Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[ainsworth74]

Think we might be getting a little off the topic here!

 

[Purple Train]

Think we might be getting a little off the topic here!

True. Apologies

I see Sunak has already tried to shift blame (in the event of a government defeat on the Rwanda bill) onto the Labour Party. It constantly amazes me how easy it seems to be to convince people that Labour are really running the country and it is all Labour's fault.

 

[Typhoon]

What this saga highlights is how the Tories are not one party, but a coalition of unstable factions (you can say the same about Labour, but they are much more stable right now). The evidence for this factionalism in the Tory party is that they have a 70-odd seat majority in Parliament, and yet they are changing leader, caving into public and/or political pressure and infighting far more than under May when she led in a hung Parliament.

The very reason why I wouldn't want a big Labour majority. Momentum haven't gone away. Things will go wrong - there must be a pretty good chance the economy is in a worse state after 'Thirteen years of Conservative misrule' than it was in 2010 They need to be looking to the second term (provided they get in) to make a real impact.

True. Apologies

I see Sunak has already tried to shift blame (in the event of a government defeat on the Rwanda bill) onto the Labour Party. It constantly amazes me how easy it seems to be to convince people that Labour are really running the country and it is all Labour's fault.

I'm not sure that 'I cannot get my Bill through parliament because the Opposition won't vote for it' is a particularly good look. Not exactly 'Strong and Stable'.

 

[Egg Centric]

The very reason why I wouldn't want a big Labour majority. Momentum haven't gone away. Things will go wrong - there must be a pretty good chance the economy is in a worse state after 'Thirteen years of Conservative misrule' than it was in 2010 They need to be looking to the second term (provided they get in) to make a real impact.

If there's not a big Labour majority then the Tories haven't been annihilated. So it is a necessary yet unfortunate thing.

 

[Typhoon]

If there's not a big Labour majority then the Tories haven't been annihilated. So it is a necessary yet unfortunate thing.

The tide will turn, it always does, maybe not in my lifetime, but when it does I would want to see a centre-right Conservative party, not a real right wing party led by any one of about eight to a dozen ministers/ former ministers who are regularly criticised in this thread. We have already heard some of them use extremely divisive language. The Conservatives won't be annihilated, they may lose lots of seats but they may still be viable; there will be pre-election bribes, close to the election Conservative voters will be swayed back, once the media blitz behind the pro-Conservative/ anti-Labour position is cranked up.

If Labour gets a comfortable majority, they will be able to show competence and their direction of travel which will hopefully lead to voters showing faith in them, leading to a second term and some real reform.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

EDIT: how about a late Christmas charity record. "Stop - the - bo-o-o-oats" to the tune of Do They Know It's Christmas. Sung by Sunak with a choir of Tory MPs behind him.

You mean, like a Tory answer to this version that Labour MPs did a few years ago...?

(Link is to a version of Do They Know It's Christmas, performed by Labour MPs, with lyrics to highlight issues of low pay. Sorry it's a Daily Mail sponsored link, but it's the only link to the song that I could find. Not sure if Labour has taken down the original link or whether I just haven't found the right search words to bring it up. If you ignore the comments underneath, this video does appear to still be the original video the MPs released. Best not to watch if you're sensitive to out-of-tune singing, though ).

 

[The Ham]

Something has just occurred to me. In fact I tell a lie. it occurred to me the first time the ridiculous notion of requiring young people to be imported to the country to look after the ever ageing population was first mentioned. What happens when the required carers, doctors, etc. themselves get old (as it seems likely they will)? Will they all return whence they came when they retire?

It so depends on the numbers involved.

Clearly you don't want more than 1:1 (retiring to incoming) as you've already got young people filling some of that capacity.

Likewise you don't want less than 1:1,000 as you've already got staff shortages in several key sectors.

