Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Typhoon]

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.

I suspect Johnson(2024) wouldn't perform as well as Johnson(2019) unless the heavy cloud over the uplands clears and the sun starts shining through.. People in thee Red Wall constituencies were sold a vision, they are still waiting for it to materialise. I think that more would vote for Johnson Version 2024 than Sunak as things stand (those who still are taken in by the bluff and bluster), but not that many more.

 

[nw1]

I suspect Johnson(2024) wouldn't perform as well as Johnson(2019) unless the heavy cloud over the uplands clears and the sun starts shining through.. People in thee Red Wall constituencies were sold a vision, they are still waiting for it to materialise. I think that more would vote for Johnson Version 2024 than Sunak as things stand (those who still are taken in by the bluff and bluster), but not that many more.

I would tend to agree there, to be fair I was comparing Johnson (2019) with Sunak (2024). I'd agree that bringing Johnson back would not be helpful for the Tories.

 

[Yew]

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.

I note that conservatives love to trot out this line, yet the almost all of periods of inflation we have had seem to have been as a result of geopolitical shocks to the imports market. Perhaps this is more than a little over-egged for idealogical reasons.

 

[nw1]

I note that conservatives love to trot out this line, yet the almost all of periods of inflation we have had seem to have been as a result of geopolitical shocks to the imports market. Perhaps this is more than a little over-egged for idealogical reasons.

Monty Python, 1972:

"And when the time comes to vote,
Kindly vote Con-ser-va-tive.
Rising prices, unemployment,
Both come from the wages spiral,
Curb inflation, save the nation,
Join us now and save the economy".

(something like that anyway. It was a mock party political broadcast featuring singing, dancing politicians, where the Tory, played by John Cleese, started off sensible before bursting into this song).

 

[Typhoon]

I would tend to agree there, to be fair I was comparing Johnson (2019) with Sunak (2024). I'd agree that bringing Johnson back would not be helpful for the Tories.

I understood that. It was in case anyone was thinking of interpreting:

Take away Johnson, and the vote is gone.

as meaning 'Bring back Johnson and the vote returns' (you know, those that think that he walks on water) that the Johnson or now presents a different image to the Johnson of 2019 - just as the Corbyn of 2019 presented a different image to the Corbyn of two years earlier, the Clegg v. 2015 to Clegg v. 2010. They have been found out.

Writing that last sentence reminded me: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...over-boris-johnson-s-honours-list/ar-AA1bpOUO
- someone needs to tell her that she cannot pick and choose when she gets the ermine. She either accepts, or declines otherwise we might end up with a massive influx into the Lords with Johnson's, Truss' and Sunak's appointments all added at the same time.

 

[3141]

I understood that. It was in case anyone was thinking of interpreting:

as meaning 'Bring back Johnson and the vote returns' (you know, those that think that he walks on water) that the Johnson or now presents a different image to the Johnson of 2019 - just as the Corbyn of 2019 presented a different image to the Corbyn of two years earlier, the Clegg v. 2015 to Clegg v. 2010. They have been found out.

 

[GusB]

Integrity, professionalism and accountability...

Braverman ‘asked civil servants for help’ after being caught speeding

The home secretary faces calls for inquiry into reports she asked for special treatment after being issued a speeding notice

www.theguardian.com

The Home Secretary is facing calls for an inquiry into reports she asked Home Office civil servants to help secure her special treatment after being caught speeding.

Suella Braverman allegedly asked Home Office officials to organise a one-to-one driving awareness course after she was caught speeding last summer.


The bespoke arrangement meant she would not have had to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online course where her name could be seen by other drivers.

Civil servants refused the request but were so concerned they reported the matter to the Cabinet Office. Braverman instead turned to a political aide to try and arrange the course without revealing her identity.


Completing the course would have meant the Home Secretary avoided points on her licence.

The requests were refused, the Sunday Times reported, and Braverman later chose to avoid the course completely and accepted three penalty points on her driving licence.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats called last night for an inquiry into events by the prime minister’s adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Laurie Magnus.

The rules mean Rishi Sunak would have to commission his ethics tsar to look into the allegations, which Labour has suggested could breach the ministerial code.

The home secretary was issued a speeding notice by police outside London when she was the attorney general in the summer of 2022.

As Home Secretary, Braverman shouldn't be breaking any laws at all, let alone trying to cover it up. Rules for some...

 

[Typhoon]

Integrity, professionalism and accountability...

Braverman ‘asked civil servants for help’ after being caught speeding

The home secretary faces calls for inquiry into reports she asked for special treatment after being issued a speeding notice

www.theguardian.com

As Home Secretary, Braverman shouldn't be breaking any laws at all, let alone trying to cover it up. Rules for some...

