Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[edwin_m]

"Them Him" = the people person who are is making the decision of when the election will be.

"Us" = everyone else.

Put that right for you.

We know that to some extent the Conservatives can dodge improving rail (or in current climate, more how much can they pare it back). Eventually some MPs in marginal areas are going to need few crumbs of local good rail news for their campaigns

AKA Restoring your Railways.

 

[Snow1964]

AKA Restoring your Railways.

Another one that is currently lost in the black hole of the Sunak Government, weren't all of the updated submissions at least 9 months ago, with many waiting over year for news

 

[najaB]

Put that right for you.

Yes, the PM is the one who goes to visit the Monarch, but I guarantee you that he's got a horde of advisors and hangers-on.

 

[yorksrob]

If you think of it from the rank and file of ordinary MPs (not the ministers) who are likely to lose their seat, it is akin to average worker knowing they will be made redundant by 2025, but rather hoping don't lose job sooner rather than later.

So treating all MPs as them, (and some work pretty hard for their constituents) rather than thinking of some as one of us is bit unfair. If you polarise your views then never going to have government and opposition working together.

Elections are a core mechanism for democracy. Any politician who's squeamish about getting booted out shouldn't be an MP in the first place.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the PM is the one who goes to visit the Monarch, but I guarantee you that he's got a horde of advisors and hangers-on.

My point was that since the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, Parliament has no say in when to call an election, unless a vote of no confidence succeeds.

 

[Gloster]

Yes, the PM is the one who goes to visit the Monarch, but I guarantee you that he's got a horde of advisors and hangers-on.

I though it was the editor of the Daily Mail who decides when the election is and who wins.

 

[Busaholic]

Personally, I still feel that there may be a snap May election.

I feel they may snap before then.

 

[nw1]

So where are we now, Sunak has his 5 promises : halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce debt, cut NHS waiting list, stop the boats. Inflation has come down, roughly on target. But not much evidence of other 4 happening.

I (and quite a lot of people I know) are starting to be convinced he won't call an early election next spring or summer, will instead just run on until end of Parliament in December 2024, thus forcing a January 2025 election. Anyone else get same feeling ?

Who would want a January election, with a Christmas campaign period though?

I'd still say October at the latest. Indeed perhaps October would be the safest bet, not too early, but not at a completely ridiculous and unworkable time of year.

Indeed, I'd say that holding an election in the coldest month, and one of the stormiest months, of the year, with a very high chance of disruptive gales and rain, and in Northern England and Scotland, a good chance of snow and even blizzards, could be considered irresponsible.

 

[Snow1964]

Who would want a January election, with a Christmas campaign period though?

I'd still say October at the latest.

Nobody wants mid January election.

But Sunak dithers on big decisions, he is unlikely to call and synchronise with May council elections, then results might put him off, so then will not call election Sept or Oct either. So will just run on until end of Parliament in December, and default to January 2025

 

[nw1]

Nobody wants mid January election.

But Sunak dithers on big decisions, he is unlikely to call and synchronise with May council elections, then results might put him off, so then will not call election Sept or Oct either. So will just run on until end of Parliament in December, and default to January 2025

On the other hand the anger this will cause may well be immense. Many of us are already fed up of them and just want the lot of them out as soon as possible. This will only increase if they stay on beyond the last sensible sell-by date and I can see mass protests, fuelled by the parlous state that the country is in, if they stay on that long.

I suspect it will cause floating voters to consider him/them supremely arrogant and lustful for power, and they will suffer worse losses than the would have done with a May or October election.

My advice to Sunak: if you want a landslide defeat worse than 1997, stay on until January 2025. If not, then for heaven's sake give us the vote at a sensible time next year.

