Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[edwin_m]

I am not the first. on this forum and elsewhere, to suggest that there needs to be an election within, I would say, six months of a new PM being in place. Truss, like Sunak, has no mandate, all that 'priorities of the British people' is hogwash. No one has asked me and, I guess, no-one has asked the vast majority of visitors to this forum.

Although recent experience supports this stance, we have had resignations on genuine health grounds, of which the most recent was Harold Wilson although we didn't know it at the time. In that case the incoming PM pretty much continued their predecessor's policies, and as they were still delivering (or not) on the same manifesto I don't believe an election would have been justified. Sometimes government have to do things that are unpopular in the short term but ultimately necessary, which is why we normally give them a five year term and judge them at the end of it. Also it doesn't seem reasonable to expect Wilson to have to stay on when probably not mentally competent to do so, simply to avoid calling an election. The same applied to some extent to Thatcher/Major; the resignation was for political rather than health reasons but policies continued as before apart from scrapping the poll tax. And Blair/Brown was also largely a continuum in policy terms.

What is more controversial is when an incoming leader bins key policies and sets out on a different path, but Truss and Sunak are probably the only valid examples where big policy changes followed without the electorate having a say. May felt she had to follow a Brexit policy after the referendum (I'd dispute that, but not for this thread) and Johnson called an election soon after taking power, which under our highly imperfect system secured public backing for his policies.

 

[jfollows]

I am not the first. on this forum and elsewhere, to suggest that there needs to be an election within, I would say, six months of a new PM being in place. Truss, like Sunak, has no mandate, all that 'priorities of the British people' is hogwash. No one has asked me and, I guess, no-one has asked the vast majority of visitors to this forum.

I completely disagree with you here, doing as you suggest would turn our system into a presidential system in which the PM receives a "mandate" whereas in fact we don't vote for a PM, we vote for a party through its local representatives. Of course the identity of the potential PM makes a difference, but we don't need any change which makes the role of the PM more important than it already is.

 

[Gloster]

As I have mentioned before, in an election the party leaders are an element considered by the electorate, as are the most senior members of their cabinet, whether shadow or not. Wilson was replaced by Callaghan, who had been one of the leading members of the cabinet at the previous election; the same applied to Blair and Brown. Both were obvious answers to the, “Who takes over question?”. However, Major had been only Minister of State at the DHSS, while Johnson had been Foreign Secretary, but had resigned, which puts them both as only two of a number of contenders. Truss had been International Trade Secretary and Sunak was Chief Secretary to the Treasury: neither are likely to be among the people that most voters are going to think of as possible contenders.

 

[DC1989]

How can their be so many sex pests in one political party? No wonder there are so few young conservatives - their afraid of getting touched up at Tory functions

 

[jfollows]

How can their be so many sex pests in one political party? No wonder there are so few young conservatives - their afraid of getting touched up at Tory functions

The sort of person who has become a Conservative MP in recent years has clearly included a significant number of people who think they're entitled to behave badly because of who they are, which includes people who take liberties with other people. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's restricted to Conservative MPs, however I would surmise that it takes two types of people who want to be MPs and one sort is the kind who wants to use government to improve things for everyone, whereas the other sort is the kind who wants to use being an MP to advance his/her status, so I'd also surmise that there are more of the former in the Labour party and more of the latter in the Conservative party.

 

[Gloster]

The sort of person who has become a Conservative MP in recent years has clearly included a significant number of people who think they're entitled to behave badly because of who they are, which includes people who take liberties with other people. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's restricted to Conservative MPs, however I would surmise that it takes two types of people who want to be MPs and one sort is the kind who wants to use government to improve things for everyone, whereas the other sort is the kind who wants to use being an MP to advance his/her status, so I'd also surmise that there are more of the former in the Labour party and more of the latter in the Conservative party.

I would agree as being in the Conservative Party is much more likely to put you into the orbit of the really rich who want influence and will pay for it. There are far fewer such opportunities if you are on the left.

 

[jfollows]

I also can't personally understand why anyone would want to do the job, not least because it involves a great deal of work, effort and time if done properly and the pay isn't good enough for me to take that on. That said, I'm not a sex pest either!

