Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[SuspectUsual]

There are records of voting history and attendance available online. My local MP (who I'm not massively keen on) has roughly a 91% attendance to votes over the current parliamentary term. In comparison Dorries has an attendance of 48%. The last time she voted was in April.

The Public Whip — Voting Record - Nadine Dorries MP, Mid Bedfordshire (11397)

A 48% attendance rate and not voting in over three months is, to me, a contempt of Parliament, never mind showing contempt for her constituents

 

[MikeWM]

Arguably, if a debate is going on in parliament, its important enough for at least some constituents that the mp should be present.

Barely any important debate goes on in the House Of Commons at all nowadays - successive executives have slowly strangled the procedures through standing order changes, to the point that little of consequence is allowed to happen.

Given we're talking about Dorries, look at the second reading of the Online 'Safety' Bill in April 2022, when she was the minister responsible for the bill. Not so long ago a bill of such important and complexity would have got two full days for second reading. Instead it got 2 hours and 24 minutes, most of which was taken up by the ministers and shadow ministers. Backbenchers who were called first got 5 minutes to make a speech, which was reduced to 4, then 3. The last backbencher to speak got 1 minute. Many who wanted to speak didn't have any time at all.

Participation in debates and the process of lawmaking requires having the time to make a speech, take interventions, ask questions about the law in front of you. Instead MPs have been reduced to soundbite machines, and if some are less motivated to try to do their job as a result, or indeed wonder what the point is in showing up at all to try to make a speech, I'm not sure I blame them.

 

[brad465]

I don't know if Dorries has ever attacked benefit scroungers, but if she has then Flitwick Council's letter suggests she'd be being a hypocrite if she had.

And every single Sinn Fein MP elected since the 1980s?

If it were down to me deliberately refusing to take one's seat should forfeit their victory and hand over the seat to second place, but that's another matter entirely.

 

[najaB]

If it were down to me deliberately refusing to take one's seat should forfeit their victory and hand over the seat to second place, but that's another matter entirely

If the MP did it on a whim, yes. But anyone voting for Sin Fein knows that their MP, if elected, will not take their seat. If it is wise to cast your vote with that understanding is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

I don't know why people are complaining about Nadine Dorries, she said she was resigning as an MP not from parliament

 

[Gloster]

I wonder if we are going to see a May 2024 general election. With the Conservatives trying to appeal to the motorist by dropping their environmental policies, they could combine it with an attempt to hold on to a few seats in London and the Home Counties by bashing ULEZ, which looks like being a major element of their London campaign. They also have the Metro Mayor in Liverpool, always the scene of infighting, and Manchester, and possibly the new North-East one, where it looks as though the infighting has already started. With the improving weather reducing peoples’ heating bills and a possible slowing of the small boats over the winter to be trumpeted, they may well grab the chance before it starts to get worse again. However, as Macmillan said, “Events, dear boy, events.”

(The mods might think this should be a new thread.)

 

[Typhoon]

There are records of voting history and attendance available online. My local MP (who I'm not massively keen on) has roughly a 91% attendance to votes over the current parliamentary term. In comparison Dorries has an attendance of 48%. The last time she voted was in April.

The Public Whip — Voting Record - Nadine Dorries MP, Mid Bedfordshire (11397)

Thanks for that! She has only voted on four different days in over a year (stats courtesy of parliament.uk)

I don't know why people are complaining about Nadine Dorries, she said she was resigning as an MP not from parliament

That's fine, we pay her for being an MP, no one cares if she shows up for parliament. Maybe they should give her a hint and let her know all the stuff from her office has been put in a cardboard box ready for collection; request the return of any tech they are given as MPs. Same with the likes of Pincher.

It is a shame that writing appalling literature is not a crime, no doubt about it, guilty. Send her down Then we would be well rid!

Barely any important debate goes on in the House Of Commons at all nowadays - successive executives have slowly strangled the procedures through standing order changes, to the point that little of consequence is allowed to happen.