 

[brad465]

This is how out of date and flawed our systems of accountability are, attempts to compel Dorries to step down or attend Parliament may require use of a rule dating back to 1801:

Nadine Dorries faces move to force her out of Parliament

Nadine Dorries could be suspended if she does not attend Commons for six months, a senior Labour MP says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries is facing a move to force her out of Parliament if she fails to attend for six months.
The proposals have been put forward by senior Labour MP Sir Chris Bryant.
Ms Dorries said she was standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire in June but later said she would not formally resign until she got more information about why she was denied a peerage.
She has not spoken in the Commons since July 2022 and last voted in April.
Six months on from her last vote in Parliament would be 26 October.
Under his proposals, first reported by the Financial Times, Sir Chris said a motion could be tabled in Parliament requiring an MP to attend Parliament on a certain date.
If they failed to do so he said this could be considered a "contempt of Parliament", which can be punished with a suspension from the Commons.
If MPs approve a suspension of 10 days or more this can trigger a by-election in the constituency, where voters have the chance to oust their local MP.
Sir Chris, who chairs the Commons standards committee, said the move had basis in a parliamentary rule from 1801 stating that "no member do presume to go out of town without leave of this House".
He told the BBC he wanted to see MPs held to the same standards as councillors, who automatically cease to be a councillor, triggering a by-election, if they fail to attend any meetings for six months without good reason.
"I just think this is bringing the whole system into disrepute," he said.
"Why should you be allowed to draw a salary and claim expenses for your staff and all that kind of stuff if you're not actually doing the job of turning up?"

Sir Chris said he had discussed his proposals with both the Conservative and Labour whips, who help organise each party's contribution to parliamentary business, as well as the Clerk of the House, who advises on procedure.
"Everybody knows that, at least in theory, it is a feasible option," he said.
Asked if he would table a motion to oust Ms Dorries when Parliament returns in the autumn, Sir Chris said: "Maybe she'll turn up on the first day back in September and take part in debates and so on. Or maybe she'll resign... Let's see what happens."
Downing Street said it was for Ms Dorries's constituents to decide whether they were "well served".
Last week, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the people of Mid Bedfordshire were not being properly represented.
While he could suspend her as a Conservative MP, Mr Sunak has no power to remove Ms Dorries from Parliament.
Ms Dorries has been approached for comment.
She has previously claimed that "sinister forces" denied her a seat in the House of Lords.
A close ally of Boris Johnson, she has accused Mr Sunak's political team of removing her name from the former prime minister's resignation honours list.
She said she had requested copies of all correspondence relating to her nomination for the Lords and was waiting for this process to be completed before she formally resigned.
However, the former minister has faced calls, including from her local town council, to resign immediately.
Flitwick Town Council said she had not held a surgery in the area since March 2020 and was more focused on her TV show and upcoming book.
Ms Dorries has said her office continues to function as normal and she would continue to serve her constituents.

 

[nw1]

This is how out of date and flawed our systems of accountability are, attempts to compel Dorries to step down or attend Parliament may require use of a rule dating back to 1801:

Nadine Dorries faces move to force her out of Parliament

Nadine Dorries could be suspended if she does not attend Commons for six months, a senior Labour MP says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Let's do a deal.

Dorries doesn't have to stand down, but on condition there's a general election in October. 2023.

How does that sound?

 

[Gloster]

This is how out of date and flawed our systems of accountability are, attempts to compel Dorries to step down or attend Parliament may require use of a rule dating back to 1801:

Nadine Dorries faces move to force her out of Parliament

Nadine Dorries could be suspended if she does not attend Commons for six months, a senior Labour MP says.

www.bbc.co.uk

And if she applies to ask a question at Prime Minister’s Question and wins a place to ask one, she can then ask why she wasn’t given a peerage. A double for her: airing her grievance and keeping her seat for another six months.

If I have understood it correctly, they can’t pass a motion to demand her presence on a specified date until six months have elapsed since her last appearance, i.e. 26 October. If she drops in to vote on the Teddy Bears Picnics (Provision of Beverages), Scotland, Bill, they have to wait for another six months.

