Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[cjmillsnun]

She also suggested to a journalist (can't remember who: possibly even the same one!) that she would nail some of his more delicate possessions to the floor with his own front teeth, which is rather more aggressive than "vacuous goon".
What a charming lady.

I think that was also directed at O’Brien.

 

[Purple Train]

I think that was also directed at O’Brien.

Wikipedia suggests it was directed at Ben Glaze of the Daily Mirror when he made an enquiry about alleged nepotism. Either way, totally unacceptable language for a public official to use.

 

[dangie]

She also suggested to a journalist…… that she would nail some of his more delicate possessions to the floor with his own front teeth……

Far be it from me to condone such colourful language, but it does liven up politics quite a bit

 

[Busaholic]

My MP abstained from voting. Not really surprising as she's recently been made 'Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire' in Boris Johnson's farewell list.

None of the six MPs in Cornwall (all Tories) voted, but then they are all expected to be ex-MPs by the end of next year.

 

[nw1]

I think that was also directed at O’Brien.

Time she was ejected from the House of Commons and put on a train (standard class, of course, though I have no doubt she would complain) up to Scarborough for her new job stewarding the manor of Northstead....

 

[Purple Train]

Time she was ejected from the House of Commons and put on a train (standard class, of course, though I have no doubt she would complain) up to Scarborough for her new job stewarding the manor of Northstead....

I think she should be put on the Top Gear Caravan Train, in the rear carriage, of course!

 

[ainsworth74]

Far be it from me to condone such colourful language, but it does liven up politics quite a bit

Absolutely! I'm not entirely convinced that politicians should be using such language (just as I'm not convinced that politics should be lively!) but she certainly shouldn't be complaining about someone calling her a "vacuous goon" when she's out there suggesting nailing body parts to floors using other body parts!

 

[Purple Train]

Absolutely! I'm not entirely convinced that politicians should be using such language (just as I'm not convinced that politics should be lively!) but she certainly shouldn't be complaining about someone calling her a "vacuous goon" when she's out there suggesting nailing body parts to floors using other body parts!

And she certainly shouldn't be making a bullying complaint over it. If she's intelligent enough to know what "vacuous" means (which I highly doubt), she should be intelligent enough to know that "bullying" refers to repeated conduct over a period of time, not just "someone liking one social media post calling you something that wasn't exactly glowing" (which I also highly doubt, but maybe the same babysitter who told her what "vacuous" means should have made her aware).

 

[nw1]

Absolutely! I'm not entirely convinced that politicians should be using such language (just as I'm not convinced that politics should be lively!) but she certainly shouldn't be complaining about someone calling her a "vacuous goon" when she's out there suggesting nailing body parts to floors using other body parts!

Maybe we should call her Dinsdale Dorries.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2023 ==

Time she was ejected from the House of Commons and put on a train (standard class, of course, though I have no doubt she would complain) up to Scarborough for her new job stewarding the manor of Northstead....

Sorry, I've just seen Warburton has beaten her to it.

Looks like it'll be the Chiltern Hundreds for her, then. Of course Dinsdale Dorries could now use the excuse that she doesn't want to deprive "Spiny Boris" of the esteemed role...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely there is a pretty clear difference between MP's who get elected on an abstentionist policy compared to MP's who get elected on a more normal mandate but decide they don't want to do their job

Actually I wouldn't distinguish those two cases at all. If an MP is, for whatever reason (other than possibly temporary illness) not doing their job, then they should be removed as an MP and a by-election called. And that applies equally to people like Jared O'Mara and to Sinn Fein MPs. In the case of Sinn Fein, I'd point out that a huge part of an MPs job is to represent and provide support to any of their constituents, including those who did not vote for them - and that's something that most MPs do very well at. When Sinn Fein refuse to take their seats, they are denying that service and representation to all their constituents who didn't vote Sinn Fein and that's not on. If Sinn Fein aren't willing to have their MPs serve their constituents, then for Parliamentary elections, they should give way to a party that is willing to do so. (And by the way, this isn't a specifically anti-Sinn-Fein rant: I'd apply the same logic to the DUP regarding their refusal to form a Government at Stormont: If they're not willing to do it, then the law should be changed to allow a Government to be formed without them).

or in Dorries' case, because they want to throw a tantrum about not getting a peerage). I'd also say there is a difference between an MP who decided they don't want to properly do their job (e.g. Jared O'Mara as mentioned above) compared to an MP who has stated publicly that they are standing down with immediate affect but who then doesn't actually do that.