 

[edwin_m]

As I have mentioned before, in an election the party leaders are an element considered by the electorate, as are the most senior members of their cabinet, whether shadow or not. Wilson was replaced by Callaghan, who had been one of the leading members of the cabinet at the previous election; the same applied to Blair and Brown. Both were obvious answers to the, “Who takes over question?”. However, Major had been only Minister of State at the DHSS, while Johnson had been Foreign Secretary, but had resigned, which puts them both as only two of a number of contenders. Truss had been International Trade Secretary and Sunak was Chief Secretary to the Treasury: neither are likely to be among the people that most voters are going to think of as possible contenders.

Major was Chancellor before he became PM, though only for a year.

 

[JamesT]

Major was Chancellor before he became PM, though only for a year.

I was going to post the same, but I think @Gloster was talking about what positions Major had held at the previous election.

 

[Gloster]

I was going to post the same, but I think @Gloster was talking about what positions Major had held at the previous election.

Indeed. It is the level of their profile the last time that the voters were consulted that I was considering. When he gained the job of PM Johnson was a back-bencher, albeit a high-profile one due to his antics.

 

[Typhoon]

Although recent experience supports this stance, we have had resignations on genuine health grounds, of which the most recent was Harold Wilson although we didn't know it at the time. In that case the incoming PM pretty much continued their predecessor's policies, and as they were still delivering (or not) on the same manifesto I don't believe an election would have been justified. Sometimes government have to do things that are unpopular in the short term but ultimately necessary, which is why we normally give them a five year term and judge them at the end of it. Also it doesn't seem reasonable to expect Wilson to have to stay on when probably not mentally competent to do so, simply to avoid calling an election. The same applied to some extent to Thatcher/Major; the resignation was for political rather than health reasons but policies continued as before apart from scrapping the poll tax. And Blair/Brown was also largely a continuum in policy terms.

What is more controversial is when an incoming leader bins key policies and sets out on a different path, but Truss and Sunak are probably the only valid examples where big policy changes followed without the electorate having a say. May felt she had to follow a Brexit policy after the referendum (I'd dispute that, but not for this thread) and Johnson called an election soon after taking power, which under our highly imperfect system secured public backing for his policies.

Thanks, the health issue is a very good point. There have been other's too - Eden and Churchill in my time.. I suppose my concern is that the direction that Truss was following was following was nothing like Johnson's (supposed) direction and it appears that certain sections of the Conservative Party (eg the Conservative Democratic Organisation) are trying to prevent a repletion of the type of steps that led to the removal of Truss. Whatever else he has done, I hold Graham Brady in high regard for telling her she needed to go. Goodness knows what have happened in another 49 days. The current system requires a very significant number of MPs to walk away (like they did with Johnson) and for the incumbent to take the hint. I am concerned that in another situation they might soldier on, there are enough on the right wing of the party to (in and out of Parliament) to allow someone to stay on. Truss might even have been sufficiently emboldened as to keep Kwarteng. The same would have been true of the Momentum crew if Corbyn had won dramatically in 2019.

 

[SynthD]

I completely disagree with you here, doing as you suggest would turn our system into a presidential system in which the PM receives a "mandate" whereas in fact we don't vote for a PM, we vote for a party through its local representatives. Of course the identity of the potential PM makes a difference, but we don't need any change which makes the role of the PM more important than it already is.

Our system has evolved that way, helped along by the demands of the biased parts of the media and the success (or failures) of their candidates. Certainly we do have the concept of a mandate that starts off with campaign promises, continues through the Kings Speech and bills that the Lords shouldn't block, to the truthful versions of adverts crowing fulfilled achievements.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. It is the level of their profile the last time that the voters were consulted that I was considering. When he gained the job of PM Johnson was a back-bencher, albeit a high-profile one due to his antics.

According to Wikipedia, Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary in 2018, so held that post at the 2017 election.

certain sections of the Conservative Party (eg the Conservative Democratic Organisation) are trying to prevent a repletion of the type of steps that led to the removal of Truss.

To be clear, that's "Democratic" for the <100,000 members of the Conservative Party, not for the other 40-odd million of us in the electorate.