 

[najaB]

If I have understood it correctly, they can’t pass a motion to demand her presence on a specified date until six months have elapsed since her last appearance, i.e. 26 October. If she drops in to vote on the Teddy Bears Picnics (Provision of Beverages), Scotland, Bill, they have to wait for another six months.

By virtue of following parliamentary practice, yes. However Parliament has the power to change parliamentary practice at any point that they wish to.

 

[Gloster]

By virtue of following parliamentary practice, yes. However Parliament has the power to change parliamentary practice at any point that they wish to.

But can they do it retrospectively?

 

[MikeWM]

On the other hand the anger this will cause may well be immense. Many of us are already fed up of them and just want the lot of them out as soon as possible. This will only increase if they stay on beyond the last sensible sell-by date and I can see mass protests, fuelled by the parlous state that the country is in, if they stay on that long.

I don't see many people bothering to protest in November or December when the election would be imminent anyway. (Not to say that you can't get well-attended protests in the winter, the anti-lockdown protest of December 2021 was very large indeed, I was there!)

In any event, my money remains on October 2024.

--

By virtue of following parliamentary practice, yes. However Parliament has the power to change parliamentary practice at any point that they wish to.

The 'problem' there is that, except in a very small number of cases, the Government has to schedule the debate in the first place. Parliament doesn't control the order paper, except by the rather extreme means that were used in the Brexit years (and I don't see the current speaker allowing quite the same mechanisms as Speaker Bercow did).

If the *Government* are keen to get rid of Dorries, they could find all manner of ways to do so, including passing a 1-line bill in a day. (Though that would be a really dodgy thing to do given the balance between the legislature and executive).

 

[takno]

If she drops in to vote on the Teddy Bears Picnics (Provision of Beverages), Scotland, Bill, they have to wait for another six months.

Fairly sure that Teddy Bears Picnics are a devolved matter. It's possible that the beverages remain under Westminster control in Wales, but in Scotland the whole matter of catering is strictly controlled by Holyrood

 

[nw1]

I don't see many people bothering to protest in November or December when the election would be imminent anyway. (Not to say that you can't get well-attended protests in the winter, the anti-lockdown protest of December 2021 was very large indeed, I was there!)

You might in the summer and early autumn though, when people are expecting an election but don't get one.

In any event, my money remains on October 2024.

I'd say that or May/June. I really just can't see anyone wanting a mid-winter election due to the coincidence of campaigning with Christmas, and some possibly extremely bad weather.

 

[duncanp]

You might in the summer and early autumn though, when people are expecting an election but don't get one.

I'd say that or May/June. I really just can't see anyone wanting a mid-winter election due to the coincidence of campaigning with Christmas, and some possibly extremely bad weather.

I think a lot will depend on the economic outlook in six months time (early February 2024)

If inflation is falling and cost of living pressures easing, you may find that the election is in June.

Otherwise it will be October, or the first half of November at the latest.

There really isn't anything to be gained (for the Conservatives) by hanging on until the bitter end.

 

[Busaholic]

Let's do a deal.

Dorries doesn't have to stand down, but on condition there's a general election in October. 2023.

How does that sound?

Coincidentally(?) I received a letter from Tory-controlled Cornwall Council today re my place on the Electoral Register, in case it was incorrect: it's less than a year since I last got one of these letters. Maybe someone's been tipped off about the possibility of an early election i.e. November or December 2023. If the odds were good enough, I'd have a tenner on it.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Coincidentally(?) I received a letter from Tory-controlled Cornwall Council today re my place on the Electoral Register, in case it was incorrect: it's less than a year since I last got one of these letters. Maybe someone's been tipped off about the possibility of an early election i.e. November or December 2023. If the odds were good enough, I'd have a tenner on it.

I got one too (from Rotherham). Can't remember the last time I got one but it doesn't seem that long ago.

 

[Gloster]

I got one too (from Rotherham). Can't remember the last time I got one but it doesn't seem that long ago.

