Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[nw1]

I think the most telling was Graham Brady stepping down.

Unfortunately, the Richmond constituency is likely to return the current member...

How about someone persuades Sunak to stand as the Tory candidate for the other Richmond, marketing it as being much closer to Westminster.....

 

[Lost property]

How about someone persuades Sunak to stand as the Tory candidate for the other Richmond, marketing it as being much closer to Westminster.....

There may be a problem here with the distance....and helicopter travel.

 

[jfollows]

Rishi Sunak said, when he took the job as prime minister (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-minister-rishi-sunaks-statement-25-october-2022):

This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.

That's manifestly untrue, from what I can see. Maybe the Suella Braverman speeding thing is a storm in a teacup, but if Sunak means what he said he needed to get her conduct investigated starting two days ago, not now. Labour now has an urgent question on the subject, which Rishi will avoid being present to answer, but it seems inevitable to me that he needs to do this, and spinning it out is making things look worse for him.
Peter Oborne in The Guardian also comments (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-truth-integrity) that Sunak tells lies and doesn't correct them, he obfuscates and misleads repeatedly and sets a poor example for the rest of his party.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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).

Unnecessary propaganda? I'm pretty sure that's perfectly normal, when politicians stand down or resign that they will make some statement of the things they feel they or their party have achieved. To take a couple of other examples, here's an excerpt from Tim Farron's resignation statement when he resigned as LibDem leader, which contains a clear dig at his disagreements with Tories (which had nothing to do with why he resigned):

My successor will inherit a party that is needed now more than ever before. Our future as an open, tolerant and united country is at stake.

The cause of British liberalism has never been needed more. People who will fight for a Britain that is confident, generous and compassionate are needed more than ever before.

That is the challenge our party and my successor faces and the opportunity I am certain that they will rise to.

Was that 'unnecessary propaganda'?

And here's an excerpt from Nick Clegg's resignation speech:

"We will never know how many lives we changed for the better because we had the courage to step up at a time of crisis. But we have done something that cannot be undone because there can be no doubt that we government with Britain a far stronger, fairer, greener, and more liberal country than it was five years ago.

Was that 'unnecessary propaganda'?

Or is it only 'unnecessary propaganda' if it's a Tory making the comments and you disagree with them?

 

[jfollows]

I liked this (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sorry-rishi-youre-to-blame-for-braverman-qd8w6tn9h):

Cleverly, for example, is the cabinet equivalent of the bathroom you can’t quite be bothered to change when you move into a new house. The toilet still flushes; it’ll do for now.

It's in the context of senior cabinet members still being the ones appointed by Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak can't be bothered to change them.
John Crace doesn't think highly of Cleverly either, but he doesn't think highly of any politician really (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/28/is-there-no-end-to-tory-mps-sexual-misconduct):

Almost invariably, James Cleverly is the stupidest person in any room he enters. It’s a massive failure of nominative determinism.

 

[nw1]

Unnecessary propaganda? I'm pretty sure that's perfectly n ormal, when politicians stand down or resign that they will make some statement of the things they feel they or their party have achieved. To take a couple of other examples, here's an excerpt from Tim Farron's resignation statement when he resigned as LibDem leader, which contains a clear dig at his disagreements with Tories (which had nothing to do with why he resigned):


Was that 'unnecessary propaganda'?

And here's an excerpt from Nick Clegg's resignation speech:



Was that 'unnecessary propaganda'?

Or is it only 'unnecessary propaganda' if it's a Tory making the comments and you disagree with them?

Neither Farron nor Clegg said anything remotely contoversial in those statements.

Henry Smith, however, is taking apparent pride in Brexit which is a highly divisive matter.
Maybe Henry Smith hasn't been adversely affected by Brexit, but I'd have liked him to show some empathy for those that have, and focus on more neutral matters.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Neither Farron nor Clegg said anything remotely contoversial in those statements.

Yes they did! (Or has it escaped your notice that not everyone in the UK is a LibDem supporter and that some people actually disagree with LibDem views? )

Tim Farron said 'Our future as an open, tolerant and united country is at stake.' in what is a clear implied claim that Tory policies will damage the UK's future as an open society. And Nick Clegg said 'We will never know how many lives we changed for the better because we had the courage to step up at a time of crisis.', effectively claiming that the UK is better because of the LibDem decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives. Both of those are value judgements that you might well agree with, but which other people would disagree with.

(And to be clear, I don't think it's a problem at all that they said what they did: They are perfectly entitled to claim credit for doing things that they believed to be correct, even if other people disagree with them. Just as it's perfectly OK for any Labour or Tory MP to do likewise).