 

[jfollows]

Our system has evolved that way, helped along by the demands of the biased parts of the media and the success (or failures) of their candidates. Certainly we do have the concept of a mandate that starts off with campaign promises, continues through the Kings Speech and bills that the Lords shouldn't block, to the truthful versions of adverts crowing fulfilled achievements.

Yes, but the mandate is for the party and not for the PM.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The sort of person who has become a Conservative MP in recent years has clearly included a significant number of people who think they're entitled to behave badly because of who they are, which includes people who take liberties with other people. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's restricted to Conservative MPs, however I would surmise that it takes two types of people who want to be MPs and one sort is the kind who wants to use government to improve things for everyone, whereas the other sort is the kind who wants to use being an MP to advance his/her status, so I'd also surmise that there are more of the former in the Labour party and more of the latter in the Conservative party.

My own suspicion is that part of the problem is the lack of democracy within the Tory party. Within Labour (and as far as I can make out the LibDems, although I have less knowledge of their processes) rank and file members have a lot of control over the selection of candidates (there has for a while been a certain amount of the central Labour party/leadership trying to foist favoured people onto constituencies, but that often causes strong opposition locally). My impression is that means that it's hard to become a Labour MP if you haven't spent quite a while allowing local members to get to know you and to get an impression of your character before they select you. That doesn't make it impossible for selfish careerists to get through, but probably does make it harder for people who are inclined towards bad behaviour. The Tory system of candidate selection by contrast is more opaque, has less member involvement and as far as I can tell a much higher degree of, needing to know the right people at Tory Central Office. It's not hard to see how that could make it easier for some less pleasant characters to get through and get selected.

 

[DC1989]

Eek and another Tory MP has been arrested over rape today. This is in addition to Andrew Rosindell who's been under investigation for over a year now

 

[D6130]

another Tory MP has been arrested over rape today.

Do we know who that is? Nothing on BBC News site yet.

 

[DC1989]

Do we know who that is? Nothing on BBC News site yet.

No they haven't been named -

Prominent Tory MP arrested over rape and drugs allegation

A LEADING Conservative MP has been arrested over an allegation of rape, The Sun can reveal. The prominent politician – who we are not naming for legal reasons – was also questioned on s…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[birchesgreen]

At this rate we won't need a general election.

 

[gg1]

Do we know who that is? Nothing on BBC News site yet.

Based on the information given in the mainstream media, the MP in question can be narrowed down to 1 of 3 likely possibilities.

I'll leave it at that as saying more would likely be heading into iffy legal territory.

 

[CAF397]

The MP has identified himself.

 

[brad465]

At this rate we won't need a general election.

While I get the joke, in this particular instance the MP in question is standing down at the next election anyway, and unless they resign early, there won't be a by-election going by how long a trial will take to come round and pass a sentence in the event of a guilty verdict.

 

[WatcherZero]

Lol, worked it out when I saw a few people saying that was a 'Blunt assessment'

 

[Busaholic]

Mind you were the alternatives at the time significantly stronger?

Yes, at least one was imo and would have been Labour's first female leader to boot (not including the temporary Margaret Beckett) and had the added supposed benefit of being a Northern MP who fully accepted the Brexit referendum result.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2023 ==

As regards Andrew Cooper, it would be best if the Conservatives ditched him, his petulance will be rolled out if he stands again. Has he apologised? I've heard nothing.

There's no chance he'll be ever selected again, unfortunately, so we won't be regaled by a repeat performance. Maybe he should offer himself to Trump's campaign in the U.S.

 

[nw1]

Yes, at least one was imo and would have been Labour's first female leader to boot (not including the temporary Margaret Beckett) and had the added supposed benefit of being a Northern MP who fully accepted the Brexit referendum result.

Lisa Nandy, I guess you mean.

Mind you I doubt "accepting the Brexit referendum result" is neither here nor there nowadays, given that Brexit has not brought us into the sunlit uplands. I suspect relatively few people still actively and enthusiastically support it (as opposed to being neutral), so I doubt his position on the matter in 2020 would have any bearing on the 2024 election result. Maybe as recently as summer 2022 it might have, but that was before the Tories' disastrous past 12 months or so. I suspect most people just want them out and, unless he goes full rejoin right now (which he isn't), Labour's position on Brexit will be secondary to other concerns.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Lisa Nandy, I guess you mean.