 

[jfollows]

Sam Coates, I think it was, on Sky last night had an interesting hypothesis that the odds on a January 2025 election, and therefore my collecting £100, have improved.
I'm not saying I agree with him.
His point was essentially that although a defeat next Tuesday won't automatically cause an election - it won't be a "confidence" motion - it'd essentially do for Rishi Sunak. I think if 29 39 Tories vote against - and currently there's serious opposition from the right because we're not leaving the ECHR plus from the left who don't like the legislation essentially saying that the moon is made of green cheese (OK, that Rwanda is a "safe" country) - then the vote will be lost, Rishi will be out, and we'd get yet another dreadful leader/PM who would want to stay in the job as long as possible.
I can see the argument, but the counter-argument would be that as well as getting rid of Rishi, the government would be so badly holed below the water line that it couldn't last that long.
Plus only this week Tories voted against the party line (whipped, I think) to defeat the government on the issue of compensation for victims of infected blood as an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill and the point was made that once MPs get into the habit of voting against their parties they tend to continue doing so.

 

[nw1]

Sam Coates, I think it was, on Sky last night had an interesting hypothesis that the odds on a January 2025 election, and therefore my collecting £100, have improved.
I'm not saying I agree with him.
His point was essentially that although a defeat next Tuesday won't automatically cause an election - it won't be a "confidence" motion - it'd essentially do for Rishi Sunak. I think if 39 Tories vote against - and currently there's serious opposition from the right because we're not leaving the ECHR plus from the left who don't like the legislation essentially saying that the moon is made of green cheese (OK, that Rwanda is a "safe" country) - then the vote will be lost, Rishi will be out, and we'd get yet another dreadful leader/PM who would want to stay in the job as long as possible.
I can see the argument, but the counter-argument would be that as well as getting rid of Rishi, the government would be so badly holed below the water line that it couldn't last that long.
Plus only this week Tories voted against the party line (whipped, I think) to defeat the government on the issue of compensation for victims of infected blood as an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill and the point was made that once MPs get into the habit of voting against their parties they tend to continue doing so.

Indeed, I suspect that they would not try to replace the leader yet again so soon before an election as that would make them look a complete joke. They've done it twice already, three times would surely be completely unviable.

And if they did go for this option, then the clamour for a quick election would grow louder, and any threat of a delayed election in January would provoke real public anger and possible unrest.

If the vote does destabilise Sunak then I'd actually expect an even sooner general election than the current earliest candidate date of May. The earliest viable date (to avoid winter campaigning) is probably April 2024 so I'd plump with that.

So basically winning the vote next week is (IMO) the Tories' only way of surviving beyond May, to the latest (IMO) viable date of October.

 

[sor]

So basically winning the vote next week is (IMO) the Tories' only way of surviving beyond May, to the latest (IMO) viable date of October.

Though any attempt to persist beyond May is going to lead to criticism in itself. The FTPA was in effect at the time of the election and that mandated a May election. It isn't a fantastic look for it to be repealed by this government and then they choose to stay on beyond that date.

 

[jfollows]

So basically winning the vote next week is (IMO) the Tories' only way of surviving beyond May, to the latest (IMO) viable date of October.

Although I've now seen reports that the right-wing faction mainly says it'll vote for the second reading next week but then introduce amendments in the committee stage and vote against on third reading if their amendments aren't included in the final bill. So this has scope to run and run.

 

[nw1]

Although I've now seen reports that the right-wing faction mainly says it'll vote for the second reading next week but then introduce amendments in the committee stage and vote against on third reading if their amendments aren't included in the final bill. So this has scope to run and run.

And meanwhile there is a country to be run while the Tories are bickering amongst themselves about Rwanda....

 

[najaB]

If Labour gets a comfortable majority, they will be able to show competence and their direction of travel which will hopefully lead to voters showing faith in them, leading to a second term and some real reform.

Hopefully that reform includes electoral reform so that centrist parties have some hope of actually having influence.