 

[Herefordian]

Yes they did! (Or has it escaped your notice that not everyone in the UK is a LibDem supporter and that some people actually disagree with LibDem views? )

Tim Farron said 'Our future as an open, tolerant and united country is at stake.' in what is a clear implied claim that Tory policies will damage the UK's future as an open society. And Nick Clegg said 'We will never know how many lives we changed for the better because we had the courage to step up at a time of crisis.', effectively claiming that the UK is better because of the LibDem decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives. Both of those are value judgements that you might well agree with, but which other people would disagree with.

(And to be clear, I don't think it's a problem at all that they said what they did: They are perfectly entitled to claim credit for doing things that they believed to be correct, even if other people disagree with them. Just as it's perfectly OK for any Labour or Tory MP to do likewise).

They didn't.

Farron is clearly referring to Brexit. A Tory policy which has needlessly damaged this country.

Meanwhile, Clegg isn't wrong. Without the Lib Dems, austerity would have been worse. Another Tory political choice.

Your lack of criticism of Smith's childish, divisive comments is telling.

 

[nw1]

Yet more unfriendly policies from the government:

Many foreign students to lose right to bring family to UK

The announcement comes days before official statistics are expected to show record migration levels.

www.bbc.co.uk

Overseas students studying postgraduate degrees will no longer be able to bring their partners/families with them. How nice.

The Conservative Party clearly have no desire whatsoever to broaden their appeal with policies like this. The article says that

Last year, 135,788 visas were granted to dependants of foreign students, nearly nine times the 2019 figure

Of course, I think that can be at least partly explained by the Conservative Party demanding that EU foreign students and their families have visas, when that was never the case previously.

Put it this way, if I was a continental European wishing to study a masters' degree in a geographically-close English-speaking country, and wished to bring a partner with me, I'd now be looking at what options Ireland had to offer.

 

[Herefordian]

More deflection tactics from Braverman.

Speaker shuts down Suella Braverman's paedophile rant as she ducks speeding row

The Home Secretary appeared rattled as MPs grilled her on claims she asked civil servants to help her avoid attending a driving awareness course with members of the public

www.mirror.co.uk

Her behaviour is competely unacceptable for someone in her position.

(I'm aware the Mirror is a Labour outlet and a rubbish website, but I can't find it anywhere else.)

 

[brad465]

Johnson might be in trouble again:

Boris Johnson referred to police over new lockdown rulebreaking claims

Boris Johnson has been referred to police by the Cabinet Office over new claims he broke lockdown rules after his ministerial diary revealed visits by friends

www.thetimes.co.uk

Boris Johnson has been referred to police by the Cabinet Office over new claims he broke lockdown rules after his ministerial diary revealed visits by friends to Chequers during the pandemic.

The Cabinet Office has passed concerns to the Metropolitan Police and Thames Valley police after several visits to the prime minister’s grace and favour residence — as well as new allegations about his behaviour at Downing Street — were highlighted during preparations for a public inquiry into the pandemic.

The privileges committee, which is investigating claims that Johnson misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties, has been informed. Johnson was made aware of the concerns last week and has since written to the Cabinet Office denying rulebreaking.

A spokesman for the former prime minister said: “Some abbreviated entries in Mr Johnson’s official diary were queried by the Cabinet Office during preparation for the Covid inquiry. Following an examination of the entries, Mr Johnson’s lawyers wrote to the Cabinet Office and privileges committee explaining that the events were lawful and were not breaches of any Covid regulations.”


Johnson’s team called the referral a “clearly politically motivated attempt to manufacture something out of nothing”. They said the Cabinet Office made no attempt to check the claims with Johnson before passing the matter to the police. Multiple sources told The Times that the alleged breaches involved Johnson’s family as well as his friends, though a source close to Johnson denied this.
Cabinet Office sources insist that it would not have been proper for ministers or officials to assess the evidence before passing the matter to the authorities. They said no minister was involved in the decision in any way.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “Information came to light during the process of preparing evidence for submission to the Covid inquiry. It was identified as part of the normal disclosure review of potentially relevant documents being undertaken by the legal team for inquiry witnesses.

 

[jon0844]

Another story that people on the right will say is 'old news', 'are we still going on about Boris' and so on.

 

[nw1]

Another story that people on the right will say is 'old news', 'are we still going on about Boris' and so on.

That's a fair point. Rather than focusing on bumbling old Boris, I think opponents of the Tories need to focus on the current lot: Sunak, Braverman, Anderson and the rest.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Marvellous. Bunter continues to rake in millions whilst the progressive uncovering of his cavalier relationship with the law and the truth means we’ll pay even more for his legal fees.

It’s utterly abhorrent

 

[jon0844]

That's a fair point. Rather than focusing on bumbling old Boris, I think opponents of the Tories need to focus on the current lot: Sunak, Braverman, Anderson and the rest.

