Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Snow1964]

BBC verify has run an article on how Rishi 5 pledges are going.

Missing 4 of his 5 Pledges, but one inflation, does look on trend to have halved (although technically this one is Bank of Englands responsibility)

Rishi Sunak: Key pledge targets missed so far

The PM is currently meeting just one of the five priorities he set out at the start of the year.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dgl]

BBC verify has run an article on how Rishi 5 pledges are going.

Missing 4 of his 5 Pledges, but one inflation, does look on trend to have halved (although technically this one is Bank of Englands responsibility)

Rishi Sunak: Key pledge targets missed so far

The PM is currently meeting just one of the five priorities he set out at the start of the year.

www.bbc.co.uk

I promise to do something who's result won't really be affected by anything I do, that's something I wouldn't count as a promise.
Well one out of five ain't bad as the song goes, or is it one out of five ain't great!

At least all this Mone stuff hopefully helps the conservatives get even less votes at the next election, though STOP THE BOATS, something that will probably be their answer for every question in any leadership debate.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

BBC verify has run an article on how Rishi 5 pledges are going.

Missing 4 of his 5 Pledges, but one inflation, does look on trend to have halved (although technically this one is Bank of Englands responsibility)

Rishi Sunak: Key pledge targets missed so far

The PM is currently meeting just one of the five priorities he set out at the start of the year.

www.bbc.co.uk

So if Sunak has halved inflation why are they still trying award themselves a 7.1% payrise

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/mps-line-6000-pay-rise-31702505

Members of Parliament are set for a 7.1% salary increase from £86,584 to £92,731 next year- way ahead of inflation, which is running at 4.6%

 

[Lost property]

I promise to do something who's result won't really be affected by anything I do, that's something I wouldn't count as a promise.
Well one out of five ain't bad as the song goes, or is it one out of five ain't great!

At least all this Mone stuff hopefully helps the conservatives get even less votes at the next election, though STOP THE BOATS, something that will probably be their answer for every question in any leadership debate.

Well even one "promise " almost kept is a 100 % improvement on Boris's record, not that a Boris promise was ever likely to materialise.

As for "Stop the Boats " ! , a convenient distraction to appeal to the same unquestioning group who also believed the fallacies about Brexit given the numbers don't add up...facts can be very inconvenient when you are attempting to perpetuate hatred and xenophobia

 

[jfollows]

So if Sunak has halved inflation why are they still trying award themselves a 7.1% payrise

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/mps-line-6000-pay-rise-31702505

Because, as the article goes on to explain, this figure is derived from average public sector earnings in October, there is a formula and an independent body to interpret it.
But also because if we want fewer gormless self-publicists in parliament and would prefer to have competent and diligent people we have to pay them properly. Every year there's an "outcry" at their proposed salary rise, politicians intervene and reduce it, and the problem continues.
I wouldn't do the job for this sort of salary, even though it might appear to be a vast amount of money to some people. Not for the work involved in doing the job properly.
EDIT I earned >£50,000 in 2008, in a job in which I worked reasonably hard and at which I was reasonably competent, but I reckon I worked about 25% as hard as a competent MP should. The salary needs to be >£100,000 at least, on a par with the ridiculous "chief executives" of our local authorities I suggest.

 

[43096]

Any investigation is just a front to make it look as though something is being done. Remember in the case of Mone not only were the contracts overpaid for but all the PPE was utterly useless had had to be destroyed in may cases they paid the same companies to do that as well. Yes Mone needs to be stripped of her peerage but the people that authorised all these misdemeanours have committed crimes against teh state and should be prosecuted.

Overpaid for? By what definition? The price was agreed between the two parties - so the buyer was presumably happy to accept the price.

Likewise, if the PPE was useless, did the buyer specify it correctly? If not, then the problem is the buyer’s. If it was specified correctly but wasn’t to specifications then why was it paid for?

All very well sitting there in your kangaroo court, but this should be properly investigated. And there’s arguably more questions for the Department for Health and the NHS than for the supplier.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Because, as the article goes on to explain, this figure is derived from average public sector earnings in October, there is a formula and an independent body to interpret it.
But also because if we want fewer gormless self-publicists in parliament and would prefer to have competent and diligent people we have to pay them properly. Every year there's an "outcry" at their proposed salary rise, politicians intervene and reduce it, and the problem continues.
I wouldn't do the job for this sort of salary, even though it might appear to be a vast amount of money to some people. Not for the work involved in doing the job properly.
EDIT I earned >£50,000 in 2008, in a job in which I worked reasonably hard and at which I was reasonably competent, but I reckon I worked about 25% as hard as a competent MP should. The salary needs to be >£100,000 at least, on a par with the ridiculous "chief executives" of our local authorities I suggest.

