Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Lost property]

Worth remembering that, for all the rhetoric, a GE is getting ever closer.

Concocting new, plausible sounding lies, is a bit difficult, but, when it comes to luring voters, Tory voters in particular, "law and order " repressing the unions and immigration are tried and tested incentives to vote Tory.

Thankfully, it's not easy to be simply dismissive of the dysfunctional and malicious evidence emerging from the Covid inquiry, or the cost of living crisis (ongoing) and any Brexit "success" has yet to emerge...and never will.

And we're still waiting to learn what the state pension increase will be for next year, or rather, what the rationale will be for paying the lowest possible amount.

 

[dangie]

The big news today is that the King's speech at the opening of parliament will focus on law and order legislation. Controversially it will include provision for police to enter private homes without a warrant, needing only 'strong suspicion' that stolen property lies within, a low hurdle to surmount.

I’ve no problem with this. Much rather the police entered a property with ‘strong suspicion’ instead of a burglar entering mine simply because they wanted to steal something.

We seem to be getting more on the side of the criminal fraternity than more on the side of the law abiding citizen.

 

[Yew]

I’ve no problem with this. Much rather the police entered a property with ‘strong suspicion’ instead of a burglar entering mine simply because they wanted to steal something.

I don't understand how these two things are comparable or related? Would you want the police barging down your door because of a dodgy "find my iPhone' signal?

 

[SuspectUsual]

All they care about is creating fighting culture wars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2023 ==

I’ve no problem with this. Much rather the police entered a property with ‘strong suspicion’ instead of a burglar entering mine simply because they wanted to steal something.

I don’t want either. Really don’t see how this is an either / or discussion, they’re not comparable

 

[Meole]

A warrant will still be required for suspected drug dealing though.

 

[jfollows]

It's both illogical and counterproductive, as well as just plain wrong, to bring in legislation to lock more people up for longer if, at the same time, there has been no investment in the prison service itself, a huge reduction in the court services which actually result in people going to prison, and a destruction of the parole system.
What it's resulting in is a combination of "tough" sentencing rules to appeal to the right, but at the same time a relatively quiet system of releasing people from prison before they've completed their sentences anyway, because otherwise there's just no room for the new intake.
It's all political, because anyone bringing in "tough" sentencing rules can see that their impact will not be for a number of years, and any Conservative with a brain cell knows that won't be them.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The news outlets all seem to be pointing to the Great British Railways bill being dumped which is probably no bad thing now as it will force Labour to come clean about renationalisation.

 

[nw1]

I don't understand how these two things are comparable or related? Would you want the police barging down your door because of a dodgy "find my iPhone' signal?

Indeed, GPS accuracy is often not high enough to pinpoint an exact property; it can certainly be a few metres out. If your neighbour has stolen something it could be yourself who gets your door barged down at 6am.

Another symptom, of course, of this Government being completely clueless and lacking this kind of knowledge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2023 ==

The news outlets all seem to be pointing to the Great British Railways bill being dumped which is probably no bad thing now as it will force Labour to come clean about renationalisation.

I was never a fan of Boris but I am increasingly starting to think that he was significantly less bad than Sunak. He had some fairly reasonable ideas about the environment, for example, and GBR was another reasonable idea. Certainly it did something about the fragmented hodge-podge that is Britain's railway.

Passing Brexit is the reason why Boris will always remain at no.2 in the league of worst prime ministers (behind Truss, of course), but if he hadn't, Sunak would be far above him.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I was never a fan of Boris but I am increasingly starting to think that he was significantly less bad than Sunak

Maybe. But being only the third worst prime minister in history is nothing to brag about

 

[gg1]

Passing Brexit is the reason why Boris will always remain at no.2 in the league of worst prime ministers (behind Truss, of course), but if he hadn't, Sunak would be far above him.

Cameron is far more to blame for Brexit than Johnson.

1. In order to win power he made a referendum on Brexit (something he knew full well would be a disaster for Britain) his key manifesto pledge in 2015, putting his desire for power over the good of the country.
2. He could have very easily stipulated that the Brexit referendum required a super majority (perfectly reasonable for a change as drastic as Brexit) to pass rather than a simple majority but chose not to.
3. When the referendum didn't go the way he hoped he immediately took the cowardly option of resigning and leaving someone else to clean up the almighty mess he'd just created.

 

[dangie]

Cameron is far more to blame for Brexit than Johnson.

…..He could have very easily stipulated that the Brexit referendum required a super majority (perfectly reasonable for a change as drastic as Brexit) to pass rather than a simple majority but chose not to.

Also, there should only have been one choice at the ballot box. ‘I wish the UK to leave the European Union’.

We were already in, so you only voted if you wished to leave. If you wanted to remain you did nothing. A non-vote would count as remain.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Also, there should only have been one choice at the ballot box. ‘I wish the UK to leave the European Union’.

We were already in, so you only voted if you wished to leave. If you wanted to remain you did nothing. A non-vote would count as remain.

How, under your system, would you count people who don't care either way? How would a person be able to indicate that they don't wish their vote to be counted for either side?

 

[gg1]

Also, there should only have been one choice at the ballot box. ‘I wish the UK to leave the European Union’.

We were already in, so you only voted if you wished to leave. If you wanted to remain you did nothing. A non-vote would count as remain.

I wouldn't quite go that far, as @DynamicSpirit points out, not voting could easily mean you're not bothered one way or the other. Rather I would have liked a requirement that 60% of the turnout must vote leave for Brexit to go through. I would have accepted Brexit as 'the will of the people' if had passed with that sort of margin, 52-48 is not IMO a satisfactory mandate for such a major change in the direction of the country.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would have accepted Brexit as 'the will of the people' if had passed with that sort of margin, 52-48 is not IMO a satisfactory mandate for such a major change in the direction of the country.