Given we're talking about Dorries, look at the second reading of the Online 'Safety' Bill in April 2022, when she was the minister responsible for the bill. Not so long ago a bill of such important and complexity would have got two full days for second reading. Instead it got 2 hours and 24 minutes, most of which was taken up by the ministers and shadow ministers. Backbenchers who were called first got 5 minutes to make a speech, which was reduced to 4, then 3. The last backbencher to speak got 1 minute. Many who wanted to speak didn't have any time at all.

Participation in debates and the process of lawmaking requires having the time to make a speech, take interventions, ask questions about the law in front of you. Instead MPs have been reduced to soundbite machines, and if some are less motivated to try to do their job as a result, or indeed wonder what the point is in showing up at all to try to make a speech, I'm not sure I blame them.

What is so annoying about that is that some backbenchers have expertise in the field, something useful to contribute and can put forward a coherent argument (just like some of the Lords). Unfortunately, because of that, they are not trusted with ministerial responsibility, instead it is given to those who can sit there and just chant on cue. Occasionally MPs who know something about the field are allowed to put their skills to good use and the results are beneficial. Steve Webb with pensions, it could be argued Ben Wallace at defence. Occasionally, they are left for years in the same department where they build up this expertise - Duncan and Burt at the Foreign Office. Otherwise MPs are shuffled from one department to another, showing that they are just as ignorant about Health as they are about Housing, trotting out the same bland answer to a different question than the one they were asked - either that or the deflect answer 'The Monster Raving Loonies would do ....' based on nothing at all.
No wonder some of the more able are leaving politics.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I wonder if we are going to see a May 2024 general election. With the Conservatives trying to appeal to the motorist by dropping their environmental policies, they could combine it with an attempt to hold on to a few seats in London and the Home Counties by bashing ULEZ, which looks like being a major element of their London campaign. They also have the Metro Mayor in Liverpool, always the scene of infighting, and Manchester, and possibly the new North-East one, where it looks as though the infighting has already started. With the improving weather reducing peoples’ heating bills and a possible slowing of the small boats over the winter to be trumpeted, they may well grab the chance before it starts to get worse again. However, as Macmillan said, “Events, dear boy, events.”

The thought has crossed my mind too. Besides the reasons you mention, I would imagine this time Tory voters are likely to be more apathetic than anti-Tory voters, and so more likely to be put off voting by bad weather, which would give the Tories an additional reason to hold the election in the spring. Also, if the opinion polls are not too disastrous for them by then, it'll probably be tempting to go for it rather than hang on and risk some unexpected bad news come up at a time when it's impossible to further delay the election.

I assume in terms of admin/bureaucracy costs it will be cheaper to combine the elections on the same day - though that probably won't be the uppermost in ministers' minds.

I can also see how campaigning on ULEZ in London will be tempting for them, but I think they could be mistaken: By next May, expanded ULEZ will have been running for 8 months, and most people affected will have already either upgraded their cars or adjusted their lifestyles, and so will have very little reason to vote for removing ULEZ. Plus people in inner London who will be much more aware of pollution will also be voting - those people are not going to be impressed by a pledge that amounts to, We'll increase pollution for you!

 

[Typhoon]

The thought has crossed my mind too. Besides the reasons you mention, I would imagine this time Tory voters are likely to be more apathetic than anti-Tory voters, and so more likely to be put off voting by bad weather, which would give the Tories an additional reason to hold the election in the spring. Also, if the opinion polls are not too disastrous for them by then, it'll probably be tempting to go for it rather than hang on and risk some unexpected bad news come up at a time when it's impossible to further delay the election.

I assume in terms of admin/bureaucracy costs it will be cheaper to combine the elections on the same day - though that probably won't be the uppermost in ministers' minds.

I can also see how campaigning on ULEZ in London will be tempting for them, but I think they could be mistaken: By next May, expanded ULEZ will have been running for 8 months, and most people affected will have already either upgraded their cars or adjusted their lifestyles, and so will have very little reason to vote for removing ULEZ. Plus people in inner London who will be much more aware of pollution will also be voting - those people are not going to be impressed by a pledge that amounts to, We'll increase pollution for you!