Mind you I doubt "accepting the Brexit referendum result" is neither here nor there nowadays, given that Brexit has not brought us into the sunlit uplands. I suspect relatively few people still actively and enthusiastically support it (as opposed to being neutral), so I doubt his position on the matter in 2020 would have any bearing on the 2024 election result. Maybe as recently as summer 2022 it might have, but that was before the Tories' disastrous past 12 months or so. I suspect most people just want them out and, unless he goes full rejoin right now (which he isn't), Labour's position on Brexit will be secondary to other concerns.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2023 ==



What I don't get is why Bone (much as I dislike him) is likely to have to stand down, while Blunt, and the "other MP in his 50s, and on bail until Feb 2024" (paraphrasing the words of the BBC) isn't. The allegations against Blunt seem more serious than those against Bone, and Bone hasn't been arrested for anything, of course.

At the moment there are only allegations against Blunt. He hasn't been charged yet. Innocent until proved guilty (or not guilty of course).
Bone was found guilty by a parliamentary committee.

 

[nw1]

At the moment there are only allegations against Blunt. He hasn't been charged yet. Innocent until proved guilty (or not guilty of course).
Bone was found guilty by a parliamentary committee.

Mind you Bone is denying the allegations made against him, so aren't the accusations against Bone just allegations, too?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Mind you Bone is denying the allegations made against him, so aren't the accusations against Bone just allegations, too?

But Bone has been through a process. Blunt hasn't.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

(Pulling this out of the Israel/Hamas thread)

I realise this is going OT for Israel/Palestine, but looking back it seems a bit strange that people abandoned their, IMO, justified low opinion of the Tories at the time just because of the Falklands conflict. One would think, looking back, the domestic problems would take precedence.

This is going largely from memory but I think the answer is that, in 1983, people weren't voting Tory specifically because they liked the Falklands: It was more like, they were voting for someone they now (largely as a result of the Falklands) perceived as a strong, trustworthy, leader who was able to make tough decisions, keep her nerve through difficulties and would protect the country. And that sentiment outweighed the anger over high unemployment. Of course, as you rightly pointed out, the Tories were also immensely helped by the (unfair) FPTP electoral system as well as by that most people viewed Labour at the time as incompetent/extremist.

(Again I was some way off being an adult in 1983 - I couldn't vote in '87, let alone '83 - and had no political opinions at the time, so realise I probably didn't fully "get" the political zeitgeist; my comments are based on looking back at the period retrospectively through the eyes of an adult).

In 1983 I was just too young to vote, but was very politically active in the Labour Party - so did lots of leafletting and canvassing in 1983 (and I was probably full of lots of political opinions that I would today regard as naive and wrong )

 

[nw1]

(Pulling this out of the Israel/Hamas thread)



This is going largely from memory but I think the answer is that, in 1983, people weren't voting Tory specifically because they liked the Falklands: It was more like, they were voting for someone they now (largely as a result of the Falklands) perceived as a strong, trustworthy, leader who was able to make tough decisions, keep her nerve through difficulties and would protect the country. And that sentiment outweighed the anger over high unemployment. Of course, as you rightly pointed out, the Tories were also immensely helped by the (unfair) FPTP electoral system as well as by that most people viewed Labour at the time as incompetent/extremist.

Yeah, fair point though I'm sure I would have strongly disagreed had I been older and had the same politics I do now

In 1983 I was just too young to vote, but was very politically active in the Labour Party - so did lots of leafletting and canvassing in 1983 (and I was probably full of lots of political opinions that I would today regard as naive and wrong )

That reminds me of my 1987 self in a way, albeit in the opposite sense. Couldn't vote, but for some reason really disliked Labour. Mostly influenced by other people (school mates, one of my parents) rather than having any rational reason: I was young and naive. My attitude to Labour had changed before the decade was out, and by '92 I enthusiastically voted for them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2023 ==

But Bone has been through a process. Blunt hasn't.

Yeah, I see that now thinking about it.