Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DynamicSpirit]

What? Being able to fulfil the ambition to own your own home or be secure in your retirement?

I think the issue here is the specific point of contention here is that you used the phrase, "to be handed to you". And no - those things shouldn't be just handed to you: They should be things that you work for and achieve.

Those used to be things that the Tory party believed in surely? And yet by all accounts if you're under the age of about 45 or so they are increasingly unlikely to be obtainable.

And yes, that is the issue on the other side (and one of the major issues the UK currently faces). Something like owning your own home should be something you work for, but it also should be something that's achievable, and one of the tragedies today is that, largely thanks to the housing shortage, it's not achievable for many people. That's a problem that does need fixing.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the issue here is the specific point of contention here is that you used the phrase, "to be handed to you". And no - those things shouldn't be just handed to you: They should be things that you work for and achieve.

I think you and @DustyBin are perhaps reading a bit too much into my micky take of some Tory Politicians

And yes, that is the issue on the other side (and one of the major issues the UK currently faces). Something like owning your own home should be something you work for, but it also should be something that's achievable, and one of the tragedies today is that, largely thanks to the housing shortage, it's not achievable for many people. That's a problem that does need fixing.

Because I agree, it's clearly something you need to work for and won't, nor indeed should, be handed to anyway but now increasingly is an impossible dream for many people. Yet to listen to some commentators and politicians you would think that the issue is simply one of a lack of personal drive rather than serious structural issues that have gone from being a problem under the last Labour government to quite possibly a drag on the economy over the last thirteen years of Tory administration and where there appear to be precious few Tory politicians (the like of Gove and Simon Clarke are notable exceptions) who appear interested in fixing it.

 

[dosxuk]

If re-joining the single market means bringing back Freedom of Movement and therefore increasing immigration to even higher levels than it is at today, then pretty much everyone who needs to find somewhere to live is going to be negatively impacted. I think that's rather more than 'very few' people (Set against that, anyone who wants to sell a house or has one to let out would be positively impacted).

One of the roles of Government is to plan for the future needs of the country - ensuring that a sufficient supply of homes, utilities, transport and ancillary requirements like schools, hospitals and emergency services are built in good time.

We currently have very little unemployment, low levels of non-workers and record demand for workers. Yet we also have a lack of homes, hospitals, schools, electricity, gas, water, etc etc. This is a failure of multiple years, and multiple parties, of Government.

So who do the Government blame? Is it themselves for not investing in these basic services, ensuring the utility suppliers are planning correctly or making sure sufficient land for homes is made available? Not a chance, it's all because too many immigrants are coming here.


There's only one reliable way to reduce economic migration - have no jobs, no homes and no prospects for the people living in the country. Suddenly you'll find a lot of people going the other way looking for better lives - but I'm not sure that is really a win for the population.

 

[Purple Train]

Never mind, "Rishi is confident he will be PM for years" and "won't need a coalition with the Lib Dems or DUP", according to the Daily Express (just glanced at a physical copy earlier).

Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there. Never mind, if I become obscenely rich like Sunak, I'll be able to afford to escape it...

 

[DustyBin]

I think you and @DustyBin are perhaps reading a bit too much into my micky take of some Tory Politicians

Yes, apologies I was being slightly flippant (or I thought I was!).

Because I agree, it's clearly something you need to work for and won't, nor indeed should, be handed to anyway but now increasingly is an impossible dream for many people.

That’s fair enough. As I’ve said previously, I firmly believe in equality of opportunity, which is badly lacking in society (although that’s nothing new).

In regard to home ownership specifically, there’s a definite geographic divide. House prices in some areas make home ownership extremely difficult for many, and whilst it’s easy to say “look elsewhere” I appreciate it’s not always that simple.

To put the shoe on the other foot, if we were to move to say a London suburb and needed to find £4-5k each month for a mortgage, our lifestyles would change significantly. If you’re just starting out and trying to get a foot on the ladder you’d obviously need a deposit first… Ouch!

 

[MikeWM]

Perhaps, but you could in theory have one (single market and customs union) without the other. Wasn't that one of the options on the table during early 2019?

