wringing.

It's not hand-wringing: It's recognising that there are actually complex nuances to this issue. And I do not perceive any dog whistle in doing that.

These are not foreign cultures which teach that it's okay to abuse women, albeit that they aren't cultures which value women as equal members of society.

Can you really not see that, if you have been taught and therefore to some extent believe, that women are not equal members of society, then that is likely to affect how you behave towards women, including making it more likely that you may think it's OK to abuse women?

More relevantly, most of the gangs I've heard about were largely second or third generation immigrants growing up in a uniquely British culture, and subject to a lot of British stereotypes.

It's much more complex than that. If you are a 2nd generation immigrant then you will have been brought up by first generation immigrants. So it's likely that you'll have been exposed to British culture at school etc., while being to at least some extent brought up according to a different culture at home. Obviously, different people will react in different ways to that, so it becomes hard to generalise.

Cultural beliefs don't suddenly die out as soon as you hit the 2nd or 3rd generation of immigrants (and I'd say, usually it's a good thing that cultures are resilient across generations: That allows retention of much more cultural diversity and heritage. But if a culture encompasses something that we'd regard as bad - such as viewing women as 2nd class citizens, then it becomes problematic).

 

[Tetchytyke]

If - say - there's a very large group of people, 0.1% of whom are inclined to abuse children, and there is a much smaller group of people, 0.5% of whom are inclined to abuse children, then in order to save the most children from abuse, you probably need to do some proportionate focusing of resources on the smaller group

There’s a big group of people abusing children and a small group of people abusing children. So to make the biggest impact we target the smaller group. You’ll need to explain the logic there as, truthfully, I can’t see any.

But at the same time, if a man has been brought up in a culture that teaches that women are basically the property of men/are worthless/etc. then it's not hard to see that how that could make that man more likely to think it's OK to abuse women. So, although you are correct that in principle the Rotherham gang weren't any different from Cyril Smith, we can't ignore the influence of culture if we want to solve the problem.

The status of women in certain countries is problematic. Although living in a country where the pay gap is almost 15% I’d not be throwing too many stones.

Saying it’s “cultural” when some men abuse children and not saying it’s “cultural” when other men do is a dog-whistle. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Rotherham gang were the same as Jeffrey Epstein or Jonathan King or Cyril Smith or Jimmy Savile or Fred Talbot or Greville Janner or Max Clifford or Gary Glitter in what they did and who they targeted.

The original observation about the Rotherham gang was that people were wrongly unwilling to consider the possibility that Asians would do this, which is an unhealthy level of reverence

Even the inquiry reports demonstrated the real issue in Rotherham was a lot more simple: the police simply didn’t believe the victims. They were young, they had chaotic lives, they were vulnerable, so they were disbelieved. Plus ca change.

 

[najaB]

Anyone who does not plan to remain here long-term should not have the vote and therefore be able to influence decisions affecting this country long after they have left.

Anyone who goes to the trouble to get settled status or indefinite leave to remain clearly has an intention to stay here long-term. By your logic, UK citizens who move overseas should lose their right to vote, no?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Can you really not see that, if you have been taught and therefore to some extent believe, that women are not equal members of society, then that is likely to affect how you behave towards women, including making it more likely that you may think it's OK to abuse women?

Genuine question: is this specific to the culture of certain ethnic minorities?

And if you think it is, how do you explain Andrew Tate and the wider incel movement?

 

[Cross City]

The Tories are going to lose this election fighting a culture war nobody else wants to participate in and I can't wait for it.

The trouble with right-wing populism is that you need to be popular to enact it, which they're not, and the policies need to be popular, which they aren't.

People care about the price of the shopping, mortgages, the NHS, and education, which Braverman and her cohort of other National Socialists Conservatives are wilfully ignoring. People rightfully couldn't care less about people rocking up on the south coast and then the government creating an artificial immigration problem by deliberately not processing claims fast enough.

She's targeting the very people she as Home Secretary is in charge of dealing with. If immigration is out of control she is either too incompetent to do her job or she's manufacturing a problem which doesn't exist. Either way she shouldn't be anywhere near government.

 

[MikeWM]

Baby steps.

But I'm not supporting it while it looks like an attempt to influence the outcome of a future referendum on EU membership, which restricting the expansion to EU citizens looks very much like indeed. If the idea was to extend to *all* permanent residents, I'd think it worthy of debate.

I do think it is somewhat bizarre that if an American and a Canadian move here on the same day, both settle, buy a house, start a family, pay lots of taxes etc. - for at least the first 5 years the Canadian can vote and the American cannot, as naturalisation takes *at least* 5 years. But for some reason Labour aren't proposing to deal with that anomaly.