I got one recently from the Isle of Wight Council. I don’t read anything particular into this as the date has varied over about six weeks during the twenty-years I have been here. I think they just send it out in good time for the fairly fixed registration date in early October and it probably varies a bit to easily (and cheaply) fit in with other matters.

 

[WatcherZero]

Immigration officers have been told they must work three times faster to clear the backlog.... so thats why they painted the barge red!

 

[brad465]

If the Government believe they're looking at big losses, they won't hold the general election on the same day as the local/Mayoral elections in May 2024, as the elections would be less distinguished, in turn making those other elections worse off for them. They also wouldn't have them in consecutive weeks, so I'd expect at least 3-4 weeks separating them.

I'm confident that Spring/Summer 2024 is most likely as it would resynchronise with the usual election period, and an autumn/winter election looks like hanging onto the bitter end, as well as being an unpopular time of year. The recent Spanish elections being called about 6 months earlier than the latest possible time is also a sign they can pay off for the incumbent, as the incumbent in Spain did enough to stop the PP/Vox coalition concept being sufficient for Governing.

 

[Gloster]

I wonder whether the Covid inquiry will affect the timescale. If there are going to be a number of highly embarrassing revelations about the party’s actions, even if they are largely concerned with the behaviour of has-beens (Johnson, Hancock, Raab, etc.), it might be felt that it is better not to have those appearing in the run up to an election. So they either wait until the dust has settled, if it does, or go to the country before the dirt emerges. (I have tried to find the schedule for the hearings, but failed.)

 

[Urobach]

What on earth has happened to the Conservatives

"F**k off back to France", seriously?

Lee Anderson: Downing Street backs Tory deputy chairman after he told migrants who don't like barges to 'go back to France'

Labour and Lib Dems call Mr Anderson's remarks "wholly unacceptable" and "toe curling".

news.sky.com

Lee Anderson: Downing Street backs Tory deputy chairman after he told migrants who don't like barges to 'go back to France'​

Labour and Lib Dems call Mr Anderson's remarks "wholly unacceptable" and "toe curling".​

Downing Street has defended Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson after he said asylum seekers who don't want to be housed in barges should "f*** off back to France".

When asked if this view represented the government, Number 10 pointed to comments made by Justice Secretary Alex Chalk, who said the "indignation" of the Ashfield MP was well placed.

"The justice secretary was speaking on behalf of the government. That is the response," the spokesperson told Sky News.

Politics live: Minister defends senior Tory's 'salty' comments about migrants

Mr Anderson made the incendiary remarks after it emerged 20 asylum seekers were granted a last-minute reprieve from boarding the Bibby Stockholm accommodation vessel on Monday.

The charity Care4Calais said their transfers from hotels were "cancelled" after lawyers challenged the decision.Tory MP Mr Anderson told Express.co.uk: "If they don't like barges then they should f*** off back to France."

He added: "I think people have just had enough.

"These people come across the Channel in small boats... if they don't like the conditions they are housed in here then they should go back to France, or better not come at all in the first place."
The intervention by lawyers meant just 15 migrants entered the floating accommodation off the Dorset coast on Monday.

The Bibby Stockholm will ultimately hold 500 single male asylum seekers under plans to reduce reliance on expensive hotels - but transferring migrants to the vessel has been mired in difficulty and delays amid safety concerns and local opposition.
Mr Chalk told LBC: "Lee Anderson expresses the righteous indignation of the British people. Yes, he does it in salty terms, that's his style, but his indignation is well placed."

He added that France is a safe country and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

"People should claim asylum in the first country - it's not like there should be an open shopping list of where you want to go," he said.