If they concentrate too much on ULEZ those in the south, south west, East Anglia could, with some justification, complain that the Conservatives are ignoring them - 'it is all London, London' - and follow the Somerton & Frome lead. Plus anyone in the 'outer' Home Counties probably never drives to London, those that work there will commute by train. Starmer's stance may appear to show a split but it also means Labour can knock back any claims that they will spread it right across the country. Also those who, say, have already bought an electric car will just feel that they made the right decision at the right time.

 

[nw1]

The thought has crossed my mind too. Besides the reasons you mention, I would imagine this time Tory voters are likely to be more apathetic than anti-Tory voters, and so more likely to be put off voting by bad weather, which would give the Tories an additional reason to hold the election in the spring. Also, if the opinion polls are not too disastrous for them by then, it'll probably be tempting to go for it rather than hang on and risk some unexpected bad news come up at a time when it's impossible to further delay the election.

I would tend to agree, though I will admit to being biased by hope, given what side of the fence I'm on.

I've said several times on here that even an autumn election in Oct risks the chance of severely bad weather, as those of us around in 1987 will provide testament to. And of course in Oct such things as heating bills are uppermost in people's minds, though maybe one might hope this might be moderating by then.

Anything beyond Oct 2024 is an absolute no-no as the days are extremely short and the chance of bad weather very high indeed. And Christmas of course gets in the way. The "Boris" election was an oddity with odd circumstances, and we won't have that next time.

 

[Busaholic]

I'd suggest an amendment to the Recall of MPs Act 2015. At the moment there's no way for constituents to initiate a recall. It's currently only triggered if an MP gets a custodial prison sentence (including a suspended sentence), are suspended from the House for at least 10 sitting days following a report by Standards Committee or have a conviction for making false or misleading claims for MP expenses. That then triggers the petition whereby if at least 10% of the electorate of the constituency sign the petition a by-election is triggered.

I wonder if it should therefore be amended in someway to make it possible for constituents to initiate the recall process? I dunno something like if you can get 5% of the electorate to sign a petition to recall an MP then that could trigger the proper petition process that we already have? Perhaps blocked within 18 months of the last time the seat had an election? Must be someway of doing it so that if there is a strong feeling locally the MP can face a recall but without making it too easy so we end up with MPs getting recalled all the time for any odd reason and hosts of by-elections as a result!

It was the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in 2012 which recommended that constituents be prevented from initiating a recall process for their MPs, which had been proposed in many quarters. The resulting Commons debate produced advocates on either side, but one of the most vociferous against recall was Labour MP Geraint Davies. The latter now represents Swansea West, but was MP for Croydon Central at the time and had previously been leader of Croydon Council. A cynic might suggest he had self-preservation in mind, given how woefully that council has acted in the last fifteen years or so.

 

[takno]

It was the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in 2012 which recommended that constituents be prevented from initiating a recall process for their MPs, which had been proposed in many quarters. The resulting Commons debate produced advocates on either side, but one of the most vociferous against recall was Labour MP Geraint Davies. The latter now represents Swansea West, but was MP for Croydon Central at the time and had previously been leader of Croydon Council. A cynic might suggest he had self-preservation in mind, given how woefully that council has acted in the last fifteen years or so.

He was leader of Croydon Council for a year ending in 1997, which was probably before any of the problematic investments were made. It was certainly before the internet really took off, so investments in town centre retail and commercial space would have been seen as hugely profitable and very safe. Even by 2012 it wasn't really clear that the investments were inherently bad - town centre retail was starting to collapse, but Croydon was growing at a pace which largely outstripped that.

 

[yorksrob]

He was leader of Croydon Council for a year ending in 1997, which was probably before any of the problematic investments were made. It was certainly before the internet really took off, so investments in town centre retail and commercial space would have been seen as hugely profitable and very safe. Even by 2012 it wasn't really clear that the investments were inherently bad - town centre retail was starting to collapse, but Croydon was growing at a pace which largely outstripped that.

