• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

Status
Not open for further replies.

david1212

Established Member
Joined
9 Apr 2020
Messages
1,755
Location
Midlands
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.


I did not know the increase in the NHS around 8x.

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

I did not know the increase in the NHS around 8x.

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.

Interesting - thank you. A pity it does not go back further plus as you say the sector rather than the actual role.

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 recent local council elections has significant swings to the Lib Dems and Greens. However as discussed before nationally with the current first-past-the-post system there still would be few Lib Dem or Green MP's. Thinking particularly of one constituency near me it would be very unlikely to go Labour except by the spread of votes between Conservatives, Lib Dem & Green resulting in Labour winning the seat. Across the country if Labour win the largest number of seats the actual proportion of votes for them could well be low.

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.

IMO There are swathes of first time Tory voters will not give them a second chance for two significant reasons. First Corbyn was Labour leader in 2019 and the party was not united. Second as stated in posts above Johnson (2019) was perceived differently to how Sunak (2024) is likely to be - presuming of course he is still PM. The latter has a big cloud over him with his wealth, not be squeaky clean with his tax and his wife's business investments on top of the recent policy U-turns.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,596
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).
Did she try to get civil servants to hide those convictions for her? I'm not especially bothered about the speeding itself, and I don't think most other people are either.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Did she try to get civil servants to hide those convictions for her? I'm not especially bothered about the speeding itself, and I don't think most other people are either.

That's the difference. I couldn't care less if Politician X, of any party, had been found speeding.

It's the trying to get out of the public course, and possibly trying to get out of the points, which is objectionable in the case of Braverman.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,537
Location
Taunton or Kent
The BBC reporting Sunak will meet his ethic adviser tomorrow about Braverman's conduct:


Rishi Sunak will meet his ethics adviser on Monday to discuss Suella Braverman's handling of a speeding offence, the BBC understands.
The home secretary sought advice about arranging a private speed awareness course via officials and an aide, the BBC has been told.
Labour and the Lib Dems want the PM's ethics adviser to investigate whether she breached the ministerial code.
A government source denied she broke the rules.
Mrs Braverman was caught speeding while attorney general last summer, and faced three points on her licence and a fine, or a course as part of a group.
On Monday the prime minister will meet Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent official who opposition parties want to examine the claims, when he returns from the G7 summit in Japan.
Mr Sunak earlier declined to say whether he would be ordering an inquiry, when asked about the story at the G7 summit in Japan.
Speaking at a news conference, he also declined to say he backed her - but a Downing Street source later said that "of course" he did.
"I don't know the full details of what has happened, nor have I spoken to the home secretary," Mr Sunak said.
"But I understand she has expressed regret for speeding, accepted the penalty and paid the fine."

There are also some sources, including Beth Rigby, saying a No.10 spokesperson has said the PM has "full confidence" in the Home Secretary. If "confidence" in Ministers is like confidence in failing football managers, that would suggest dismissal is imminent.


UPDATE on Braverman: No 10 spokesperson says PM has full confidence in his Home Sec
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
The BBC reporting Sunak will meet his ethic adviser tomorrow about Braverman's conduct:



There are also some sources, including Beth Rigby, saying a No.10 spokesperson has said the PM has "full confidence" in the Home Secretary. If "confidence" in Ministers is like confidence in failing football managers, that would suggest dismissal is imminent.
So if she does go, who will replace her?
Given that pattern seems to be that a new Home Secretary is even worse than the last one, I predict either Anderson or Gullis.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,726
Location
Scotland
The BBC reporting Sunak will meet his ethic adviser tomorrow about Braverman's conduct:
I bet that "Political ethics advisor" sounded like a cushy job, just have to deal with the occasional question about if a stock deal represented a conflict of interest, or advise on if an MP needed to declare the sale of their second home. And then along came the current Tories...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

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).
What's the saying? It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,445
Location
London
What's the saying? It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