In the case of Nadine Dorries, surely it depends on whether she is actually continuing to serve her constituents. Whatever you views on her unfulfilled announcement that she is standing down, if she is actually continuing to do her job, then there's not really any case for preventing her from continuing as an MP. If on the other hand she were leaving constituents' letters unanswered etc. (speaking hypothetically: I don't know what the actual situation is) then there would be a very good case for removing her.

 

[Busaholic]

Actually I wouldn't distinguish those two cases at all. If an MP is, for whatever reason (other than possibly temporary illness) not doing their job, then they should be removed as an MP and a by-election called. And that applies equally to people like Jared O'Mara and to Sinn Fein MPs. In the case of Sinn Fein, I'd point out that a huge part of an MPs job is to represent and provide support to any of their constituents, including those who did not vote for them - and that's something that most MPs do very well at. When Sinn Fein refuse to take their seats, they are denying that service and representation to all their constituents who didn't vote Sinn Fein and that's not on. If Sinn Fein aren't willing to have their MPs serve their constituents, then for Parliamentary elections, they should give way to a party that is willing to do so. (And by the way, this isn't a specifically anti-Sinn-Fein rant: I'd apply the same logic to the DUP regarding their refusal to form a Government at Stormont: If they're not willing to do it, then the law should be changed to allow a Government to be formed without them).

Sinn Fein won't take their seats only because they will not be hypocrites by swearing allegiance to the Crown. This nonsense should have been cleared up as part of the Good Friday Agreement. As things stand none of the 20% or so of the UK population who identify as Republican could ever sit as MPs and be true to themselves. Just as the courts got rid of the swearing of oaths on the Bible as a prerequisite of giving evidence, Parliament should grow up and accept modern reality. Swearing allegiance to the principle of constitutional sovereignty in the shape of Parliament should suffice.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sinn Fein won't take their seats only because they will not be hypocrites by swearing allegiance to the Crown. This nonsense should have been cleared up as part of the Good Friday Agreement. As things stand none of the 20% or so of the UK population who identify as Republican could ever sit as MPs and be true to themselves.

That doesn't seem to match what Sinn Fein themselves say. Look at this Guardian article, for example, written by the absentee MP for Belfast West, which says that they reason they won't take their seats is because they don't believe Westminster should be governing Northern Ireland.

Fundamentally, we believe that Britain and its political institutions should have no part in governing the people of Ireland. Why then, as Irish citizens, would we want to make decisions on behalf of the people of Britain?

The nature of the political and economic implications of British rule in Ireland has changed during this century, but the desire of Irish people to determine our own fortunes has not wilted

Personally I'd argue that if that's seriously what they believe and they want to stay true to their principles, then they should simply not stand in Westminster elections, instead of standing and then denying people their representation in Parliament.

 

[Busaholic]

That doesn't seem to match what Sinn Fein themselves say. Look at this Guardian article, for example, written by the absentee MP for Belfast West, which says that they reason they won't take their seats is because they don't believe Westminster should be governing Northern Ireland.



Personally I'd argue that if that's seriously what they believe and they want to stay true to their principles, then they should simply not stand in Westminster elections, instead of standing and then denying people their representation in Parliament.

The Stormont parliament doesn't require an oath of allegiance to the monarch, thus allowing Sinn Fein to take their seats, and it is arguably part of the U.K.'s continuing governance of Northern Ireland, so I'd still say the Oath of Allegiance is the main stumbling block. They still stand in Westminster elections to prevent Unionist candidates winning by default, which I for one can quite understand. Of course, if sufficient voters were aggrieved by not being represented at Westminster they could always switch vote.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Stormont parliament doesn't require an oath of allegiance to the monarch, thus allowing Sinn Fein to take their seats, and it is arguably part of the U.K.'s continuing governance of Northern Ireland, so I'd still say the Oath of Allegiance is the main stumbling block.

Have Sinn Fein stated that that is the reason?

They still stand in Westminster elections to prevent Unionist candidates winning by default, which I for one can quite understand.

That makes no sense to me. If Sinn Fein didn't stand, many of their voters would likely transfer to the nearest nationalist equivalent, which probably would be the SDLP. If Sinn Fein wished, they could even suggest which other party their supporters should vote for in the absence of a Sinn Fein candidate. Further, if Sinn Fein don't stand, that avoids splitting the nationalist vote and therefore arguably makes it less likely that a unionist would win by default in a nationalist constituency. It's just not plausible to think that the Unionists would win by default in a predominantly nationalist area through Sinn Fein standing down, unless Sinn Fein deliberately arranged it so

 

[jon0844]

With interest rates up again and at a 15 year high, I wonder what the Tories are going to do to help people?