Probably better discussed in the Brexit thread, but the biggest problem with that is you end up having to follow all sorts of laws and regulations that you have no democratic say in whatever, which is arguably a worse situation than full membership (where there is at least a hint of democracy, though far less than ideal).

That said, I did think at the time that there was some argument for us joining EFTA - if they'd have us - and I wouldn't be totally averse to at least *considering* that again.

Never mind, "Rishi is confident he will be PM for years" and "won't need a coalition with the Lib Dems or DUP", according to the Daily Express (just glanced at a physical copy earlier).

That's what PMs usually say when they're about to be removed - I recall Johnson saying similar. Actually, after the last few weeks, with all the U-turns on immigration, retained EU regulations, Confucius institutes, etc. etc. I'm starting to wonder if he's actively trying to get removed!

 

[Cross City]

I'm starting to wonder if he's actively trying to get removed!

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he stepped down before an election.

 

[JamesT]

Perhaps, but you could in theory have one (single market and customs union) without the other. Wasn't that one of the options on the table during early 2019? Or, introduce a more "bureaucratic" form of FoM where more paperwork is involved (criminal, security checks etc; can't claim benefits unless you've been working here for X years) which would probably limit the numbers wanting to come here anyway.

You can't have the Single Market without FoM. It's one of the 'Four Freedoms' which the EU regard as indivisible. Hence when the UK decided that FoM was our red line, a 'Hard' Brexit was inevitable.
The Customs Union by itself is possible, as in Turkey. Though the Turkish agreement doesn't include agriculture, which seems to be one of the key areas that people want trade with the EU freed up.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think we might be wandering in Brexit thread territory here so it might be best to take some of this discussion back over there I think?

 

[yorksrob]

I think the issue here is the specific point of contention here is that you used the phrase, "to be handed to you". And no - those things shouldn't be just handed to you: They should be things that you work for and achieve.



And yes, that is the issue on the other side (and one of the major issues the UK currently faces). Something like owning your own home should be something you work for, but it also should be something that's achievable, and one of the tragedies today is that, largely thanks to the housing shortage, it's not achievable for many people. That's a problem that does need fixing.

But of course, the top 1% of society will very much have everything "handed to them" and they will be in a position to use that unearned wealth to appropriate resources such as housing and deprive everyone else of it.

This is the crux of the problem.

 

[3141]

That's what PMs usually say when they're about to be removed - I recall Johnson saying similar. Actually, after the last few weeks, with all the U-turns on immigration, retained EU regulations, Confucius institutes, etc. etc. I'm starting to wonder if he's actively trying to get removed!

I think it's arguable that Sunak has recognised that some things need to be fixed, or at least started to be fixed, partly because so much of the past few years was diverted to Brexit, and then to Covid. Now, will the more extreme right wing conservatives recognise that, and enable him to get on with it? Or will they persist in dividing the party, further reducing its chances of avoiding disaster at the next General Election? There's a report today about the declining proportion of voters under 49 who expect to vote Conservative, which threatens its longer-term existence. I doubt whether Sunak is actively trying to get himself removed, but I'm sure he is aware of the risk of grappling with some of the real issues, if some of the right-wingers are so attached to their dogmas that they'll further undermine stability of the government and the party. Unlike some right-wingers, who believe they have a God-given right to rule, Sunak may not care too much if he's tried his best and then fails.

 

[nw1]

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he stepped down before an election.

I think that would surprise me, because many of the alternatives are no better.

Mordaunt might have better leadership qualities, but I would rather suspect they wouldn't want to waste such qualities on an election which they, on the balance of probability, will not win anyway. Rather the bets must surely be on her to become leader of the opposition next year.

 

[Mikw]

Saw an analysis on Youtube today saying Braverman is likely to be the next PM if Sunak doesn't stand up to the hard right wingers in his party.

Shudder.......

 

[MikeWM]

I think it's arguable that Sunak has recognised that some things need to be fixed, or at least started to be fixed, partly because so much of the past few years was diverted to Brexit, and then to Covid.