It should be possible to do multiple things at once, but of course this only leads to cries of 'witch-hunt' from the sympathisers.

 

[Herefordian]

It should be possible to do multiple things at once, but of course this only leads to cries of 'witch-hunt' from the sympathisers.

Absolutely. Johnson not being PM any more hasn't given him a free pass.

He still needs to be held accountable, where appropriate.

 

[takno]

Absolutely. Johnson not being PM any more hasn't given him a free pass.

He still needs to be held accountable, where appropriate.

Certainly he should be held accountable, but he has resigned and the Police have an extremely sensible policy of not going back retrospectively investigating breaches of the emergency regulations. As he isn't Prime Minister anymore then there doesn't seem to be any huge public interest reason for making an exception in that policy for him.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Certainly he should be held accountable, but he has resigned and the Police have an extremely sensible policy of not going back retrospectively investigating breaches of the emergency regulations. As he isn't Prime Minister anymore then there doesn't seem to be any huge public interest reason for making an exception in that policy for him.

It depends if he was previously asked about these events, I suppose

 

[brad465]

Another story that people on the right will say is 'old news', 'are we still going on about Boris' and so on.

Which is ironic considering they include those who say/have recently said we should bring him back.

 

[jon0844]

Certainly he should be held accountable, but he has resigned and the Police have an extremely sensible policy of not going back retrospectively investigating breaches of the emergency regulations. As he isn't Prime Minister anymore then there doesn't seem to be any huge public interest reason for making an exception in that policy for him.

Is this why police officers resign or retire so very little can happen to them after a lengthy investigation?

It's nice to think you could be in a job and do so many bad things, but then expect to say 'doesn't matter now, I've gone' as you go off to find new ways to cash in.

 

[nw1]

More deflection tactics from Braverman.

Speaker shuts down Suella Braverman's paedophile rant as she ducks speeding row

The Home Secretary appeared rattled as MPs grilled her on claims she asked civil servants to help her avoid attending a driving awareness course with members of the public

www.mirror.co.uk

Her behaviour is competely unacceptable for someone in her position.

(I'm aware the Mirror is a Labour outlet and a rubbish website, but I can't find it anywhere else.)

What's the gist of the article?

 

[Herefordian]

What's the gist of the article?

A Labour MP asked her to clarify what had happened over her speeding fine.

After answering, she said Labour were trying to distract from "not offering proposals on crime or policing".

I think she forgets who's been in office for the last thirteen years.

 

[ainsworth74]

After answering, she said Labour were trying to distract from "not offering proposals on crime or policing".

I think she forgets who's been in office for the last thirteen years.

Well surely it's basically their only political hope at this point, try and persuaded people to forget who has been in charge for the past thirteen years to see us to the point we now reach in terms of quite a significant number of key bits of infrastructure and even fabrics of society are starting to come apart at the seams...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well surely it's basically their only political hope at this point, try and persuaded people to forget who has been in charge for the past thirteen years

That’s why the usual suspects in the Telegraph are going big and hard on the woke elite blob wokerati TM betraying the Will Of The People.

Like with everything else from the Brexitists, it’s always someone else’s fault, never theirs.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They didn't.

Farron is clearly referring to Brexit. A Tory policy which has needlessly damaged this country.

You forgot to add the 'in my opinion' at the end of that sentence.

Now it's not clear to me that Tim Farron's comment were about Brexit: There are other issues (such as law and order) on which the LibDems view Tory policies as damaging to our open society, so it's very plausible that he was equally referring to that. But let's run with your assumption that it was all about Brexit: Sure, you personally believe that Brexit needlessly damaged the UK. That is your opinion. But there are many other people (including myself) who are not of that opinion. Therefore Tim Farron's comments are controversial: Not everyone would agree with them! Of course, I'll still totally defend his right to say them, because we are a democracy, and hopefully some of us are able to distinguish fact from opinion!

To my mind, the issue is that you and @nw1 are showing double standards in your posts: You're objecting to a Conservative expressing his opinions in his resignation statement, while supporting a LibDem doing exactly the same thing!

Your lack of criticism of Smith's childish, divisive comments is telling.

I have not up to now said anything, critical or otherwise, about Smith's comments. I simply pointed out that he has a right and it's fine for him to say them in his resignation speech.

But for the record, here are is the relevant part of Henry Smith's resignation statement. I invite you to read it and observe that there is nothing childish about it: There's certainly stuff that I can imagine you and others would disagree with (there are actually one or two bits that I might disagree with too), but there's nothing childish (unless you somehow imagine that anything that you disagree with must automatically be childish ). He is simply stating his opinions, as is normal in a democracy!