I think a lot of large settlements have found themselves in that quandry.

 

[takno]

I think a lot of large settlements have found themselves in that quandry.

Croydon made some sensible strategic investments to encourage growth, which were extremely successful both in developing the centre and producing a return for the council. The problem for them was that the budget squeeze left them hunting around for investments which could allow them to not strip council spending to the bone. The investments which had done so well in the past looked like an irresistible opportunity in that sense, even though a smarter financial manager could perhaps by that point have foreseen the collapse.

 

[yorksrob]

Croydon made some sensible strategic investments to encourage growth, which were extremely successful both in developing the centre and producing a return for the council. The problem for them was that the budget squeeze left them hunting around for investments which could allow them to not strip council spending to the bone. The investments which had done so well in the past looked like an irresistible opportunity in that sense, even though a smarter financial manager could perhaps by that point have foreseen the collapse.

Croydon has the additional headache of having the ultimate retail centre within a short train journey.

 

[Gloster]

Croydon has the additional headache of having the ultimate retail centre within a short train journey.

Which has been there for as long as Croydon, or probably longer. So it isn’t a factor that unexpectedly appeared and so could be taken into account. However, it is true that retail outlets in The Smoke are more likely to weather recessions than provincial ones (if you can call Croydon ’provincial’, even though it has probably been called just about everything else.)

 

[yorksrob]

Which has been there for as long as Croydon, or probably longer. So it isn’t a factor that unexpectedly appeared and so could be taken into account. However, it is true that retail outlets in The Smoke are more likely to weather recessions than provincial ones (if you can call Croydon ’provincial’, even though it has probably been called just about everything else.)

That's a fair point.

I was just noting that Croydon has a constraint that retail centres such as Leeds and Manchester don't.

 

[Busaholic]

Croydon made some sensible strategic investments to encourage growth, which were extremely successful both in developing the centre and producing a return for the council. The problem for them was that the budget squeeze left them hunting around for investments which could allow them to not strip council spending to the bone. The investments which had done so well in the past looked like an irresistible opportunity in that sense, even though a smarter financial manager could perhaps by that point have foreseen the collapse.

Allders. Centrale, Westfield (not) were all handled badly, to put it mildly, by officials and councillors alike. Private Eye magazine has rarely printed an issue since the late 1990s with no mention of the shenanigans. Much corruption has been alleged and some of it proved. Both Labour and Tory politicians have (allegedly) been involved. No councillors or top council officials from the more recent years have been held to account, instead choosing to resign, some receiving handsome pay-offs to boot. You'll notice all talk of making Croydon a city has ceased, for very good reason.

 

[nlogax]

Meanwhile, back on the Dorries train,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66382232

Nadine Dorries's constituents are not being properly represented, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak told LBC people deserved to have an MP "that represents them wherever they are".
The former culture secretary announced in June she was standing down as MP for Mid Bedfordshire with immediate effect.
But she later said she would not resign until she got more information about why she was denied a peerage in Boris Johnson's resignation honours list.

When even your mildly incompetent and out-of-touch boss / PM suggests that you're not doing your job then maybe it really is time to bugger off.

 

[Typhoon]

Meanwhile, back on the Dorries train,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66382232



When even your mildly incompetent and out-of-touch boss / PM suggests that you're not doing your job then maybe it really is time to bugger off.

There is only one person whose opinion she would take notice of on such a matter and it isn't Sunak.

In fact, I gather the gentleman in question may not have time to advise her as he is currently having trouble with newts!

 

[nlogax]

There is only one person whose opinion she would take notice of on such a matter and it isn't Sunak.

Dorries' fawning over anything and everything Johnson did and said was mind-bending to say the least. I do wonder how she feels about him now with that peerage having slipped from her grasp.

 

[Typhoon]

Dorries' fawning over anything and everything Johnson did and said was mind-bending to say the least. I do wonder how she feels about him now with that peerage having slipped from her grasp.