 

[Broucek]

Although living in a country where the pay gap is almost 15% I’d not be throwing too many stones.

Are you seriously drawing a parallel between women being underpaid* in the UK and women being treated as actual second-class citizens in some cultures?

* Gender Pay Gap is an imperfect measure of fairness in any case, but that's a topic for another day

 

[Falcon1200]

Anyone who goes to the trouble to get settled status or indefinite leave to remain clearly has an intention to stay here long-term.

In which case, apply for citizenship. If they do not wish to do so, fair enough, that is of course their choice. But to expect to be able to vote in the Government one day while being able to leave the country the next is IMHO unreasonable.

By your logic, UK citizens who move overseas should lose their right to vote, no?

Which actually raises the question of why people not living here should have the right to vote and therefore influence decisions, the majority of which by far do not affect them.

As a matter of interest, where, in the EU and elsewhere, do non-citizens (from anywhere) have the right to vote in national elections?

 

[JamesT]

Which actually raises the question of why people not living here should have the right to vote and therefore influence decisions, the majority of which by far do not affect them.

As a matter of interest, where, in the EU and elsewhere, do non-citizens (from anywhere) have the right to vote in national elections?

Currently, UK citizens who move abroad lose their right to vote in UK elections after 15 years.

I had a very brief look yesterday, I think I came up with New Zealand allowing permanent residents to vote in national elections, and Uruguay allowing permanent residents after 15 years. Then there are the reciprocal arrangements for the UK, Ireland, and the Commonwealth.

 

[Falcon1200]

I had a very brief look yesterday, I think I came up with New Zealand allowing permanent residents to vote in national elections, and Uruguay allowing permanent residents after 15 years. Then there are the reciprocal arrangements for the UK, Ireland, and the Commonwealth.

Thanks for the info.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There’s a big group of people abusing children and a small group of people abusing children. So to make the biggest impact we target the smaller group. You’ll need to explain the logic there as, truthfully, I can’t see any.

OK, let's take a totally hypothetical example, and remove ethnicity/culture from the reasoning: You're in charge of allocating resources to solve some crime X. You look at the statistics, and you discover that 5% of instances of X occur in Hampshire (where 2% of the population lives). How are you going to allocate resources? Are you going to say, 2% of the population live in Hampshire therefore you'll allocate 2% of your resources to Hampshire, strictly in line with the population? No: If you want to maximise how many crimes you solve/prevent, you'll focus more resources on Hampshire because that's where this crime is concentrated. Maybe you'll allocate - say - 10% of your resources to Hampshire and 90% to the rest of the country. Or maybe it'll be 4% to Hampshire and 96% to the rest of the country: The actual optimal amount is going to be very dependent on the situation and on the nature of your intelligence about the crime, but the point is, you'll do at least some focusing of resources on the communities in which the crime is most concentrated.

 

[brad465]

Any Tory politicians complaining about allowing EU citizens residing in the UK to vote, but turning a blind eye to the fact party members outside the UK, with no UK citizenship or right to vote in General Elections, can vote for a Tory party leader is being a hypocrite:

Tory leadership election: Meet the overseas voters picking the next PM

Conservatives who are not UK citizens explain why they’re voting in the party’s leadership ballot.

www.bbc.co.uk

Beyond the shores of the UK, a small community of devoted Conservative supporters have had their eyes glued to the twists and turns of the party's leadership contest.
As paid-up Conservative members who joined at least three months before the ballot closes, they get a vote in the election to pick the next British prime minister.
Under party rules, these overseas members do not need British citizenship to cast a ballot, nor the right to vote in a UK general election.
Provided they paid their annual membership fee, they can have a role in shaping the political future of the UK - as Giuseppe Dottore did this month.
He is part of a voter base that makes up about 1% of the party's estimated 160,000-strong membership.
An Italian lawyer who has never been a resident or a citizen of the UK, Mr Dottore is one of the roughly 1,600 members of Conservative Abroad. It is the international branch of the party, with local groups in countries worldwide - from Spain to Vietnam.
"Anyone living anywhere in the world is welcome to join Conservatives Abroad from just £25 per year," its website advertises.

 

[najaB]

Currently, UK citizens who move abroad lose their right to vote in UK elections after 15 years.

Almost, but not quite. They lose the automatic right to vote 15 years after they last registered to vote. This can be renewed annually at a British High Commission overseas.

Which actually raises the question of why people not living here should have the right to vote and therefore influence decisions, the majority of which by far do not affect them.

So you do propose that UK citizens should lose their right to vote when they move abroad. After how many years?