Certainly I'd agree that there is rather a lot of things the government *ought* to be concentrating on, as the country isn't exactly in a good state at the moment.

The problem I think is that while Sunak seems to be throwing away doing pretty much all the stuff he promised, there's nothing obvious being put in its place. The government doesn't appear to be about much of anything right now. (They can't even get Great British Railways done, for good or ill).

 

[david1212]

One of the roles of Government is to plan for the future needs of the country - ensuring that a sufficient supply of homes, utilities, transport and ancillary requirements like schools, hospitals and emergency services are built in good time.

We currently have very little unemployment, low levels of non-workers and record demand for workers. Yet we also have a lack of homes, hospitals, schools, electricity, gas, water, etc etc. This is a failure of multiple years, and multiple parties, of Government.

So who do the Government blame? Is it themselves for not investing in these basic services, ensuring the utility suppliers are planning correctly or making sure sufficient land for homes is made available? Not a chance, it's all because too many immigrants are coming here.

There's only one reliable way to reduce economic migration - have no jobs, no homes and no prospects for the people living in the country. Suddenly you'll find a lot of people going the other way looking for better lives - but I'm not sure that is really a win for the population.

This is a puzzle to me. We have much less manufacturing / production than 40+ years ago and what we still have is overall more automated, there are far fewer jobs both front of house and back room in banks, building societies, insurance and similar, larger businesses no longer have typing pools, telephonists have been replaced by automated systems, customers order online which goes straight to the warehouse instead of by mail, telephone or fax. As discussed as while ago on another thread once most women stopped working when their first child was nearly due then until the youngest was a teen if they did any work it was most only part-time. Now far more return to work within a year.

So what jobs have taken the place of those that have been lost ?
I can think of distribution both long and short distance, Amazon, Evri etc drivers, childcare, elderly care linked to longer life but not much else.

 

[DerekC]

This is a puzzle to me. We have much less manufacturing / production than 40+ years ago and what we still have is overall more automated, there are far fewer jobs both front of house and back room in banks, building societies, insurance and similar, larger businesses no longer have typing pools, telephonists have been replaced by automated systems, customers order online which goes straight to the warehouse instead of by mail, telephone or fax. As discussed as while ago on another thread once most women stopped working when their first child was nearly due then until the youngest was a teen if they did any work it was most only part-time. Now far more return to work within a year.

So what jobs have taken the place of those that have been lost ?
I can think of distribution both long and short distance, Amazon, Evri etc drivers, childcare, elderly care linked to longer life but not much else.

Lots of (badly paid) jobs associated with eating out, takeaways and food delivery. In 1948 when it was created the NHS employed 144,000 people. Now it's 1.2M. So healthcare.

 

[JamesT]

This is a puzzle to me. We have much less manufacturing / production than 40+ years ago and what we still have is overall more automated, there are far fewer jobs both front of house and back room in banks, building societies, insurance and similar, larger businesses no longer have typing pools, telephonists have been replaced by automated systems, customers order online which goes straight to the warehouse instead of by mail, telephone or fax. As discussed as while ago on another thread once most women stopped working when their first child was nearly due then until the youngest was a teen if they did any work it was most only part-time. Now far more return to work within a year.

So what jobs have taken the place of those that have been lost ?
I can think of distribution both long and short distance, Amazon, Evri etc drivers, childcare, elderly care linked to longer life but not much else.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...loyeetypes/datasets/employmentbyindustryemp13 is the up to date statistics. Though that only gives sectors, which doesn’t necessarily say what kind of jobs people do within that.

 

[ainsworth74]

Lots of (badly paid) jobs associated with eating out, takeaways and food delivery. In 1948 when it was created the NHS employed 144,000 people. Now it's 1.2M. So healthcare.

Plus add social care to that as well. That's another million odd I believe.

 

[DustyBin]

I think that would surprise me, because many of the alternatives are no better.

Mordaunt might have better leadership qualities, but I would rather suspect they wouldn't want to waste such qualities on an election which they, on the balance of probability, will not win anyway. Rather the bets must surely be on her to become leader of the opposition next year.