I always wondered what Carrie (the current Mrs J) thought about it, I wonder whether she had a quiet word with Sunak. She may even have told Johnson to ask Sunak to remove Nad from the list - 'I say, old chap, if you cross off Dorries, I promise not to write anything bad about you in my Mail column, at least for the first month or two."

Incidentally (assuming Labour win next time), if I was Starmer I would be putting Marina Wheeler forward for an award at the first opportunity for services to Law, Literature and Forbearance.

 

[The Ham]

On the "it's greener to use North Sea gas", Channel 4 have done a fact check:

Sunak claims North Sea gas ‘four times’ less polluting than imports

On the day he announced hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licenses prime minister Rishi Sunak told reporters that producing natural gas in the UK is “better for the climate” than importing it from abroad. He said that’s because it’s “far better to have it here at home…

www.channel4.com

FactCheck verdict​

Rishi Sunak claimed that extracting more gas from the North Sea is “better for the climate” because the alternative — importing gas from abroad — is “four times” more polluting.

It’s true that the extraction, processing and transport of imported natural gas is four times more carbon-intensive than the extraction and transport of gas taken from the North Sea.

But when we account for the massive carbon emissions caused by burning the gas, the difference between the two sources becomes proportionally much smaller. Using figures from the International Energy Agency, we estimate that imported gas is about 17 per cent more polluting overall than North Sea gas — not “four times”, or 500 per cent worse, as Rishi Sunak claimed.

And of course, the more gas the world extracts — wherever it’s from — the more carbon will be emitted into the atmosphere

Arguably, to make the same carbon saving as increasing our North Sea gas use, we could instead cut our use of imported gas by 17% by increasing the use of green energy.

Given that any new licences are likely to be several years (if not more then a couple of decades) away from actually delivering any extra gas, whilst new renewables can be delivered much faster.

How could we cut our gas usage by 17% you may well as. Given that LPG actually only makes up 35% of our gas usage we'd actually only need to cut our total gas usage by 6%.

Whilst our usage changes year by year depending on winter temperature, the general trend is downwards (there's always outliers, such as 2014 was the lowest use year 1994 - earlier than that and coal was doing a lot of the power generation), if we repeated last year's reduction in gas use in percentage terms (so a smaller actual number of units in reduction) we'd see a 8% fall, even between 2019 and 2021 (2020 is an outlier due to COVID) there was a 1.3% reduction - so we'd only need 5 years of similar reductions to reduce LPG demand by enough to reduce our emissions by the same amount as replacing all our LPG use with North Sea gas.

Arguably by the time we've got to (say) 2038 (15 years from now), it we manage to reduce gas use by 2.8% year on year there would be no need for that 35% of gas which is imported as LPG. Therefore, likely to be pointless to have created those new exploration licences.

That's still not going to be easy, and it's likely that old sources will shut down over time, so it's unlikely the LPG imports will stop (especially given that some allow gas experts to Europe), however with most new houses being built from this summer having air source heat pumps rather than gas boilers, the use of gas is likely to only tend downwards.

 

[yorksrob]

The need to expand the electricity grid more quickly is something he's right about.

I can see the argument for relying more on domestically sourced methane rather than imported in the short term. I'd want to see an overhaul of the licensing system whereby the price for domestic customers is capped and can't be wildly inflated on the international market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

I do find all this concern about inflation perplexing, given that most of the inflation I'm experiencing is being caused directly by the Government putting up prices/interest rates.

The Tory faithful are saying they want a tax cut. How about a tax cut in VAT. That would directly cut inflation at the same time.

 

[Gloster]

The need to expand the electricity grid more quickly is something he's right about.

I can see the argument for relying more on domestically sourced methane rather than imported in the short term. I'd want to see an overhaul of the licensing system whereby the price for domestic customers is capped and can't be wildly inflated on the international market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

I do find all this concern about inflation perplexing, given that most of the inflation I'm experiencing is being caused directly by the Government putting up prices/interest rates.

The Tory faithful are saying they want a tax cut. How about a tax cut in VAT. That would directly cut inflation at the same time.

