Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Busaholic]

PIN?

1312, I guarantee it. The date of his glorious victory.

I've just found out that 1312 also stands for All Cops Are Bastards (ACAB) a phrase that dates from the 1920s, apparently. Was he being prescient about his Partygate fine?

 

[Purple Train]

I heard they were stuck on the password reset questions - apparently nobody can work out the answer to "how many children do I have?"...

Surely that's the four-number passcode, not the reset question?

 

[DustyBin]

It should also be a concern that public services are becoming so disfunctional that calling in the armed forces is increasingly becoming the default "get us out of a spot of bother" response and that when they do rock up they seem to do a better job than those whose job it actually is!

There will always be a place for the armed forces to help out. Chinooks carrying supplies to cut off communities during heavy snow, soldiers filling sandbags and helping those displaced during floods, Royal Marines using landing craft to rescue stranded cars, etc etc.

But it does feel like so many public services are now so fragile that calling in the armed forces is the only option during strife and the ability of them to just "get on with it" outstrips that of the public service they're supporting.

Not sure that that's an especially healthy situation for us to be in.

You make some good points, and I agree that it’s not a healthy situation for two reasons. Firstly, it lays bare the inadequacy of the affected public services, and secondly (and without getting all tinfoily!) it normalises the use of the military in civil life.

If they implement either they deserve to be out of power for 100 years.

It would be a truly disgusting act to cut income tax or scrap inheritance tax with the country in the way that it is. The railways are in a state, and far worse - the NHS is in a state, in their words there's "no money" to run public services properly, and yet they think they can flush money down the toilet by cutting taxes?

Pure bribery, no more, no less.

They can shove their tax cuts where the sun don't shine.

Personally I’d love a tax cut, but this is very obviously not the time.

Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be trying to slow the economy down to control inflation……

 

[Typhoon]

You make some good points, and I agree that it’s not a healthy situation for two reasons. Firstly, it lays bare the inadequacy of the affected public services, and secondly (and without getting all tinfoily!) it normalises the use of the military in civil life.

I would have also thought it devalues the Armed Forces as a career choice. 'Join The Army and do all the jobs no-one else wants to do' doesn't seem like a great recruiting slogan.

There was a story yesterday:

Further cuts are reportedly being planned to the number of serving Armed Forces personnel. Veterans will be asked to join as reservists to make up any shortfall during times of crisis, say reports.

Armed Forces veterans could be called on to join a reserve force in future crises as part of an planned overhaul of the military which would cut the number of UK troops, according to a report.

Reports claim that the long-awaited defence command paper will reduce the British Army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. Ministers are expected to defend the proposals, insisting the war in Ukraine shows how UK forces can become “fleeter of foot,” according to the paper.

It comes as a damning report Britain must be ready for conflict with Russia - but claims it is let down by a “broken” system for arming the military that puts personnel in harm’s way. Now, former regular soldiers, including those no longer serving as reservists, will reportedly be sought to help “revitalise” a strategic “surge” force.

The Army currently has more than 75,000 personnel and there has been speculation that the paper will announce a reduction to the size, with a potential boost for research into drone technology. The Telegraph reports that the Government will announce plans to cut it to 73,000.

A government source told the paper: “The war in Ukraine – fought on a scale not thought possible in this generation – has taught us many lessons. We have seen there for instance how our forces can become fleeter of foot.”

According to Downing Street, the command paper will lay out the measures the UK is taking to improve the “lethality and deployability of our own armed forces”. It will include plans to establish a new Global Response Force which defence chiefs hope will dramatically increase the ability to physically respond to crises at short notice, either by being already present or deploying more rapidly.

The Prime Minister said part of the new blueprint would include “zig-zagging”, a concept that should allow members of the armed forces more flexibility in where they work. He said this had the potential to benefit public service and also make for more “fulfilling” careers in the armed forces.

It would involve making it easier for personnel to move, for example, into the civil service and back again.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1791578/Former-soldiers-reserves-army-cuts

('asked' - my emphasising as I am sure that I am not alone in having been 'asked' to do something but which had at least a degree of compulsion about it.)

These people would need to be subject to a continuing training regime, some may welcome it but others may not - particularly if they had a growing family. In my work life, when a door closed as far as I was concerned it was locked.

I would also be interested in whether Braverman's shortage of Border Force officials was a 'crisis'; she certainly thinks it is!

Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be trying to slow the economy down to control inflation……

Very True. Unfortunately, logic and common sense don't win General Elections, giveaways might!

If they lose the next General Election, the other lot will have to sort the mess out; if not, there are five years to put it right.

 

[birchesgreen]

I believe after you leave the armed forces you are still liable to be recalled to the reserves up to a certain age. I remember an ex-colleague, who had been in the Signals, was overjoyed when he reached that age!