Normally if an PM is guilty of a criminal offence then they would normally stand down. Only because speeding is still considered socially acceptable (even considered quite 'cool') Harman got away with it. Yes, there is another separate issue regarding Braverman. I'm not talking about that, as it is obvious that there is a problem there, so I don't need to mention it. Harmen risked people's lives more than Braverman has done, unless of course there are other offences we don't know about. Certainly after the mobile phone incident, Harman should have been toast.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Normally if an PM is guilty of a criminal offence then they would normally stand down. Only because speeding is still considered socially acceptable (even considered quite 'cool') Harman got away with it. Yes, there is another separate issue regarding Braverman. I'm not talking about that, as it is obvious that there is a problem there, so I don't need to mention it. Harmen risked people's lives more than Braverman has done, unless of course there are other offences we don't know about. Certainly after the mobile phone incident, Harman should have been toast.

Maybe. But Harman is not, AFAIK, in a shadow cabinet job now so there isn't an immediate question of whether she should be sacked or not.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,445
Location
London
Maybe. But Harman is not, AFAIK, in a shadow cabinet job now so there isn't an immediate question of whether she should be sacked or not.

But she was in a cabinet position when some of the offences took place. She should have been sacked by the 2010 election at the latest and should have been deselected as the MP. Yet she is is still serving as the sitting MP.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
But she was in a cabinet position when some of the offences took place. She should have been sacked by the 2010 election at the latest and should have been deselected as the MP. Yet she is is still serving as the sitting MP.

Maybe but we can't turn the clocks back now.

It should not have any bearing on what is or is not done to Braverman, in any case.

I'd have immediately sacked Enoch Powell as an MP in 1968 after the "Rivers of Blood" speech, but it's not possible to turn the clock back now.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,039
Location
Up the creek
I'd have immediately sacked Enoch Powell as an MP in 1968 after the "Rivers of Blood" speech, but it's not possible to turn the clock back now.

You couldn’t and, in practice, can’t sack people as an MP just for saying inflammatory things: there is a due process, as there should be. However, Ted Heath sacked him as Shadow Defence Minister the following day. But that was in another era…
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
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).

Yes, I have to admit, three speeding fines while serving as a Government minister would bother me too. One is carelessness, but three speeding fines starts to look more like a 'the law doesn't apply to me' pattern of behaviour, which does seem to be correlated with stuff after those fines. As far as I can make out, Harriet Harman's record includes:

  • 2003: Driving at 99mph on a motorway (at the time, she was attorney general)
  • 2007: Driving at 50mph in a temporary 40mph zone (At the time, leader of the Commons, minister for women and equalities, and deputy Labour leader)
  • 2007 + 2008: Some reports that she was speeding in a 30mph zone on two occasions, but I'm having trouble finding much corroboration of this.
  • 2009: Proposed to exempt MPs' expenses from the Freedom of Information act, this proposal would have effectively hidden MPs expenses from the public (The proposal was later withdrawn when the Tories said they wouldn't support it)
  • 2009: Collided with another car while using mobile phone during a parking manoeuvre
  • 2010: It became public that she had wrongly claimed some expenses over the previous two years

I think, after the 3rd speeding offence, I would have questioned whether she should remain a Government minister. But it is true that she apparently didn't try to hide the speeding.
 
Last edited:

Mikw

Member
Joined
20 Apr 2022
Messages
547
Location
Leicester
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).
She's bad, we've lost our right to protest for one. What next?
Never mind those photos of her in Rwanda laughing her head off and the "Have a dream" quote.
She only seems to be there to appeal to the headbangers in government, and in the population.
Never mind how much damage she causes.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,148
Location
Wilmslow
Braverman is also reported (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-to-get-out-of-final-vote-on-small-boats-bill) to have tried to get out of having to vote in person on her own legislation, the third reading of her "small boats bill".
Essentially she wanted to be "paired" with an opposition non-voter, but I think she's blind to how she's perceived if she prefers to go on a "photo opportunity" elsewhere rather than vote for her own legislation in parliament. And I think that's her problem, it's not unique in the Cabinet, it's about not thinking or caring about how other people perceive you. And it's probably driving Rishi Sunak mad because he knows that know it's all about perception, how people think the government and its ministers are acting is all-important because the truth is (despite claiming that parliament is busy) there's not a lot of serious legislation going through the process now. So he knows it's important to whizz off to Japan and be seen to be doing "good things" whereas Braverman (whom he never wanted anyway, but had to give a job to to appease the right wing of his party) is blundering around everywhere. At the end of the day, many people think the entire Conservative party is out of touch, in it for themselves and hypocritical and whereas that may or may not be true, acting as Braverman is doing is reinforcing the impression.

EDIT Here's the Guardian article I'm referring to:
Suella Braverman

Suella Braverman ‘tried to get out of final vote on small boats bill’​

Exclusive: Home secretary’s aides repeatedly requested she be allowed to miss vote on major legislation despite three-line whip

Pippa Crerar Political editor
@PippaCrerar
Sun 21 May 2023 18.35 BST

Suella Braverman tried to get out of the final Commons vote on the government’s small boats bill despite Conservative MPs being instructed to attend, the Guardian has learned.
The home secretary’s aides sent multiple emails over the course of several days to the Tory whips’ office requesting that she be “slipped”, or permitted to miss, the third reading of her department’s flagship legislation.

Sources said the chief whip, Simon Hart, eventually had to call Braverman directly to instruct her to attend the vote on the illegal migration bill, which had a three-line whip. They claimed that Braverman had wanted to visit a police station instead.
One Tory insider said: “The chief is at his wit’s end with Suella. She just thinks she can do what she wants. Her office was really hassling the whips’ admin team to allow her to miss the third reading vote for what appeared to be a picture opportunity.”

Rishi Sunak is facing growing pressure over the government’s handling of migration, with the Office for National Statistics publishing data on Thursday which is expected to show that net legal migration has risen from 500,000 and hit an all-time high.
On his final day at the G7 summit of world leaders in Japan, Sunak said that he thought overall migration numbers were “too high” and insisted he was “committed to bringing them down”.
But he said that his main focus was on curbing the much smaller numbers of people arriving illegally in small boats across the Channel, which the illegal migration bill was designed to do.
Braverman’s attempt to miss the vote is likely to further anger Tory MPs who are already despairing over the home secretary’s apparent leadership pitch at the controversial NatCon conference last week, as well as her inflammatory rhetoric around migration.
Braverman visited Northamptonshire to highlight the government’s police recruitment programme, and made it back in time for the vote. A source close to the home secretary said: “This is a load of drivel.” The Conservative whips’ office declined to comment.

Being slipped, or pairing, is a longstanding convention in the Commons where the whips of the government and an opposition party agree to allow MPs from one side to miss a vote because of personal reasons or official business.
Separately, the prime minister is under pressure to launch an investigation by his ethics adviser into whether Braverman broke the ministerial code by asking Home Office civil servants for special treatment over a speeding fine.
Sunak also faces claims by former home secretary Priti Patel that he refused an official request for money to speed up asylum processing while he was chancellor, casting doubts on his commitment to getting to grips with the broken system.
Patel, an ally of Boris Johnson, accused the prime minister of taking a “sticking plaster” approach to clearing the backlog of 92,601 asylum cases submitted before June 2022 by the end of this year, adding that it was “too late” to make a substantial difference.
In an interview with the Inside Whitehall podcast, Patel claimed that Sunak had turned down a Home Office request to fund the digitalisation of claims which are largely paper-based. These are slower to process and contributed to the current backlog.
 