I suspect it is something she will live to regret. The Mail have a dig at her today:

We probably care less about the private failings of politicians than we have ever done. Issues that might have brought down a Minister 30 years ago would nowadays be regarded as intrusions into privacy rather than causes for resignation.

When most of the rules have gone, it is harder to be a hypocrite.

But one thing remains bound to bring real outrage – people in high office trying to get around rules the rest of us must obey.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...p&cvid=f44add8e6c954bb7a634b5541d8a7ff0&ei=14

Did she think we would never find out? Fat chance! I would have thought it would have done her public image no end of good to take the course. Instead she is probably spending time trying to find out who leaked the story. As a former Attorney General I would have thought she would have known why those who plead not guilty generally get a heavier sentence if their guilt is proven. I suspect this will not go down too well with many Blue voters in the shires, where Law-n-Order is a priority. OK, it is speeding, but it is still breaking the law.

Starmer has taken a fairly strong line on this sort of thing in the past, in certain areas at least. He needs to maintain that, Davey too. Otherwise it will be 'they are all the same'.

 

[Peterthegreat]

I suspect it is something she will live to regret. The Mail have a dig at her today:


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...p&cvid=f44add8e6c954bb7a634b5541d8a7ff0&ei=14

Did she think we would never find out? Fat chance! I would have thought it would have done her public image no end of good to take the course. Instead she is probably spending time trying to find out who leaked the story. As a former Attorney General I would have thought she would have known why those who plead not guilty generally get a heavier sentence if their guilt is proven. I suspect this will not go down too well with many Blue voters in the shires, where Law-n-Order is a priority. OK, it is speeding, but it is still breaking the law.

Starmer has taken a fairly strong line on this sort of thing in the past, in certain areas at least. He needs to maintain that, Davey too. Otherwise it will be 'they are all the same'.

Interesting that the Mail on Sunday has it on the front page.

 

[dangie]

How I’ve read the story, and in no way am I sticking up for Braverman, she accepted she was caught speeding and accepted the speeding ticket. She didn’t try to wheedle out of it. It was her actions afterwards that are brought into question. She asked for a private course. It was refused. She then paid the fine and has points on her licence.

 

[DustyBin]

How I’ve read the story, and in no way am I sticking up for Braverman, she accepted she was caught speeding and accepted the speeding ticket. She didn’t try to wheedle out of it. It was her actions afterwards that are brought into question. She asked for a private course. It was refused. She then paid the fine and has points on her licence.

This is pretty much it as I see it. She attempted to use her position to obtain special treatment, which has turned a minor speeding offence that nobody would have been interested in, into a media circus. It was completely stupid. Although, and again this isn’t to defend her in any way, one has to question the timing the “leak”. Is her time up?

 

[Typhoon]

How I’ve read the story, and in no way am I sticking up for Braverman, she accepted she was caught speeding and accepted the speeding ticket. She didn’t try to wheedle out of it. It was her actions afterwards that are brought into question. She asked for a private course. It was refused. She then paid the fine and has points on her licence.

From the article quoted by @GusB

Braverman ‘asked civil servants for help’ after being caught speeding​

The home secretary faces calls for inquiry into reports she asked for special treatment after being issued a speeding notice

The Home Secretary is facing calls for an inquiry into reports she asked Home Office civil servants to help secure her special treatment after being caught speeding.
Suella Braverman allegedly asked Home Office officials to organise a one-to-one driving awareness course after she was caught speeding last summer.

The bespoke arrangement meant she would not have had to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online course where her name could be seen by other drivers.

I have underlined part of your response, and that is the key. There shouldn't have been any request for alternative arrangements (I won't use 'special treatment' because that is emotive). Once we go down that road, all sorts of people will be claiming it. I particularly question the part in italics - why should people not know? It is the impression that is given. Over the years there have been more and more examples of 'one rule for them, another rule for us', particularly since 2019. The present administration needs to try to show that it is different, to regain trust; this says they are just like the Johnson Administration (Partygate, Paterson, Pincher and all).

EDIT:

This is pretty much it as I see it. She attempted to use her position to obtain special treatment, which has turned a minor speeding offence that nobody would have been interested in, into a media circus. It was completely stupid. Although, and again this isn’t to defend her in any way, one has to question the timing the “leak”. Is her time up?

Exactly - just like Paterson. Two week suspension and it would all have been over. Braverman - take the course on-line, everyone knows she has done it, a few comments and it is all over. Instead she makes matters worse by trying to find a 'work-around'. And she is really naive if she doesn't think it would be leaked. If you are in government, the enemies you should most fear sit behind you.

 

[nw1]

Integrity, professionalism and accountability...