 

[najaB]

I believe after you leave the armed forces you are still liable to be recalled to the reserves up to a certain age. I remember an ex-colleague, who had been in the Signals, was overjoyed when he reached that age!

I think it's 55 years old, might be 53.

 

[nw1]

If they lose the next General Election, the other lot will have to sort the mess out; if not, there are five years to put it right.

The nightmare scenario - if the Tories don't lose the coming election, I'm beginning to doubt they ever will!

 

[DustyBin]

The nightmare scenario - if the Tories don't lose the coming election, I'm beginning to doubt they ever will!

As it stands I can’t see the Tories winning, and I’d be amazed if there’s some kind of turnaround before the next GE. That said, I’m not sure Labour will secure the landslide many are predicting.

What comes next is the worry. Whilst many on this thread will rejoice simply at seeing the Tories lose power (and I get it), I’m not convinced a Labour government will improve things in reality. I’m not a fan of Starmer, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, his government will be up against it from day one. I suspect it won’t take along before the media turn on “ineffective” Labour, dig up all kinds of dirt on various ministers and MPs, and turn the whole thing into a circus (again)*. I actually hope I’m wrong as, putting party politics aside, we can’t afford for that to happen.

*Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting the current government doesn’t deserve the scrutiny; they’ve very much brought it upon themselves!

 

[MikeWM]

As it stands I can’t see the Tories winning, and I’d be amazed if there’s some kind of turnaround before the next GE. That said, I’m not sure Labour will secure the landslide many are predicting.

I agree - Sunak had a good chance to turn around the Tories' fortunes after the 'Windsor Framework' was announced to much fanfare. Instead he's muddled along doing not much of anything at all, showing no vision or purpose and robotically repeating his 'five promises' which are themselves not going terribly well. Labour are regaining ground by default rather than by any enthusiasm for Starmer or what he represents (whatever that turns out to be, if anything).

What comes next is the worry. Whilst many on this thread will rejoice simply at seeing the Tories lose power (and I get it), I’m not convinced a Labour government will improve things in reality.

I think the issue here is that Starmer increasingly doesn't appear to be much of a change at all, except that he will probably appear to be heading a more competent government for a month or two - that said, I have no confidence in the shadow cabinet to be competent once in power, they seem total lightweights to me.

On all the big issues - economics, nationalisation, the welfare state, pandemic restrictions, signing up to WHO treaties, online censorship, ever-accelerating digitisation, immigration, net zero, Ukraine, Nato, even Brexit (!) - Labour offers merely 'more of the same'. I'm not sure there has ever been a time when we've so desperately needed a change in direction and yet are so unlikely to get one.

 

[birchesgreen]

People who offer radical change seldom get elected.

 

[nlogax]

On all the big issues - economics, nationalisation, the welfare state, pandemic restrictions, signing up to WHO treaties, online censorship, ever-accelerating digitisation, immigration, net zero, Ukraine, Nato, even Brexit (!) - Labour offers merely 'more of the same'. I'm not sure there has ever been a time when we've so desperately needed a change in direction and yet are so unlikely to get one.

Labour's problem now is the same one as the Conservatives had in 2010.. there's bugger all in the piggybank. This time it's for different reasons but here we are, and most of what you list above weren't pressing issues back then hence pressures on finances are even more challenging than they were thirteen years ago. What radical changes could realistically be adopted bearing in mind our current reality?

 

[yorksrob]

Labour's problem now is the same one as the Conservatives had in 2010.. there's bugger all in the piggybank. This time it's for different reasons but here we are, and most of what you list above weren't pressing issues back then hence pressures on finances are even more challenging than they were thirteen years ago. What radical changes could realistically be adopted bearing in mind our current reality?

Just getting the trains running as per the timetable would be a pretty big change, representing clear red water.

 

[nw1]

People who offer radical change seldom get elected.

I suspect a Labour win will be an opportunity for a shift in direction for many of the issues listed above, but they are unlikely to happen (in a radical way) in the first term. That said I expect to see some steps in the right direction on some issues, such as resuming good relations with continental western European countries and the EU, without actually trying to rejoin - there is no "pride" reason for Labour to maintain frosty relations, unlike the Tories.

I'd also hope that Labour's inherently more left-wing outlook on life might see them being more understanding of issues such as the significant threat to jobs that AI poses, not to mention sorting the NHS out. And, while they may not admit it now, hopefully they will realise that the only way they can avoid being out of power for 15 years at a time is to bring in some sort of PR, or similar.

If Labour disappoint on such issues, I'd predict the growth of strong-left politics in the UK as people will seek an alternative to the same old, same old. I won't comment on whether that's a good thing or not. The "blame everything on immigrants and minorities" line of the populist right is starting to wear thin now; it's had its time and I suspect people are now seeing through it - and I think Farage has had his opportunity for power and flunked it.