But they want a tax cut that specifically favours them. Cutting VAT is all very well, but they want something like a cut in tax on high earnings, unearned income or the like that is to their specific advantage. Many of them realise that some tax still has to be paid, so they want the burden to be shifted onto others. Most people want the others to pay the bulk of the tax, but the poor have less to pay it out of.

 

[yorksrob]

But they want a tax cut that specifically favours them. Cutting VAT is all very well, but they want something like a cut in tax on high earnings, unearned income or the like that is to their specific advantage. Many of them realise that some tax still has to be paid, so they want the burden to be shifted onto others. Most people want the others to pay the bulk of the tax, but the poor have less to pay it out of.

Quite, which is why they're always banging on about inheritance tax.

I was just opining on the off-chance that a few of them might have the countries interests at heart.

 

[jfollows]

Quite, which is why they're always banging on about inheritance tax.

I was just opining on the off-chance that a few of them might have the countries interests at heart.

Yes, it's an excessively emotional tax, isn't it? By which I mean that a lot of people (many of them likely Conservative supporters) attach a lot of emotion to it. I've always personally found this strange, but then they would probably say that I am strange; I inherited some money and paid some tax on it, and I don't give a hoot about whether or not any recipient of an inheritance from me pays tax on it or not. My dad and I thought alike I guess - we both do some things to legally minimise the money that goes in tax where it makes sense, but otherwise that's it.
My opinion is that any reduction in inheritance tax (which might be a manifesto item for the next election, so won't come to anything anyway) would have to be offset by other less redistributive taxes which will cost the less well off even more, the ones who got hit by another potential mortgage rise yesterday.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, it's an excessively emotional tax, isn't it? By which I mean that a lot of people (many of then likely Conservative supporters) attach a lot of emotion to it. I've always personally found this strange, but then they would probably say that I am strange; I inherited some money and paid some tax on it, and I don't give a hoot about whether or not any recipient of an inheritance from me pays tax on it or not. My dad and I thought alike I guess - we both do some things to legally minimise the money that goes in tax where it makes sense, but otherwise that's it.
My opinion is that any reduction in inheritance tax (which might be a manifesto item for the next election, so won't come to anything anyway) would have to be offset by other less redistributive taxes which will cost the less well off even more, the ones who got hit by another potential mortgage rise yesterday.

It is. There's also the issue that a cut in heritance tax won't be directed towards any particular section of the economy, so could just as easily end up fueling inflation.

Any tax cuts need to be directed towards the labour intensive, competitive service industries that have capacity to soak up excess money.

VAT on domestic services or business rates on domestic services and production are the only sensible options in this respect. Obviously there'd have to be some tweaking to ensure that genuinely competitive small businesses were the beneficiaries, rather than big business cartels, such as media/telecoms providers.

 

[nw1]

But they want a tax cut that specifically favours them. Cutting VAT is all very well, but they want something like a cut in tax on high earnings, unearned income or the like that is to their specific advantage. Many of them realise that some tax still has to be paid, so they want the burden to be shifted onto others. Most people want the others to pay the bulk of the tax, but the poor have less to pay it out of.

To be quite frank they can shove their tax cuts up their proverbial.

Given that Sunak, Hunt and the rest are constantly reminding us how we have to cut public services because we "can't afford" to run them properly, how on earth can we afford tax cuts?

While he may not be advocating such cuts, overall, Sunak is seriously challenging Johnson for the no.2 spot of worst PM of modern times, behind Mad Lizzie.

"Make the NHS even worse. Freeze public sector pay. Cut taxes for the well-off. Blame immigrants for all the country's problems. Abandon all pedestrian and cyclist-friendly policies. Vote Conservative!"

 

[yorksrob]

To be quite frank they can shove their tax cuts up their proverbial.

Given that Sunak, Hunt and the rest are constantly reminding us how we have to cut public services because we "can't afford" to run them properly, how on earth can we afford tax cuts?

I think Mad Lizzie (the aerobics instructor on TVAM) would probably do a better job than any of them !