While I'm not sure they particularly want to help the average homeowner, and will instead just blame them for borrowing too much, I bet they're going to be under pressure from the more affluent people who will have invested in multiple properties to rent, and will be on the phone to their local Tory MP right now. Indeed I suspect many MPs will have quite the property portfolios.

 

[MikeWM]

With interest rates up again and at a 15 year high, I wonder what the Tories are going to do to help people?

While I'm not sure they particularly want to help the average homeowner, and will instead just blame them for borrowing too much, I bet they're going to be under pressure from the more affluent people who will have invested in multiple properties to rent, and will be on the phone to their local Tory MP right now. Indeed I suspect many MPs will have quite the property portfolios.

They could reintroduce MIRAS I suppose, but that seems unlikely.

We are getting into rather a mess here though. I'm not convinced yet more government bailouts are going to help, as previous government bailouts have a substantial role to play in why inflation is causing such a problem - we seem to be spiralling out-of-control here. But politically, perhaps they will have to do something.

 

[JamesT]

With interest rates up again and at a 15 year high, I wonder what the Tories are going to do to help people?

While I'm not sure they particularly want to help the average homeowner, and will instead just blame them for borrowing too much, I bet they're going to be under pressure from the more affluent people who will have invested in multiple properties to rent, and will be on the phone to their local Tory MP right now. Indeed I suspect many MPs will have quite the property portfolios.

What was the inflation rate 15 years ago? In real terms the interest rate is still negative as it's pretty much been since the crash in 2008.
Providing relief for mortgage holders, much as I'd appreciate it myself, is probably just injecting more money into an economy that already has too much.

 

[jon0844]

What was the inflation rate 15 years ago? In real terms the interest rate is still negative as it's pretty much been since the crash in 2008.
Providing relief for mortgage holders, much as I'd appreciate it myself, is probably just injecting more money into an economy that already has too much.

They're going to go all in ahead of the election and we'll be left with the bill (as well as the next party to govern).

 

[brad465]

They could reintroduce MIRAS I suppose, but that seems unlikely.

We are getting into rather a mess here though. I'm not convinced yet more government bailouts are going to help, as previous government bailouts have a substantial role to play in why inflation is causing such a problem - we seem to be spiralling out-of-control here. But politically, perhaps they will have to do something.

What I believe is fundamentally happening is a complete system failure, but those in political and economic power either are incapable of managing the situation, or deliberately don't manage it properly as the status quo benefits them. So what's happened is only life support measures are given, when what we need is large scale reform, similar to how FDR implemented major reforms with his new deal agenda in order to learn from The Great Depression.

 

[Busaholic]

Have Sinn Fein stated that that is the reason?



That makes no sense to me. If Sinn Fein didn't stand, many of their voters would likely transfer to the nearest nationalist equivalent, which probably would be the SDLP. If Sinn Fein wished, they could even suggest which other party their supporters should vote for in the absence of a Sinn Fein candidate. Further, if Sinn Fein don't stand, that avoids splitting the nationalist vote and therefore arguably makes it less likely that a unionist would win by default in a nationalist constituency. It's just not plausible to think that the Unionists would win by default in a predominantly nationalist area through Sinn Fein standing down, unless Sinn Fein deliberately arranged it so

I'd still make the point that almost anyone voting Sinn Fein is aware that in the event of their candidate willing they won't be represented at Westminster, so must be reconciled with that. A P.R. voting system might at least allow a change to that scenario, but I don't see either Sinn Fein or the DUP ever accepting PR.

 

[simonw]

What was the inflation rate 15 years ago? In real terms the interest rate is still negative as it's pretty much been since the crash in 2008.
Providing relief for mortgage holders, much as I'd appreciate it myself, is probably just injecting more money into an economy that already has too much.

4% in 2008

Historical UK inflation rates and price conversion calculator

View the history of UK inflation rates and convert prices between any year in the range 1751 to 2025

iamkate.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2023 ==

I'd still make the point that almost anyone voting Sinn Fein is aware that in the event of their candidate willing they won't be represented at Westminster, so must be reconciled with that. A P.R. voting system might at least allow a change to that scenario, but I don't see either Sinn Fein or the DUP ever accepting PR.

Isn't proportional representation used in NI elections to Stormont?

 

[Lost property]

That's the shrinking snowflake Nadine Dorries who called James O'Brien from LBC “ a public school posh boy f***wit”, right?

I think "vacuous goon" is positively mild compared to that.

But yes, I know MPs are held to different standards when talking about one another, but its instructive as to the kind of person Dorries is.

Oh, and O'Brien went to the same school as her daughters, so we can add ill-informed and/or hypocritical to the arsenal of adjectives suitable for her

That's the shrinking snowflake Nadine Dorries who called James O'Brien from LBC “ a public school posh boy f***wit”, right?