The hope also is that the Tories will do a reboot, or should that be a boot-out (as in boot out right-wing radicals such as Anderson, Braverman and the like), and reset to being a centre-right party again, so that by the time we get to the 2029 election, while they will never be the first choice for some of us, may be a good deal less objectionable than they are currently.

 

[nlogax]

The hope also is that the Tories will do a reboot, or should that be a boot (as in boot out Braverman and the like), and reset to being a centre-right party again, so that by the time we get to the 2029 election, while they will never be the first choice for some of us, may be a good deal less objectionable than they are currently.

I'd like to see that. Two decades after Theresa May coined the 'nasty party' phrase at the annual Tory conference the party has gone through a complete 360° cycle. At first glance it's one hell of a rollercoaster but as ever the Tories are absolutely intent on destroying themselves from within and alienating their core voters in order to appease lunatics. I fear they will be reliving this pattern or behaviour for decades to come.

 

[nw1]

Just getting the trains running as per the timetable would be a pretty big change, representing clear red water.

Preferably a timetable for a year <= 2019.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

People who offer radical change seldom get elected.

Clement Attlee in 1945
Margaret Thatcher in 1979
Boris Johnson in 2019

All were offering the promise of radical change and all got elected.

I suspect the key thing is that you'll only get elected on a promise of radical change if enough people are massively fed up with the status quo - which was certainly the case in all the elections I've listed. I actually suspect that Tony Blair could have promised radical change in 1997 and would've still got elected, but he chose to play it ultra-safe instead.

 

[MikeWM]

People who offer radical change seldom get elected.

*At a time when things are otherwise going fairly well*, I agree. Blair knew that in 1997. However, when people are desperate for change because they think the country is on the wrong path, that doesn't apply as much. See Attlee 1945, Thatcher 1979, almost-Corbyn in 2017, and Johnson in 2019.

--

Labour's problem now is the same one as the Conservatives had in 2010.. there's bugger all in the piggybank. This time it's for different reasons but here we are, and most of what you list above weren't pressing issues back then hence pressures on finances are even more challenging than they were thirteen years ago. What radical changes could realistically be adopted bearing in mind our current reality?

Some of the things on my list aren't economic at all, of course. But for the economic ones, look to what Attlee's government achieved in even direr financial circumstances.

--

there is no "pride" reason for Labour to maintain frosty relations, unlike the Tories.

It's not all one-way of course - I suspect the French, for example will always have frosty relations with us, however friendly we try to be. And I say that as someone who has a much higher opinion of the French than it seems most English people do

I'd also hope that Labour's inherently more left-wing outlook on life

...that's really not what I see when I look at the Labour front bench!

If Labour disappoint on such issues, I'd predict the growth of strong-left politics in the UK as people will seek an alternative to the same old, same old. I won't comment on whether that's a good thing or not.

I agree, I suspect we'll see significant growth on both the far-left and far-right, as we're already seeing in many European countries. I know that this sort of thing 'doesn't happen here', but I don't think that is a bulwark against it happening now or in the near future.

 

[jfollows]

The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23086224/rishi-sunak-cabinet-reshuffle-by-elections/) reports an imminent Cabinet reshuffle once the Conservatives lose all three by-elections on Thursday, meaning Ben Wallace will be out. Essentially lump all the bad news together this week.

RISHI Sunak is weighing up a Cabinet clear-out as soon as this week - as Downing Street brace for a triple by-election thumping on Thursday.

No10 could bring forward a reshuffle pencilled in for September to avoid a summer of speculation.

Rishi Sunak is weighing up a Cabinet clear-out as soon as this week - as Downing Street brace for a triple by-election thumping on ThursdayCredit: PA
One minister told The Sun last night that "there’s logic to biting the bullet and going now” but other MPs worry the move would look like panic following an expected ballot box drubbing.

Voters in Uxbridge, West London, Selby in Yorkshire and Frome in Somerset are all set to give the government a bloody nose on Thursday.

Senior Tories privately admit efforts to defend the three Tory-held seats "are lost" after the departure of Boris Johnson and his ally Nigel Adams, as well as the cocaine-shame MP David Warburton.

Last night No10 officially insisted there are “no plans” for a reshuffle, but insiders did not rule out one this week.

 

[yorksrob]

Preferably a timetable for a year <= 2019.

Yes, maybe with some sensible tweaks.

 

[nlogax]

But for the economic ones, look to what Attlee's government achieved in even direr financial circumstances.

It did of course help that Attlee didn't need to spend billions on what was the war effort and could redirect those funds to rebuild the country and economy. Where's that handy chunk of change now?

 

[Snow1964]

As it stands I can’t see the Tories winning, and I’d be amazed if there’s some kind of turnaround before the next GE. That said, I’m not sure Labour will secure the landslide many are predicting.