I still can’t believe she lost out to Truss, although it may have been a blessing with hindsight.

It’s been years since we had a half-competent government and a half-competent opposition, something we’re all worse off for regardless of our individual allegiances IMO.

 

[Snow1964]

Lots of (badly paid) jobs associated with eating out, takeaways and food delivery.

Unfortunately a side effect of Labours minimum wage introduced 25 years ago, some (rogue) employers see it as a target not to be exceeded.

Personally I am against having a minimum wage that is lower than living wage, (actually I would go further and say minimum wage should be at least 10% higher than living wage requirements, so work pays) and I think there should be obligation for employers to fund fair pensions too, so people don't live permanently near poverty levels.

The current Government of Rishi Sunak (including when he was chancellor) has made a complete mess of the lower end of wages rules by not making a minimum self employed rate include a decent pension contribution and equal NI rates to employed.

 

[nw1]

Saw an analysis on Youtube today saying Braverman is likely to be the next PM if Sunak doesn't stand up to the hard right wingers in his party.

Shudder.......

Can't see it happening.

The Tories will, I'm sure, suffer their biggest defeat in history if that happens, cut back to rural eastern England and the Midlands with the southeast basically becoming a sea of yellow with a few red islands corresponding to the larger urban centres.

While I freely admit Boris had certain "soft skills", shall we say, which endeared him to some people, Braverman is completely the opposite. Authoritarian, hard-right politics and zero social skills. A completely unlikeable and unappealing candidate for middle-ground voters, I'm sure.

 

[dangie]

….It’s been years since we had a half-competent government and a half-competent opposition, something we’re all worse off for regardless of our individual allegiances IMO.

This is what bothers me come the next General Election.
Yes the Conservatives are bad. The voters know they are bad. They know just how bad.
But with Labour? Will they be better? Will they be even worse? Who knows.
I have an awful feeling many will stick to the devil they know….. and I hope I’m wrong.

 

[nw1]

This is what bothers me come the next General Election.
Yes the Conservatives are bad. The voters know they are bad. They know just how bad.
But with Labour? Will they be better? Will they be even worse? Who knows.
I have an awful feeling many will stick to the devil they know….. and I hope I’m wrong.

The problem with that logic is that you'd essentially end up with the same government in perpetuity unless the opposition is spectacularly good. And I think people will want a change, just because it's bad for democracy to have the same old party in power all the time.

The fact that Starmer is more appealing than Corbyn, and Sunak less appealing than Johnson (before Partygate), alone will surely close the gap compared to last time. And that is before we consider all the things that have happened in the past 12 months with the Tories.

 

[Yew]

The problem with that logic is that you'd essentially end up with the same government in perpetuity unless the opposition is spectacularly good. And I think people will want a change, just because it's bad for democracy to have the same old party in power all the time.

The fact that Starmer is more appealing than Corbyn, and Sunak less appealing than Johnson (before Partygate), alone will surely close the gap compared to last time. And that is before we consider all the things that have happened in the past 12 months with the Tories.

I did hear a lot of people in 2019 saying "I've voted labour all my life and nothing's changed, whilst the Tories had been in power for a decade"

 

[Purple Train]

This is what bothers me come the next General Election.
Yes the Conservatives are bad. The voters know they are bad. They know just how bad.
But with Labour? Will they be better? Will they be even worse? Who knows.
I have an awful feeling many will stick to the devil they know….. and I hope I’m wrong.

Possible shades of '92?

 

[nw1]

Possible shades of '92?

I think Sunak now is less popular than Major was in 1991. Thatcher was the problem in 1989/90 and Major was seen as a reasonable moderate who was doing a reasonable job. He was not promoting anyone as extreme as Braverman and Anderson. And I think the Tories actually started leading (slightly) in the opinion polls very soon after Major replaced Thatcher. That also is a key difference.

I'd say at the moment we're more like we were in about 1994 for Tory unpopularity, but without a Blair figure on the Labour side. Now John Smith was, to my mind, a good leader - better than Blair in fact - but let's say we had someone mediocre leading Labour in 1994. I'd have expected a Labour win in 1997 even under a mediocre leader.