I think "vacuous goon" is positively mild compared to that.

But yes, I know MPs are held to different standards when talking about one another, but its instructive as to the kind of person Dorries is.

Oh, and O'Brien went to the same school as her daughters, so we can add ill-informed and/or hypocritical to the arsenal of adjectives suitable for her

You can understand why Nadine was offended...the title has long been the sole preserve of Truss....and that's a very high bar to attain to, let alone emulate.

But do, let's credit Nadine with that immortal declaration of undying love " Boris doesn't tell lies ! " and her interview, seen swaying gently in the breeze suggesting her gyro's has toppled...and anybody can get confused between two different Rugby codes when they both use the same shame ball for goodness sake.

 

[MikeWM]

What I believe is fundamentally happening is a complete system failure, but those in political and economic power either are incapable of managing the situation, or deliberately don't manage it properly as the status quo benefits them. So what's happened is only life support measures are given, when what we need is large scale reform, similar to how FDR implemented major reforms with his new deal agenda in order to learn from The Great Depression.

I mostly agree, I think we're in a right mess and no-one seems to have the first idea how to fix it. As I've said a number of times before we really have to try something dramatically different, though of course the markets don't want to allow that (see : Corbyn, Truss).

 

[edwin_m]

I mostly agree, I think we're in a right mess and no-one seems to have the first idea how to fix it. As I've said a number of times before we really have to try something dramatically different, though of course the markets don't want to allow that (see : Corbyn, Truss).

I think we've had enough of "different" and we should try to return to a sensible path of moderation and concensus!

 

[MikeWM]

I think we've had enough of "different" and we should try to return to a sensible path of moderation and concensus!

How's that worked out for us the last 25 years? An ever-growing gap between rich and poor, insecure employment, unaffordable housing, debt, austerity, financial crises...

What we've been doing for the last generation or so is simply not working for the majority. 25 years ago, people believed their children would, on average, have a better life than they did. Now they mostly believe it will be worse.

 

[nw1]

I mostly agree, I think we're in a right mess and no-one seems to have the first idea how to fix it. As I've said a number of times before we really have to try something dramatically different, though of course the markets don't want to allow that (see : Corbyn, Truss).

And a good job too with Truss. What she did was absolutely unforgivable, and actually worse than Boris and Partygate.

A bad Thatcher tribute act without the intelligence of Thatcher.

I'm not a fan of the "markets" particularly but Truss's extreme neoliberalism and tax cuts for the rich was an absolutely absurd policy. The worst PM since the war, period.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How's that worked out for us the last 25 years? An ever-growing gap between rich and poor, insecure employment, unaffordable housing, debt, austerity, financial crises...

What we've been doing for the last generation or so is simply not working for the majority. 25 years ago, people believed their children would, on average, have a better life than they did. Now they mostly believe it will be wor

But it also remains true that, despite the problems of recent years, the vast majority of the UK population has a standard of living that is extraordinarily high compared to what would have been the norm at any point in history up to about 20 years ago. And the graph in this article shows that over the 25 year period you are using, median real income has actually gone up. We probably shouldn't forget that before we start trying to throw out decades of understanding of how to run a market-based economy in the way you seem to be suggesting. I'm not trying to minimise the problems of the last 10 years which have left a lot of people struggling, but abandoning consensus and trying out the untested experimental solutions that people like Corbyn or Truss were proposing carries a huge risk.

I would say the big failure of the last 25 years was the failure to build enough houses and related infrastructure to meet demand and the needs of the growing population. Fix that and you would go a very long way towards fixing the problems you correctly identify, without any need to abandon economic orthodoxy.

 

[MikeWM]

And a good job too with Truss. What she did was absolutely unforgivable, and actually worse than Boris and Partygate.

A bad Thatcher tribute act without the intelligence of Thatcher.

I'm not a fan of the "markets" particularly but Truss's extreme neoliberalism and tax cuts for the rich was an absolutely absurd policy. The worst PM since the war, period.

'Unforgivable' seems very harsh to me - she tried to stimulate growth in an attempt to defeat inflation. The 'no-growth' approach we now have instead isn't exactly working, it is just dragging the problem out ever longer, and the economic indices are all a lot worse now than when everyone was panicking over her and Kwarteng. Would her approach have worked, or made things worse? Well, we'll never know.

Really, worse than Anthony Eden? Worse than Blair, with his killing of hundreds of thousands?

--

But it also remains true that, despite the problems of recent years, the vast majority of the UK population has a standard of living that is extraordinarily high compared to what would have been the norm at any point in history up to about 20 years ago.