Braverman ‘asked civil servants for help’ after being caught speeding

The home secretary faces calls for inquiry into reports she asked for special treatment after being issued a speeding notice

www.theguardian.com

As Home Secretary, Braverman shouldn't be breaking any laws at all, let alone trying to cover it up. Rules for some...

I wonder if she would have tried to get immigrants who were found speeding deported? Really wouldn't surprise me with her holier-than-thou style.

Again, like so many recent examples (Johnson, Hancock), hypocrisy is the big problem. She is a tubthumping authoritarian, yet wants to hide (from the public) her own wrongdoing. It also comes across like she is "too good" for a public safe driving course. And she recently ranted on about the "elite", as if she is not a member of it. Hahahahahaha....

 

[dangie]

…..Over the years there have been more and more examples of 'one rule for them, another rule for us…..

This though is one time when ‘one rule for them, another rule for us’ was refused. She asked, it was refused. She paid the fine and accepted the points. If this had of gone in the direction she wanted then yes, it would have merited an investigation, but as it didn’t she should maybe be left to her own embarrassment.

 

[takno]

This though is one time when ‘one rule for them, another rule for us’ was refused. She asked, it was refused. She paid the fine and accepted the points. If this had of gone in the direction she wanted then yes, it would have merited an investigation, but as it didn’t she should maybe be left to her own embarrassment.

It's the creeping corruption of even asking that's the problem. Instead of doing the right thing herself she forced civil servants who now report to her to do the right for her. Honestly that makes some of her more recent abusive statements about the civil service seem like possible retribution. I'd actually be less bothered if she'd got away with it

 

[DustyBin]

It's the creeping corruption of even asking that's the problem. Instead of doing the right thing herself she forced civil servants who now report to her to do the right for her. Honestly that makes some of her more recent abusive statements about the civil service seem like possible retribution. I'd actually be less bothered if she'd got away with it

Agreed. In isolation it may appear a fairly minor misdemeanour, but in the current climate it was a serious error of judgment, or to put it bluntly (again), completely stupid. I’ve no sympathy; she’s the architect of her own problems (regardless of any political motivation behind the leak).

 

[Typhoon]

This though is one time when ‘one rule for them, another rule for us’ was refused. She asked, it was refused. She paid the fine and accepted the points. If this had of gone in the direction she wanted then yes, it would have merited an investigation, but as it didn’t she should maybe be left to her own embarrassment.

But she tried. It was others who said no.

Incidentally, I have not mentioned an investigation. I can't see the point unless she/ the government/ others disagree with the reporting of events.

Shelagh Fogarty summed it up on Broadcasting House (R4), "She needs to take the medicine like the rest of us." (although 'needed' is probably accurate here). Fogarty admitted to speeding, the presenter, Anita Arnand said that she had taken the course, Chris Mason, the Political Editor, asked Sunak at the G7. It has become a story because Braverman sought to be treated differently. That is the problem, if the average man or woman in the street asked for an alternative arrangement, they would be laughed out of court, she should be treated no differently.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This though is one time when ‘one rule for them, another rule for us’ was refused. She asked, it was refused. She paid the fine and accepted the points. If this had of gone in the direction she wanted then yes, it would have merited an investigation, but as it didn’t she should maybe be left to her own embarrassment.

I guess it depends on the exact circumstances (which we don't know). If it was simply a case of, she asked someone 'Is there any chance of my doing the course privately?', and got the reply 'no', then I can't see any huge problem from an ethical point of view. After all, in any Government, there are probably hundreds of casual conversations every week where someone is asking, 'Is X possible?', and it is reasonable for a senior Government minister to have concerns about security that the rest of us wouldn't have. On the other hand, if it was more like that she was repeatedly putting pressure on civil servants to let her do it privately after they'd told her that wasn't allowable, then it would be a much more serious issue. The fact that someone was actually motivated to report her suggests (but doesn't prove) that it was closer to the latter.

Either way, I'd agree that it was stupid of her not to just put her hands up publicly at the time and say, 'Sorry, I was caught speeding'.

 

[Snow1964]

But she tried. It was others who said no.

It was the fact she even considered requesting a private course, not automatically accepting same offer as everyone else. Implies expected privileges.

 

[jfollows]

Agreed. In isolation it may appear a fairly minor misdemeanour, but in the current climate it was a serious error of judgment, or to put it bluntly (again), completely stupid. I’ve no sympathy; she’s the architect of her own problems (regardless of any political motivation behind the leak).

I've always thought of Suella Braverman as a stupid person, and this just confirms it for me. She appears to have no view of how others see her, isolated in her Fareham/Westminster bubble, and I guess it's what happens to people in government after they've been in power for too long. Home Secretaries in particular become infected with the nonsense they're fed and start believing it. The arrogance of power, manifest.