"He expresses himself in his characteristically robust terms but there is a lot of sense, in my respectful view, in what Lee says."
Mr Anderson has a history of making controversial comments, including saying that people who use food banks can't cook properly.
London Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan condemned his latest remarks and accused the government of stocking divisions.
He tweeted: "Language matters. This lot have been in government for 13 years. After their abject failure all that's left is stoking up more division and hate. We deserve so much better."
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems called Mr Chalk's defence of Mr Anderson "toe curling" and "another sign of how weak this government has become".
Home Affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said: "Lifelong Conservative voters expect decent and respectful political debate, something completely lacking amongst Conservative MPs.

"This Conservative government has made a complete hash of our asylum system after Priti Patel blocked resources to deal with the record 180,000 backlog in cases. This is a mess of their own making."

 

[jfollows]

What on earth has happened to the Conservatives

"F**k off back to France", seriously?

Yes, but there are many potential voters who think and say exactly this - so is Lee Anderson right for saying what they also say? No, of course he isn't, he's a major league toss-pot, but equally there are many politicians who are too guarded in what they say so he'll get credit from a not-insignificant number of people for saying it.
EDIT Oh, and it shows the desperation of the Conservatives which is only going to get worse between now and the election.

 

[uglymonkey]

The conservatives need to split into 2 parties, the extreme right wing rabid side, and the more liberally aware centerist party.

 

[nw1]

What on earth has happened to the Conservatives

"F**k off back to France", seriously?

Lee Anderson: Downing Street backs Tory deputy chairman after he told migrants who don't like barges to 'go back to France'

Labour and Lib Dems call Mr Anderson's remarks "wholly unacceptable" and "toe curling".

news.sky.com

I see Alex "981" Chalk is the MP for ultra-marginal Cheltenham. An extraordinarily bad move on his part if he wants to retain his seat, if he's sucking up to Anderson, someone who, in my own personal opinion, is certainly hard-right. This gives the Lib Dem candidate for the seat so much ammunition. He's utterly finished as Cheltenham MP after this, I suspect, and deservedly so. I can't believe that he is so monumentally stupid - he should have kept quiet, or even better, attacked Anderson as a first step to drive the hard-right out of the party.

To quote from the article above: 'Mr Chalk told LBC: "Lee Anderson expresses the righteous indignation of the British people. Yes, he does it in salty terms, that's his style, but his indignation is well placed."' '

Well I'm a "British person", Mr Chalk, and I find your sycophancy towards Anderson completely and utterly revolting. Sorry.

As for Anderson, well he should, to put it more politely than he did, "get lost" back to Ashfield.

And as for "The justice secretary was speaking on behalf of the government. That is the response," from a no.10 spokesperson, well that's yet another thing reflecting badly on Sunak.

Sorry for the rant, but when the supposed 'mainstream' of the party suck up to the hard-right, the whole party just seems completely unworthy of governing. Forget Oct 2024, we need an Oct 2023 election. They need to go, and go very, very soon.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2023 ==

Yes, but there are many potential voters who think and say exactly this - so is Lee Anderson right for saying what they also say? No, of course he isn't, he's a major league toss-pot, but equally there are many politicians who are too guarded in what they say so he'll get credit from a not-insignificant number of people for saying it.
EDIT Oh, and it shows the desperation of the Conservatives which is only going to get worse between now and the election.

It also shows their profound stupidity, as I said above - I rather suspect that far more people in swing seats like Cheltenham will be turned off by this sort of extreme language than will be turned on by it.

A lot of people, of course, just don't like the f-word being used publicly by people full stop, irrespective of context. I don't care myself, but a lot of traditional Conservatives don't like it, including a fair few genteel Cheltenham residents, I suspect. Another tactical mistake by Chalk in appearing to condone Anderson's nonsense.

 

[Busaholic]

Anderson reminds me of Terry Dicks, the Tory MP for Hayes and Harlington until 1997, who held similar views and expressed them in the same uncompromising way. From photos, they even appear similar physically. Hayes is the next Parliamentary seat to Uxbridge of course, both falling within the London Borough of Hillingdon, so right wingers are nothing new in the area. Sunak, I suspect, is physically afraid of Anderson.