 

[3141]

Though any attempt to persist beyond May is going to lead to criticism in itself. The FTPA was in effect at the time of the election and that mandated a May election. It isn't a fantastic look for it to be repealed by this government and then they choose to stay on beyond that date.

It will lead to some criticism, but most people won't be aware that there had been a Fixed Term Parliament Act and will only care if they are hoping for a change of government. Those who support the Conservatives will cling to the hope that an extra few months will enable them to turn things round.

But hanging on till the last possible moment has not generally led to winning against the odds, the exception being John Major in 1992. There's always the risk that during those last few months circumstances will change for the worse rather than getting better for the incumbent government.

All of this debate is of course going on inside Conservative HQ. I wonder if anyone there is reading this thread to find out what thoughts voters are having.

From a Conservative point of view, there are major drawbacks to ditching Sunak as well as possible advantages, because not everyone will welcome Braverman. Can you imagine what someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg really thinks of her? If I were running the show, I'd be inclined to keep Sunak, get the Rwanda legislation through, send a couple of planeloads there (a bit like SWR getting a class 701 into service by 31 December), keep my fingers crossed that it won't be a very cold winter and fuel prices won't rocket, have Parliament dissolved in the Spring, so I could say I've sorted the boats without risking that a really hot, dry summer might add to my government's problems, and pin my hopes on the traditional swing back towards the governing party at election time. That might seem the best balance of probabilities. There are too many things going on in the world, which are outside anybody's control, to run the risk that the longer they
leave it the worse things might become.

 

[edwin_m]

Hopefully that reform includes electoral reform so that centrist parties have some hope of actually having influence.

Replied in the Labour thread.

Where did it all go wrong for Labour?

So Labour get criticised when they stick together and they get criticised when they appear disunited (Gaza resignations)? No wonder the Tories keep getting elected. There does seem to be general denialling of being a committed Conservative supporter at the moment. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[bspahh]

If I were running the show, I'd be inclined to keep Sunak, get the Rwanda legislation through, send a couple of planeloads there (a bit like SWR getting a class 701 into service by 31 December), keep my fingers crossed that it won't be a very cold winter and fuel prices won't rocket, have Parliament dissolved in the Spring, so I could say I've sorted the boats without risking that a really hot, dry summer might add to my government's problems, and pin my hopes on the traditional swing back towards the governing party at election time. That might seem the best balance of probabilities. There are too many things going on in the world, which are outside anybody's control, to run the risk that the longer they
leave it the worse things might become.

The House of Commons can pass the Rwanda bill, but the House of Lords can reject it, as it wasn't a manifesto commitment.

The government has run out of time to force the bill through using the Parliament Act(s).
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/rwanda-scheme-governments-parliament says:

The second timing requirement for using the Parliament Act(s) is that at least one year must have elapsed between second reading in the Commons in the first of the two sessions and the date it passes the Commons in the second session, and the bill must be sent to the Lords at least one month before the end of the second session. It is set out in law that the current parliament must dissolve no later than the beginning of 17th December 2024, ahead of the next general election. This timing means the government will not be able to use the Parliament Act(s) to force through this legislation (or, indeed, any other legislation first introduced in the remainder of this parliament).

 

[3141]

The House of Commons can pass the Rwanda bill, but the House of Lords can reject it, as it wasn't a manifesto commitment.

The government has run out of time to force the bill through using the Parliament Act(s).
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/rwanda-scheme-governments-parliament says:

That's true. It puts whoever is Prime Minister into a bind. Unlikely that any PM could create enough new peers to get over that one. So go for an early election on a manifesto which includes the Rwanda bill. Or hang on during which time support grows for the Reform Party offering their solution (it might be the same one, or it might be a major reform of the second chamber), and as a result Labour get a majority and there is no Rwanda bill. Probably another reason for the Conservatives to go for an election earlier rather than later. In which case, if I were in charge, I'd sack Rishi, arrange for Suella or someone like her to become leader of the party, and she could go to the country in the Spring as a demonstration of how she gets on with the job.