Paying them more wont change that unless there are strict rules about no 2nd jobs and severe penalties for any breach. None of them including the opposition would vote for such a change.

 

[jfollows]

Paying them more wont change that unless there are strict rules about no 2nd jobs and severe penalties for any breach. None of them including the opposition would vote for such a change.

If you pay them properly, then fewer of them will feel they “need” second jobs, even without changing the rules.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2023 ==

Wellingborough recall petition closes at 5pm, so another gormless self-publicist may be about to bite the dust ….. 7,904 people at least must sign it to trigger a by-election. (Historically, only one recall petition - North Antrim in 2018 - has ever failed to reach the 10% of eligible voters to trigger a by-election.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you pay them properly, then fewer of them will feel they “need” second jobs, even without changing the rules.

I'm not fully convinced that would make more than a marginal difference. In the first place, there's the element that for some people, no matter how much you pay them, there's always a desire to get more: Raise their salary to £100K and they'll simply get used to that lifestyle and then realise how nice things would be if they were actually earning £150K etc. And in the second place, I doubt money is the only factor behind some MPs' second jobs. There will be things like the desire for extra publicity for themselves or their causes (likely to be a big factor with those who do writing work on the side), or MPs who previously owned their own businesses or who don't want to totally abandon their existing careers because they want to return to them when they cease to become an MP. And I would imagine the recruitment consultants who try to convince MPs to take up jobs with a borderline-lobbying element would be very skilled at selling them to individual MPs as, you can make an amazing extra difference in the World if you would just do X for my client.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Because, as the article goes on to explain, this figure is derived from average public sector earnings in October, there is a formula and an independent body to interpret it.

No conflict of interest there then

 

[edwin_m]

Overpaid for? By what definition? The price was agreed between the two parties - so the buyer was presumably happy to accept the price.

Likewise, if the PPE was useless, did the buyer specify it correctly? If not, then the problem is the buyer’s. If it was specified correctly but wasn’t to specifications then why was it paid for?

All very well sitting there in your kangaroo court, but this should be properly investigated. And there’s arguably more questions for the Department for Health and the NHS than for the supplier.

If the price is more than the "going rate" for these goods, and has been agreed between the government and a supplier with whom they allegedly have a cosy relationship, then there is at least the suspicion that public money has been lost to fraud or at the very least wasted. It's arguable that the government had to pay over the odds to obtain PPE when it was in such high demand, but less justifiable that those with political connections seem to have gone to the front of the queue for what could be very lucrative contracts (especially when many of the competitors don't have that advantage).

What was specified and whether the delivery met the specification is a matter for the courts, and unless someone here has access to the contract and other details we are just speculating.

 

[najaB]

Overpaid for? By what definition? The price was agreed between the two parties - so the buyer was presumably happy to accept the price.

Overpaid in that other countries were able to get similar supplies at a lower price. As we did when we had to buy the PPE again through more conventional channels.

Likewise, if the PPE was useless, did the buyer specify it correctly? If not, then the problem is the buyer’s. If it was specified correctly but wasn’t to specifications then why was it paid for?

Because we paid for it before it was delivered.

 

[sor]

Not forgetting the stories of bonafide, legit PPE suppliers with established records seemingly being ignored by government, even when their (Labour) MPs tried to use this so called VIP lane. So they *exported* PPE from the UK

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Overpaid for? By what definition? The price was agreed between the two parties - so the buyer was presumably happy to accept the price.

Likewise, if the PPE was useless, did the buyer specify it correctly? If not, then the problem is the buyer’s. If it was specified correctly but wasn’t to specifications then why was it paid for?

All very well sitting there in your kangaroo court, but this should be properly investigated. And there’s arguably more questions for the Department for Health and the NHS than for the supplier.

Absolutely but there has been no attempt by the govt to address what happened they just say people want to move on now nothing to see here.

A kangaroo court is probably the only way those that perpetrated this situation will ever be called to account but aint going to happen and Labours Covid corruption commissioner will be toothless and achieve nothing other than fill the pockets of lawyers.

 

[jon0844]

BBC verify has run an article on how Rishi 5 pledges are going.

Missing 4 of his 5 Pledges, but one inflation, does look on trend to have halved (although technically this one is Bank of Englands responsibility)

Rishi Sunak: Key pledge targets missed so far

The PM is currently meeting just one of the five priorities he set out at the start of the year.

www.bbc.co.uk

The average inflation rate is down, but that was mostly due to the reduction in energy prices. Food and other things that people can't go without was still around 10%, and we aren't getting the money to offset the energy increases so a lot of people are paying more this year, despite the unit charges going down for electricity and gas.