 

[DustyBin]

This is what bothers me come the next General Election.
Yes the Conservatives are bad. The voters know they are bad. They know just how bad.
But with Labour? Will they be better? Will they be even worse? Who knows.
I have an awful feeling many will stick to the devil they know….. and I hope I’m wrong.

I pretty much agree with you. The only thing I’d say is that the whole situation is more fluid than it’s ever been previously; see the collapse of the “red wall” last time around. There are swathes of first time Tory voters who may not give them a second chance.

The problem with that logic is that you'd essentially end up with the same government in perpetuity unless the opposition is spectacularly good. And I think people will want a change, just because it's bad for democracy to have the same old party in power all the time.

The fact that Starmer is more appealing than Corbyn, and Sunak less appealing than Johnson (before Partygate), alone will surely close the gap compared to last time. And that is before we consider all the things that have happened in the past 12 months with the Tories.

I agree with your logic. I’m still not convinced that we’ll see a Labour landslide as it stands but the next GE is surely theirs to lose.

 

[nw1]

I pretty much agree with you. The only thing I’d say is that the whole situation is more fluid than it’s ever been previously; see the collapse of the “red wall” last time around. There are swathes of first time Tory voters who may not give them a second chance.

That's the thing. I think most of the Red Wall will swing back, and with a lot of people tactically voting Lib Dem in the affluent but liberal south, the Tories are being pressured from two sides. And then I think Labour will gain places like Swindon and Milton Keynes, probably Bournemouth and one of the Worthing seats, and even places like Medway if they are very lucky.

I can see the Tories holding places like Dudley and Walsall - as the West Midlands seems to still be somewhat fond of them - but I don't think that'll be enough for them to be largest party.

I agree with your logic. I’m still not convinced that we’ll see a Labour landslide as it stands but the next GE is surely theirs to lose.

I tend to agree we won't get a landslide. It'll be a small majority or a hung parliament with Labour largest party.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Unfortunately a side effect of Labours minimum wage introduced 25 years ago, some (rogue) employers see it as a target not to be exceeded.

I would say the problem is more complex: The minimum wage was initially introduced as a way to prevent a minority of employers from exploiting people by paying absurdly, and unusually, low wages - and it would have been quite effective if Governments had left it at that. But instead, successive Governments decided instead to use the minimum wage as a way to enforce more equality (not a good idea - see below), so they kept raising it and raising it until it became something that, employers basically couldn't afford to pay more than the minimum wage for most unskilled jobs, so it's become a de facto standard wage instead.

Personally I am against having a minimum wage that is lower than living wage, (actually I would go further and say minimum wage should be at least 10% higher than living wage requirements, so work pays) and I think there should be obligation for employers to fund fair pensions too, so people don't live permanently near poverty levels.

But that doesn't work because the only way employers can afford to pay more is to put their prices up to cover the increased wage bill. And then workers discover that, because of the inflation that's been caused by the minimum wage increase, the new minimum wage is also not enough, so the Government comes under pressure to increase it again, and you end up with an inflationary spiral that helps no-one. Throw in to the mix that the housing shortage means rents will inevitably rise in line with what people can pay, and will therefore absorb any minimum wage increase that general inflation hasn't already knocked out, and you have end up with minimum wage increases quite possibly causing more harm than good.

The lesson is: You can't make people better off by throwing paper money around (or by obliging businesses to throw paper money around): You can fiddle at the margins with equality, but often at a cost of lowering average living standards. If you want to solve poverty, you have to address productivity and the total amount of wealth that the country as a whole produces.

 

[nw1]

I pretty much agree with you. The only thing I’d say is that the whole situation is more fluid than it’s ever been previously; see the collapse of the “red wall” last time around. There are swathes of first time Tory voters who may not give them a second chance.

I think the Johnson vs Sunak question will also play a part in the red wall. While both men are from highly privileged backgrounds, Johnson had that "man of the people" persona which appealed to many. His replacements - Truss and Sunak - do not. I can see a large number of people last time would probably have voted for Johnson, not the Tories. Take away Johnson, and the vote is gone.