I'm either going to frighten myself to death here, or get a call from Conservative Central Office inviting me to become Head of Strategy.

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

And meanwhile there is a country to be run while the Tories are bickering amongst themselves about Rwanda....

But for people like Braverman and Jenrick, and for a a considerable number of voters (though no-one really knows how many), that is an important issue about running the country.

 

[edwin_m]

But for people like Braverman and Jenrick, and for a a considerable number of voters (though no-one really knows how many), that is an important issue about running the country.

Mainly because people like Braverman and Jenrick (and Johnson and Patel and all the others) have been talking about it so much. But keeping more quiet about the fact that it will only ever take a few hundred at maximum over five years, it involves bunging hundreds of millions to Rwanda (count me unsurprised if that comes from the overseas aid budget) and under the deal Rwanda is entitled to send people to the UK...

 

[takno]

But for people like Braverman and Jenrick, and for a a considerable number of voters (though no-one really knows how many), that is an important issue about running the country.

Sure nobody really knows, but this article from YouGov puts the number of people who think that immigration is the most important issue at 20%: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48056-to-what-extent-is-immigration-a-top-issue-for-britons . Presumably even amongst that subset, only a proportion of them will see Rwanda as important or a good thing - there's a strong argument that the whole thing is a complete distraction to make up for not doing anything substantive or useful on immigration at all.

 

[SuspectUsual]

In his press conference about the Rwanda bill, Sunak was grandstanding about how illegal immigrants arriving from Albania are down 90% since we signed a return agreement with them.

Does nobody in Government then think “hmmmm, decent result that, let’s try it with some other countries rather than carry on with this absurd Rwanda thing”?

 

[Purple Train]

In his press conference about the Rwanda bill, Sunak was grandstanding about how illegal immigrants arriving from Albania are down 90% since we signed a return agreement with them.

Does nobody in Government then think “hmmmm, decent result that, let’s try it with some other countries rather than carry on with this absurd Rwanda thing”?

Indeed, and apparently it is proof that the Rwanda scheme works, according to Jenrick's letter.

Oh how I'd love to be a fly on the wall when/if they were discussing ways to justify that claim...

 

[nw1]

That's true. It puts whoever is Prime Minister into a bind. Unlikely that any PM could create enough new peers to get over that one. So go for an early election on a manifesto which includes the Rwanda bill. Or hang on during which time support grows for the Reform Party offering their solution (it might be the same one, or it might be a major reform of the second chamber), and as a result Labour get a majority and there is no Rwanda bill. Probably another reason for the Conservatives to go for an election earlier rather than later. In which case, if I were in charge, I'd sack Rishi, arrange for Suella or someone like her to become leader of the party, and she could go to the country in the Spring as a demonstration of how she gets on with the job.

I'm either going to frighten myself to death here, or get a call from Conservative Central Office inviting me to become Head of Strategy.

I can't see that placing someone like Braverman in power would be anything other than a disaster for the party. Their loss at the next election would be so extreme that it would eclipse anything seen in modern times. The centre-right would desert them en masse, and most of the southeast would probably turn yellow. The Tories would be restricted to their rural heartlands.

 

[43096]

But for people like Braverman and Jenrick, and for a a considerable number of voters (though no-one really knows how many), that is an important issue about running the country.

So you, might ask, why didn't Barverman and Jenrick sort it out? It was their job to do it - and they failed. Something that they haven't mentioned, for some reason!

 

[Acfb]

May 2024 is probably the optimum/least bad time for the Tories as they will lose a lot more red wall and blue wall councillors than if the general election is not held on the same day as the local elections. Having said that things might get slightly worse in the new year with the almost inevitable Wellingborough by election loss in Feb/March, so I still think the election will be October 2024 so it doesn't completely clash with the American election.

I don't see many bright spots for the Tories apart from SNP-Tory marginals, some outer London seats and blue wall seats where their vote seems more sticky.