That is true, but it feels to many/most of us that we have gone over the peak and are now going downhill again.

And the graph in this article shows that over the 25 year period you are using, median real income has actually gone up. We probably shouldn't forget that before we start trying to throw out decades of understanding of how to run a market-based economy in the way you seem to be suggesting. I'm not trying to minimise the problems of the last 10 years which have left a lot of people struggling, but abandoning consensus and trying out the untested experimental solutions that people like Corbyn or Truss were proposing carries a huge risk.

I agree, and I'm quite risk-averse, so I'm quite loathe to suggest it. But I'd argue that yes, things *apparently* weren't going too badly for a while in the early New Labour years, but the seeds of many later problems were sown then. (A trivial example would be the PFI schemes, which traded short-term prosperity for long-term ruinously expensive commitments). Eg. if you have a decent amount of money in the bank, you can get away for a while with living well and not worrying about the future. After a while you put the money on credit cards. After another while you realise what a terrible mess you're in, even though things seemed to be going ok.

And now I think we're in such a terrible mess now that our only real choice is some sort of radical change, and if the existing politicians can't or won't (or aren't allowed by the markets to) deal with that soon, the people are going to start demanding it ever-louder.

I would say the big failure of the last 25 years was the failure to build enough houses and related infrastructure to meet demand and the needs of the growing population. Fix that and you would go a very long way towards fixing the problems you correctly identify, without any need to abandon economic orthodoxy.

That's definitely one of the main issues, though I wouldn't say the only one by any means. Out-of-control house price wealth is another trap where things appear to be going well for a while, then you realise you're stuck and have no clear way out, as now. Here's Gordon Brown in his first budget in 1997:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...7-5d0e-44e4-bc7f-fbd4db86b779/BudgetStatement

I am determined that as a country we never return to the instability, speculation and negative equity that characterised the housing market in the 1980s and 1990s.
Volatility is damaging both to the housing market and to the economy as a whole, so stability will be central to our policy to help home owners. We must be prepared to take the action necessary to secure it. I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery.

Well, he failed miserably.

 

[jon0844]

I think a lot of people felt good in the early 2000s and up to 2008 because of easy and cheap credit, with banks lending somewhat irresponsibly - but people then got to enjoy new cars, hi-tech gadgets, holidays and the like. So they felt great.

Income may have gone up, but the cost of renting or getting a mortgage now takes up a huge chunk of your income, and that ultimately puts people into the unenviable position of having little in the way of savings, probably an overdraft or credit card bill, car finance payments, and the chance of losing everything simply by losing your job.

If you've got a nice safe job and a steady income, great, whoopie do for you but most people have very little in the way of a security net, and the gig economy has made it even harder.

Given the cost of care in later life, children are unlikely to inherit much when they get older and will also struggle - so it absolutely will be worse for them.

 

[nw1]

'Unforgivable' seems very harsh to me - she tried to stimulate growth in an attempt to defeat inflation. The 'no-growth' approach we now have instead isn't exactly working, it is just dragging the problem out ever longer, and the economic indices are all a lot worse now than when everyone was panicking over her and Kwarteng. Would her approach have worked, or made things worse? Well, we'll never know.

Really, worse than Anthony Eden? Worse than Blair, with his killing of hundreds of thousands?

I don't know enough about Eden but haven't heard anything that would convince me that he was worse than Truss. An appalling leader, elected by a small atypical subset of the population. While I can accept that "the people" voted for Boris, they did not vote for Truss. There should have been an election (and for balance, I would also say the same about the Blair-Brown handover too).

Definitely very much worse than Blair though. Her and Kwarteng seemed to be obsessed with an ideological drive to cut taxes for the rich.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2023 ==

But it also remains true that, despite the problems of recent years, the vast majority of the UK population has a standard of living that is extraordinarily high compared to what would have been the norm at any point in history up to about 20 years ago.

Is that true? I don't remember the standard of living being worse in the late 90s: I'd actually argue it was better. There was less economic uncertainty and people had more disposable income than they do now with the cost of living not so high.

For me, the period from the mid-90s (within the Major period, just to show I'm not being partisan ) up to about 2007 was the peak in terms of standard of living. The credit crunch started the downward spiral and, after a bit of a recovery in the mid-2010s, Covid and its after-effects (amongst other things) have caused a further deterioration.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2023 ==

I think we've had enough of "different" and we should try to return to a sensible path of moderation and concensus!

Quite. We've had quite enough "characters" in politics (across the western world) in recent years, let's have someone dull and boring but prepared to listen to the majority of the electorate as our PM please!