So, I'd argue he didn't really meet that pledge either.

 

[Acfb]

Wellingborough by election now happening -13.2% of constituents signed the petition.

 

[The Ham]

Wellingborough by election now happening -13.2% of constituents signed the petition.

How defence is; that means that 86.8% didn't vote for it so why should I be kicked out?

Yes, but then 60% of those eligible to vote also didn't vote for him in the 2019 election (which was a much more will known about event)..

 

[Acfb]

How defence is; that means that 86.8% didn't vote for it so why should I be kicked out?

Yes, but then 60% of those eligible to vote also didn't vote for him in the 2019 election (which was a much more will known about event)..

It's quite complicated as the candidate can still stand in the by election if the party lets them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Davies_(Conservative_politician).

I think it's interesting to analyse all the cases for something which started out as a Cameron era gimmick and even cases like Rob Roberts and Claudia Webbe didn't meet the standard for recall.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it's interesting to analyse all the cases for something which started out as a Cameron era gimmick and even cases like Rob Roberts and Claudia Webbe didn't meet the standard for recall.

I don't recall the what the politics was around why the Recall of MPs Act was introduced or who was pushing for it, but does seem to be a very effective law that is working well and proving it's worth.

 

[Gloster]

I don't recall the what the politics was around why the Recall of MPs Act was introduced or who was pushing for it, but does seem to be a very effective law that is working well and proving it's worth.

The issue had been simmering away for some time, but it was the 2009 Expenses scandal that brought it to the boil. The Conservatives included it in their 2010 manifesto, but it seems probable that they weren’t keen on it and would have let the idea die or be watered down once they got in. Coalition stuffed that, as the Lib-Dems were somewhat keener on it and made sure it went through. Even then there seemed to be a hope that the bar had been set so high that it would rarely be used. However, that was 2015 and this is 2023: politicians’ standards have fallen so low that they pass the bar (a mixed up image there).

 

[takno]

The issue had been simmering away for some time, but it was the 2009 Expenses scandal that brought it to the boil. The Conservatives included it in their 2010 manifesto, but it seems probable that they weren’t keen on it and would have let the idea die or be watered down once they got in. Coalition stuffed that, as the Lib-Dems were somewhat keener on it and made sure it went through. Even then there seemed to be a hope that the bar had been set so high that it would rarely be used. However, that was 2015 and this is 2023: politicians’ standards have fallen so low that they pass the bar (a mixed up image there).

That's fine as a theory, but most of the people who've been affected were MPs in 2015, and in a number of cases the behaviour they are being pulled up for significantly pre-dates 2015. I'm not saying that the behaviour is acceptable, but it's possible that as a society we have started to demand higher standards in some areas, and various MPs have failed to rise to that challenge.

Not that I'm sorry to see any of them go, I'm just a bit worried with this narrative that all politicians are suddenly evil and incompetent. The Tory party has been taken over by viciously unpleasant incompetent and probably grifting buffoons, and have doubled down by kicking out their most capable remaining MPs. That doesn't mean we have to pretend all the other parties are just as bad to make the Tories feel better about themselves.

 

[Gloster]

That's fine as a theory, but most of the people who've been affected were MPs in 2015, and in a number of cases the behaviour they are being pulled up for significantly pre-dates 2015. I'm not saying that the behaviour is acceptable, but it's possible that as a society we have started to demand higher standards in some areas, and various MPs have failed to rise to that challenge.

Not that I'm sorry to see any of them go, I'm just a bit worried with this narrative that all politicians are suddenly evil and incompetent. The Tory party has been taken over by viciously unpleasant incompetent and probably grifting buffoons, and have doubled down by kicking out their most capable remaining MPs. That doesn't mean we have to pretend all the other parties are just as bad to make the Tories feel better about themselves.

I wouldn’t say that the behaviour in general of MPs has become (much) worse, but I do feel that the small number of outliers, the ones whose behaviour is exceptionally bad, has increased by a significant proportion, even if this is still quite a small actual number.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's fine as a theory, but most of the people who've been affected were MPs in 2015, and in a number of cases the behaviour they are being pulled up for significantly pre-dates 2015. I'm not saying that the behaviour is acceptable, but it's possible that as a society we have started to demand higher standards in some areas, and various MPs have failed to rise to that challenge.