Best case scenario for the Tories is probably somehow to get about 36% of the vote and 260-300 seats to stop a Labour majority.

I can't see that placing someone like Braverman in power would be anything other than a disaster for the party. Their loss at the next election would be so extreme that it would eclipse anything seen in modern times. The centre-right would desert them en masse, and most of the southeast would probably turn yellow. The Tories would be restricted to their rural heartlands.

Badenoch seems to be heavy favourite to be the next Tory leader as she is popular with both the right wing media and Tory base over the silly gender culture war issues etc. Although I think Braverman, Cleverly, Dowden, Jenrick, Patel and Barclay who are all in bomb proof Tory seats are all plausible leadership contenders.

 

[nw1]

Badenoch seems to be heavy favourite to be the next Tory leader as she is popular with both the right wing media and Tory base over the silly gender culture war issues etc. Although I think Braverman, Cleverly, Dowden, Jenrick, Patel and Barclay who are all in bomb proof Tory seats are all plausible leadership contenders.

Probably right unfortunately. I had an idea Braintree was Labour at one point and indeed it was, in 1997 and 2001, but with tiny majorities. Brooks Newmark (who I can't remember much about, though the name sounds slightly familiar) then won it for the Tories in 2005.

 

[david1212]

I can't see that placing someone like Braverman in power would be anything other than a disaster for the party. Their loss at the next election would be so extreme that it would eclipse anything seen in modern times. The centre-right would desert them en masse, and most of the southeast would probably turn yellow. The Tories would be restricted to their rural heartlands.

.....
Badenoch seems to be heavy favourite to be the next Tory leader as she is popular with both the right wing media and Tory base over the silly gender culture war issues etc. Although I think Braverman, Cleverly, Dowden, Jenrick, Patel and Barclay who are all in bomb proof Tory seats are all plausible leadership contenders.

Badenoch, Braverman or Patel plus add Gove NO. I do not think Sunak is is very good but that any of these would be even worse.

Correct me if wrong but looking quickly none of Cleverly, Dowden, Jenrick or Barclay have been a MP for more than 10 or so years. Maybe though one would be better than Sunak.

 

[Gloster]

Probably right unfortunately. I had an idea Braintree was Labour at one point and indeed it was, in 1997 and 2001, but with tiny majorities. Brooks Newmark (who I can't remember much about, though the name sounds slightly familiar) then won it for the Tories in 2005.

Brooks Newmark, the MP whose name sounds like a suburban office temp. agency.

Newark was Labour in 1997-2001.

 

[Mikw]

Surely the Cons will try to hold on to power as long as possible so will call for the latest possible election.
Wonder if they're considering a "stolen election" strategy as well?

 

[jon0844]

Would the British public buy any attempts to claim election fraud? For some reason in America, postal voting seems to be massively frowned upon - but here is isn't, and I've voted by post for as long as I've been able to. I can't think of any other way I'd want to vote.

A lot of the arguments for election fraud come from postal votes, as it sounds - in theory - easy to manipulate and fake if you don't know how it actually works. It would be far harder to claim fraud in polling stations (although I suspect that this is possibly more likely to be where any fraud - on a tiny scale - would actually occur).

But, it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't mentioned - and when the likes of Reform UK get slaughtered because elections always reveal there's no silent majority, they'll either have to admit they have little support or make such ridiculous claims. So, possibly not the Tories but certainly some groups.

 

[brad465]

Probably right unfortunately. I had an idea Braintree was Labour at one point and indeed it was, in 1997 and 2001, but with tiny majorities. Brooks Newmark (who I can't remember much about, though the name sounds slightly familiar) then won it for the Tories in 2005.

Brooks Newmark, the MP whose name sounds like a suburban office temp. agency.

Newark was Labour in 1997-2001.

Brooks Newmark was the MP who got in trouble exposing himself in a sexting exchange while wearing pyjamas in 2014. It contributed to him standing down in 2015, leading to James Cleverly taking over the seat.