I have been proud to lead the Leave EU campaign in Crawley which saw the town and UK vote to exit that undemocratic bloc; support our town through the Covid-19 pandemic, especially supporting Gatwick’s economy and the UK aviation sector’s recovery; improve blood cancer awareness and services nation-wide; achieve justice for Chagos islanders; plus, additionally, introduce many animal welfare measures into law. For Crawley specifically, I am pleased to have helped deliver more Sussex Police officers, extra NHS provision and record school funding.

I will continue to campaign for lower taxation, secure borders, environmental protection, our security and a dynamic economy. In that the Crawley Conservative Parliamentary Candidate subsequently selected will have my full support, as will the Party nationally for the wellbeing of our United Kingdom.

 

[Herefordian]

You forgot to add the 'in my opinion' at the end of that sentence.

Now it's not clear to me that Tim Farron's comment were about Brexit: There are other issues (such as law and order) on which the LibDems view Tory policies as damaging to our open society, so it's very plausible that he was equally referring to that. But let's run with your assumption that it was all about Brexit: Sure, you personally believe that Brexit needlessly damaged the UK. That is your opinion. But there are many other people (including myself) who are not of that opinion. Therefore Tim Farron's comments are controversial: Not everyone would agree with them! Of course, I'll still totally defend his right to say them, because we are a democracy, and hopefully some of us are able to distinguish fact from opinion!

To my mind, the issue is that you and @nw1 are showing double standards in your posts: You're objecting to a Conservative expressing his opinions in his resignation statement, while supporting a LibDem doing exactly the same thing!



I have not up to now said anything, critical or otherwise, about Smith's comments. I simply pointed out that he has a right and it's fine for him to say them in his resignation speech.

But for the record, here are is the relevant part of Henry Smith's resignation statement. I invite you to read it and observe that there is nothing childish about it: There's certainly stuff that I can imagine you and others would disagree with (there are actually one or two bits that I might disagree with too), but there's nothing childish (unless you somehow imagine that anything that you disagree with must automatically be childish ). He is simply stating his opinions, as is normal in a democracy!

I don't need to say "in my opinion". There are no clear and obvious benefits to Brexit.

Neither myself nor nw1 have displayed double standards.

The Conservative is saying he is proud to have been part of a campaign which divided the country and damaged its economy and reputation.

The Lib Dems expressed concern about the negative impact of Conservative policies on this country.

It is childish to boast about supporting a campaign which has adversely affected so many people.

The man has no tact whatsoever. Neither does this failed government.

 

[jfollows]

Everything that I post on this forum is my opinion, and it's fallible because I'm human and may well turn out to be misguided and wrong. But I don't need to repeatedly say that it's my opinion; I try and do so occasionally if I think it's appropriate.
It's my opinion that leaving the EU is the biggest self-imposed mistake this country has made in my lifetime, if not longer, led by politicians who are knaves and self-interested, and voted for by gullible fools.
But there's little point in saying this now. We are where we are and it's more important to make the best of where we are now than in looking back into what might have been.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Everything that I post on this forum is my opinion, and it's fallible because I'm human and may well turn out to be misguided and wrong. But I don't need to repeatedly say that it's my opinion; I

I agree. Usually you wouldn't keep saying 'in my opinion' because in this kind of debate that goes without saying. We all understand that for the most part, we are all expressing our opinions. However if you are trying to claim that it is wrong for someone else (for example, the Tory MP Henry Smith) to present their opinion, and when challenged, the grounds you give boil down to that his opinion differs from what you believe to be true and therefore he shouldn't be saying it, then you need to be very clear about the difference between your opinion (or: your beliefs) and an established fact.

 

[jfollows]

I agree. Usually you wouldn't keep saying 'in my opinion' because in this kind of debate that goes without saying. We all understand that for the most part, we are all expressing our opinions. However you are trying to claim that it is wrong for someone else (for example, the Tory MP Henry Smith) to present their opinion, and when challenged, the grounds you give boil down to that his opinion differs from what you believe to be true, then you need to be very clear about the difference between your opinion (or: your beliefs) and an established fact.

Indeed, and I do take your point, which is why I said that I personally try and be clear when the circumstances are as you describe; on this one I think we're in agreement!

 

[brad465]

This has to be the biggest case of karma in UK Political history - Johnson wanted the taxpayer to pay his legal fees for the covid inquiry, but this has led to the Cabinet Office getting access to his diary, in turn leading to this police investigation:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1661059241786982401

This all came about because Johnson’s legal advice for Covid inquiry is being paid for by the taxpayer. Which means the cabinet office got access to his diary as they are handling it. They found the entries and referred to police. Which for Johnson is an unintended consequence.