I don't think there's any doubt that we're demanding higher standards today (and rightly so). I would imagine a related issue is that the Internet + social media + electronic records means that a lot of unethical behaviour that would've gone completely undetected 20 or even 10 years ago is now much easier to uncover. Plus today, there's much more encouragement within society for victims of bullying/sexual assault to come forward.

Case in point: Peter Bone is one of several MPs who have recently been recalled/had to resign following alleged/proven bullying or sexual misconduct - yet 50 years ago, MPs being having to resign for that reason was practically unheard of. But with hindsight it seems very implausible that MPs of the time never bullied anyone: More likely it's because society at that time tended to brush such behaviour under the carpet (Examples: Cyril Smith and - away from Westminster - Jimmy Savile).

We'll probably never know how many respected MPs/other public figures from times past secretly conducted their private lives in ways that we would today find horrific, and which would today likely land them in prison - but I'd bet it's a very large number.

 

[The Ham]

We'll probably never know how many respected MPs/other public figures from times past secretly conducted their private lives in ways that we would today find horrific, and which would today likely land them in prison - but I'd bet it's a very large number.

Indeed, I recall in the 90's a lot of people being quite animated about how dreadful it was that there was sexual abuse carried out by people within the church (which of course it was very bad).

I suspected at the time that it was likely that was just the first place where it was widely highlighted and that it would likely result in other things coming to light.

Since then it's become apparent that it was much more widespread than just within the church. With various organisations being implicated with having unsavoury individuals in positions of power and using that for their advantage.

If there's little oversight and no easy route to complain then it's likely that many thought that they'd get away with it. Many probably did and have.

I suspect that the reality is that it goes further than is well known about, with probably a fair amount of people just moving on and not wishing to revisit their experiences or not really having enough to justify saying something.

Especially if those who are likely to speak out are also those who also are likely to leave if there's something about someone they just don't like, then there's a fair chance that they left before they had something to speak up about.

 

[Enthusiast]

But with hindsight it seems very implausible that MPs of the time never bullied anyone: More likely it's because society at that time tended to brush such behaviour under the carpet...

Or perhaps it's more likely that the definition of "bullying" was a little different to today's version. Many people today interpret being asked to do as the business requires (such as attending the office, for example) as "bullying" and it puts them under undue stress.

 

[AM9]

Or perhaps it's more likely that the definition of "bullying" was a little different to today's version. Many people today interpret being asked to do as the business requires (such as attending the office, for example) as "bullying" and it puts them under undue stress.

It's not what is asked, but the way that it is asked and the response to the answer.

 

[najaB]

Many people today interpret being asked to do as the business requires (such as attending the office, for example) as "bullying" and it puts them under undue stress.

That's not really fair. Very few people would regard being expected to attend the office as bullying - in many cases it's inconvenient and counter-productive - but it's not bullying.

 

[nw1]

Or perhaps it's more likely that the definition of "bullying" was a little different to today's version. Many people today interpret being asked to do as the business requires (such as attending the office, for example) as "bullying" and it puts them under undue stress.

Work stress is, however, a real thing and not to be trivialised. It's not a case of "attending the office" being the source of work stress - it's other things such as being given an amount of work which you cannot do under normal office hours, or the quality of your work suffering because you're overloaded.

Work stress is not bullying by default, however if a manager is constantly picking on you and belittling you, berating you for the smallest of mistakes but never being given recognition for good work (while same manager constantly praises other colleagues even if their quality of work is lower, just because the manager has more chemistry with them, or whatever) it could be argued that it's bullying. Again, these are real things that do happen.

And I'd hope that the general view is that Mr Bone's alleged behaviour is not to be condoned. Maybe the equivalent MPs of the 1950s or 1960s got away with it, but it doesn't mean they should have done.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In some ways we also don't expect higher standards though. Some of the stuff the current crop have got away with would have resulted in ministers either being asked to step down or simply fired in the past. Things like lying to the house, being involved in some very public scandals etc.

Or perhaps it's more likely that the definition of "bullying" was a little different to today's version. Many people today interpret being asked to do as the business requires (such as attending the office, for example) as "bullying" and it puts them under undue stress.

That clearly is not what we are talking about, and in any case workplace stress isn't something to laugh about.
But to be specific, in this case we are talking about physical and sexual abuse. I hope you don't think either are "what the business requires".

 

[OhNoAPacer]

It's quite complicated as the candidate can still stand in the by election if the party lets them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Davies_(Conservative_politician).

I think it's interesting to analyse all the cases for something which started out as a Cameron era gimmick and even cases like Rob Roberts and Claudia Webbe didn't meet the standard for recall.

My understanding is that the removed MP is entitled to stand regardless of whether or not their party selects them as the official candidate.