 

[dangie]

I’m guessing that over time there’s been many people in the public limelight who have had a speeding fine and asked for ‘special treatment’. Whether they received it I don’t know. Still this does make for a good bit of news.

 

[nw1]

I’m guessing that over time there’s been many people in the public limelight who have had a speeding fine and asked for ‘special treatment’. Whether they received it I don’t know. Still this does make for a good bit of news.

I guess the vast majority of those, however, were not responsible for law and order.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I guess the vast majority of those, however, were not responsible for law and order.

Speeding is a curious one because it's - almost uniquely - a crime that is in many (most?) cases careless, but unintentional. For that reason I would guess most people wouldn't see it as a law and order issue, but rather as a strictly road safety issue, so I can't see that being home secretary makes much difference compared to any other cabinet position. Possibly more serious if you're in charge of transport . Off the top of my head I can't think of any case in which speeding alone is seen as a reason for an MP/minister not to be able to do their job. Chris Huhne and Fiona Onasanya both saw their political careers ended and their reputations trashed, but in both cases that was entirely because they lied to cover up their speeding (Although Onasanya was texting at the wheel too - arguably more serious).

Of course that just adds to the point that it was arguably stupid of Braverman not to just publicly admit that she'd been caught speeding and openly apologise for it.

(EDIT: And of course, not quite the same thing, but there was the case of a certain Mr. D. Cameron caught cycling though red-lights and no-entry signs etc. Didn't stop him being elected Prime Minister two years later. I guess that's because his actions were likewise widely seen as a road safety rather than a law and order thing - and he didn't try to cover it up).

 

[yorksrob]

I note that conservatives love to trot out this line, yet the almost all of periods of inflation we have had seem to have been as a result of geopolitical shocks to the imports market. Perhaps this is more than a little over-egged for idealogical reasons.

This is spot on.

 

[najaB]

She paid the fine and accepted the points. If this had of gone in the direction she wanted then yes, it would have merited an investigation, but as it didn’t she should maybe be left to her own embarrassment.

Depends on how the request was made and how it was rejected. If it was a simple "Would it be possible to..." which was met with a straightforward "No." then that would be the end of it. However, from the sound of things, it seems more like she put a fair bit of pressure on the officials and they had to resist several attempts.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Depends on how the request was made and how it was rejected. If it was a simple "Would it be possible to..." which was met with a straightforward "No." then that would be the end of it. However, from the sound of things, it seems more like she put a fair bit of pressure on the officials and they had to resist several attempts.

Even that has its problems. Ministers know full well they can’t ask civil servants to get involved in personal matters, which is what this was, regardless of how she tries to claim it was a security issue

 

[najaB]

Even that has its problems. Ministers know full well they can’t ask civil servants to get involved in personal matters, which is what this was, regardless of how she tries to claim it was a security issue

I know, but she could make the (rather tenuous) argument that it wasn't a personal matter: she wasn't asking them to do Suella Braverman a solid, but rather was enquiring about measures to keep the Home Secretary safe and that, immediately it was explained to her that it wasn't possible, that she paid the fine in her personal capacity, etc.

 

[3141]

From the article quoted by @GusB

I have underlined part of your response, and that is the key. There shouldn't have been any request for alternative arrangements (I won't use 'special treatment' because that is emotive). Once we go down that road, all sorts of people will be claiming it. I particularly question the part in italics - why should people not know? It is the impression that is given. Over the years there have been more and more examples of 'one rule for them, another rule for us', particularly since 2019. The present administration needs to try to show that it is different, to regain trust; this says they are just like the Johnson Administration (Partygate, Paterson, Pincher and all).

The Braverman incident doesn't say that the present administration is just like the Johnson administration as it occurred last year when Johnson was still PM.

Of course it's true that some politicians, as well as some others in positions of importance, try to get special treatment, or behave as though there's one rule for them and another for everyone else, but let's not forget that there are plenty of others who behave similarly. Think of speeding drivers who, when stopped, are found to have no tax or insurance.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I know, but she could make the (rather tenuous) argument that it wasn't a personal matter: she wasn't asking them to do Suella Braverman a solid, but rather was enquiring about measures to keep the Home Secretary safe and that, immediately it was explained to her that it wasn't possible, that she paid the fine in her personal capacity, etc.

But she didn’t. She then asked her SpAd. It’s as if they think they’re above the law

 

[johncrossley]

Harriet Harman was a consistent law breaker who had three speeding fines (one sufficiently serious that she was banned from driving for a short time) as well as a fine for holding a phone while driving, yet this had little publicity. She should have been sacked or forced to resign. Braverman is not in that league (yet).