What comes next is the worry. Whilst many on this thread will rejoice simply at seeing the Tories lose power (and I get it)

I think it could be fairly regional, Labour might not get back Scottish lowlands (now SNP), could struggle in South Midlands, and South Wales.

Huge chunks of Southern England, roughly a triangle from Sussex to Buckinghamshire to Devon likely to go to Lim Dem.

Not that easy to get a landslide if not doing well in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South. My money is on Labour being biggest party, but needing a coalition partner. So they will need to stay middle of road rather than do lefty policies.

 

[birchesgreen]

People not understand the meaning of the word seldom?

 

[nw1]

Clement Attlee in 1945
Margaret Thatcher in 1979
Boris Johnson in 2019

All were offering the promise of radical change and all got elected.

I suspect the key thing is that you'll only get elected on a promise of radical change if enough people are massively fed up with the status quo - which was certainly the case in all the elections I've listed. I actually suspect that Tony Blair could have promised radical change in 1997 and would've still got elected, but he chose to play it ultra-safe instead.

Seems Starmer is doing the same thing (playing it safe), but probably because he is constrained by the finances. Even still, I'd like to see some recognition that issues such as GP and NHS dentist availability need sorting, urgently.

Ignoring the controversial issues, I suspect many of us do want radical change (for the better) on such issues as the NHS, public services and job security.

 

[MikeWM]

It did of course help that Attlee didn't need to spend billions on what was the war effort and could redirect those funds to rebuild the country and economy. Where's that handy chunk of change now?

However poor the finances are currently, they were considerably worse in the latter half of the 1940s, especially once the USA demanded we start repaying them.

But I'm not sure I follow the argument that the end of the war meant funds were available. It seems equivalent to saying that we no longer 'need' to spend billions on furlough, contact tracing, etc. now the pandemic is over, and so could redirect those funds for rebuilding. But they were exceptional funds in the first place, not general government spending.

 

[nw1]

I think it could be fairly regional, Labour might not get back Scottish lowlands (now SNP), could struggle in South Midlands, and South Wales.

Huge chunks of Southern England, roughly a triangle from Sussex to Buckinghamshire to Devon likely to go to Lim Dem.

Not that easy to get a landslide if not doing well in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South. My money is on Labour being biggest party, but needing a coalition partner. So they will need to stay middle of road rather than do lefty policies.

I think it will depend on exactly which seats flip. I suspect that almost all the Red Wall seats lost in 2019 will flip back to Labour, and the Lib Dems will gain a lot of the south (seats such as, but not restricted to, Guildford, Winchester or Esher and Walton).

I can see a seat distribution not unlike 2017, but with seats which Labour marginally lost that year (Southampton Itchen for example) won by Labour - and considerably more southern Lib Dem wins. This should be enough for a Labour narrow win, perhaps as a coalition. I can see that rural England will remain steadfastly Conservative and likely seats such as Nuneaton and Tamworth too, which seemed to have shifted markedly to the right recently (the West Midlands outside the metro area is likely to be the hardest area for Labour to get seats back, based on recent trends).

 

[birchesgreen]

However poor the finances are currently, they were considerably worse in the latter half of the 1940s, especially once the USA demanded we start repaying them.

Back then the vested interests were easily overcome by the post-war appetite for change and everything being in a state of flux. Nowadays if you want anything other than tinkering around the edges then someone, who no doubt has an oversized influence over the state / regime actors, will be put out in some way and thus the changes will be either cancelled or watered down.

 

[MikeWM]

Back then the vested interests were easily overcome by the post-war appetite for change and everything being in a state of flux. Nowadays if you want anything other than tinkering around the edges then someone, who no doubt has an oversized influence over the state / regime actors, will be put out in some way and thus the changes will be either cancelled or watered down.

I strongly suspect you're right, I've been complaining about that on here for some time.

But then maybe politicians should be talking about *that*, and we could then debate if that is the sort of society we want to live in, or whether we want a society where we can vote for politicians to make radical change if that's what we actually want. The current situation isn't terribly democratic, after all.

 

[Thirteen]

A change of Government was always likely, it's been mirrored in other countries where the party who have ruled for a while are booted out because people get tired of them.

 

[dangie]

At last something I agree with:

Poor quality university courses face limits on student numbers

Ministers will ask the regulator to restrict numbers on underperforming courses in England.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[simonw]

Back then the vested interests were easily overcome by the post-war appetite for change and everything being in a state of flux. Nowadays if you want anything other than tinkering around the edges then someone, who no doubt has an oversized influence over the state / regime actors, will be put out in some way and thus the changes will be either cancelled or watered down.

Not really. The BMC fought tooth and nail against the foundation of the NHS. There are still elements of health care in this country that, it can be argued, are suboptimal Because of the campaign they waged against the NHS.