Last edited:

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Braverman is also reported (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-to-get-out-of-final-vote-on-small-boats-bill) to have tried to get out of having to vote in person on her own legislation, the third reading of her "small boats bill".
Essentially she wanted to be "paired" with an opposition non-voter, but I think she's blind to how she's perceived if she prefers to go on a "photo opportunity" elsewhere rather than vote for her own legislation in parliament.
Exactly how did she think that would go down with those Conservative MPs who are, at best, lukewarm about the bill? Some abstained, I notice, but others spoke of reservations but still backed it. If she hadn't bothered, more might have been tempted to stay away or sat on their hands.
 

Thirteen

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2021
Messages
1,902
Location
London
TBH given how unpopular he was in Esher, the Tory might have a chance with a new candidate but my gut feeling is that it'll go to the Lib Dems.

It's interesting that how many MPs are stepping down on both sides. One positive thing is that we get new blood.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
11,213
Location
West Wiltshire
TBH given how unpopular he was in Esher, the Tory might have a chance with a new candidate but my gut feeling is that it'll go to the Lib Dems.

It's interesting that how many MPs are stepping down on both sides. One positive thing is that we get new blood.
Dominic Raab had a majority of 23,298 in 2017, but majority fell by over 20,000 votes in 2 years to only 2743.

But if base a general election prediction on recent council elections, the conservatives are in trouble in huge area of their heartlands, roughly triangular from Sussex to Buckinghamshire to Devon.

There are also lots of MPs whose constituency is proposed to be split under this summers boundary review, who haven't stated which new seat they will be looking to stand in.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Henry Smith has chickened out as well.

Crawley, isn't he?

I'd have said that there would be a chance of a Tory hold there; it's a large-ish town, but not as urban as some of the likely Labour gains such as Swindon and Milton Keynes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

TBH given how unpopular he was in Esher, the Tory might have a chance with a new candidate but my gut feeling is that it'll go to the Lib Dems.
Yes, I think Raab would have had just about zero chance of being re-elected.

As for another Tory, too close to call I think. How much of the anti-Tory vote there was anti-Tory, and how much of it was just anti-Raab?

I think nearby Guildford is a likely Lib Dem gain though, helped by being a university town.
 
Last edited:

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
If you are referring to standing down at the next election, he announced this at the end of March https://www.henrysmith.info/news/statement-henry-smith-mp.

It is a seat Labour would target (they currently hold a majority on the council)

I see his standing-down message includes some completely unnecessary pro-Brexit propaganda. ("That undemocratic bloc"? And our first-past-the-post system, which gives absolute power to parties obtaining less than 45% of the vote, is a shining beacon of democracy? Yeah. Right).

With an airport specialising in continental European flights nearby, and doubtless providing a lot of local employment, you'd think he'd be a bit less hostile.

He should be trying to unify his electorate in his parting words, not bringing up divisive issues such as Brexit which will not encourage remainers to vote Tory next time.
 
Last edited:

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
I see his standing-down message includes some completely unnecessary pro-Brexit propaganda. ("That undemocratic bloc"? And our first-past-the-post system, which gives absolute power to parties obtaining less than 45% of the vote, is a shining beacon of democracy? Yeah. Right).

With an airport specialising in continental European flights nearby, and doubtless providing a lot of local employment, you'd think he'd be a bit less hostile.

He should be trying to unify his electorate in his parting words, not bringing up divisive issues such as Brexit which will not encourage remainers to vote Tory next time.
In his 13 years, he has not advanced beyond being a PPS (Parliamentary Private Secretary), doesn't sit on any important committees, there must be more to life. We was once Leader of West Sussex Council, he may regret giving that up.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,445
Location
London
Crawley, isn't he?

I'd have said that there would be a chance of a Tory hold there; it's a large-ish town, but not as urban as some of the likely Labour gains such as Swindon and Milton Keynes.

It's fully urban other than some bits that are uninhabitable due the the Gatwick flightpath. Something similar happened in 1997 when the then sitting MP Nicholas Soames transferred to the neighbouring and much safer Mid Sussex seat.
 

Lost property

On Moderation
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Messages
739
I think the most telling was Graham Brady stepping down.

Unfortunately, the Richmond constituency is likely to return the current member...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top