I don't think it's a mandate for the scale of change that was then enacted but it was clearly a mandate for change.

However, we're starting to get a bit off-topic so might I suggest we take the rest of this chat to the Brexit thread?

Brexit matters

I cannot find an open Brexit thread on the website so have opened this one for all and sundry to use.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[SuspectUsual]

When the referendum didn't go the way he hoped he immediately took the cowardly option of resigning and leaving someone else to clean up the almighty mess he'd just created.

Totally agree with your first two points but this one feels a bit like a no win for Cameron. Walk away and he gets comments like yours, stay and he gets “you didn’t want this, you’ll try and subvert it” etc etc

 

[dangie]

How, under your system, would you count people who don't care either way? How would a person be able to indicate that they don't wish their vote to be counted for either side?

That’s my point. If you didn‘t care either way, because we were already a member of the EU if you felt you wanted the UK to leave then you voted. If you wanted remain or weren’t bothered or couldn’t be bothered then no need to vote.

 

[gg1]

Totally agree with your first two points but this one feels a bit like a no win for Cameron. Walk away and he gets comments like yours, stay and he gets “you didn’t want this, you’ll try and subvert it” etc etc

Fair point, I still personally think he should have stayed in office to finish what he started but I accept that many on the other side of the argument (including a fair chunk of his own party) would have held the opposite view.

All a bit off topic for this thread though as pointed out 3 posts ago

 

[jfollows]

Fair point, I still personally think he should have stayed in office to finish what he started but I accept that many on the other side of the argument (including a fair chunk of his own party) would have held the opposite view.

All a bit off topic for this thread though as pointed out 3 posts ago

He promised that he would stay in office whatever the outcome, and implement what was necessary (reported on 13 April 2013, https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-to-remain-Prime-Minister-after-EU-referendum).
But I and everyone else knew that he was lying when he said this, but politicians aren't allowed to tell the truth under these circumstances - to say that he'd run to the hills if he didn't get the outcome he wanted isn't acceptable.
But it does feed into why anyone would believe anything politicians say, Conservative party or other party. Why are they able to say things that we all know are untrue, but we accept anyway?

 

[brad465]

But it does feed into why anyone would believe anything politicians say, Conservative party or other party. Why are they able to say things that we all know are untrue, but we accept anyway?

"A lie is like a painkiller, it provides instant relief but has lasting side effects. The truth is like surgery, it hurts at first but cures long term."

This quote is mainly used in relation to mental health, but it applies just as much to how we handle politics. The public by and large can't handle the truth. It's all well and good calling out lies, but when a politician tells the truth, and the truth hurts, this in their mind is worse than being told a lie that provides instant relief.

One example that comes to mind is Boris Johnson saying "many loved ones will die before their time" in early March 2020 in relation to covid. For once Johnson told the truth, and what happened? Every front page the next day had that quote slapped across it, and there was widespread outrage and this made a significant contribution to the pandemic rulebook being tossed out in favour of hard lockdowns and whatnot.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

But it does feed into why anyone would believe anything politicians say, Conservative party or other party. Why are they able to say things that we all know are untrue, but we accept anyway?

I don't think that's specific to politicians. It's just part of life that people lie because telling the truth would be more damaging and we have to read between the lines.
The Chairman of the Board of a troubled company will claim they have full confidence in the CEO right up until the moment they are fired. Someone who is asked out on a date by a person they aren't attracted to will probably claim to be busy rather than tell the truth.

It doesn't help that the media will leap upon any failing. If a politician ever admits to being wrong, or takes any holiday or time off at all, or admits to not being an expert in whatever topic they are in charge of this week they are in for a world of hurt, even though those are things everyone does.

 

[RT4038]

I don't think that's specific to politicians. It's just part of life that people lie because telling the truth would be more damaging and we have to read between the lines.
The Chairman of the Board of a troubled company will claim they have full confidence in the CEO right up until the moment they are fired. Someone who is asked out on a date by a person they aren't attracted to will probably claim to be busy rather than tell the truth.

It doesn't help that the media will leap upon any failing. If a politician ever admits to being wrong, or takes any holiday or time off at all, or admits to not being an expert in whatever topic they are in charge of this week they are in for a world of hurt, even though those are things everyone does.

Well said! And as a result we get the politicians we deserve. Another example is if Govt. listens to protests about some proposed change and decides not to continue, they are then accused of doing a U turn and being weak.

 

[ainsworth74]

This quote is mainly used in relation to mental health, but it applies just as much to how we handle politics. The public by and large can't handle the truth. It's all well and good calling out lies, but when a politician tells the truth, and the truth hurts, this in their mind is worse than being told a lie that provides instant relief.

I certainly agree with the general principle but I think this specifically is more of the problem:

It doesn't help that the media will leap upon any failing. If a politician ever admits to being wrong, or takes any holiday or time off at all, or admits to not being an expert in whatever topic they are in charge of this week they are in for a world of hurt, even though those are things everyone does.

I think the above is quietly a huge issue and causes a not inconsiderable about of the trouble we now find ourselves in. The media will leap on anything. Typically tribally making polarisation worse. The Mail will leap on Starmer for the smallest perceived transgression, the Guardian on Sunak, etc etc. Which means we're now at the point that politicians will do or say anything to try and avoid the perception of having changed their mind, not being an expert and being able to undertake superhuman levels of work.

When, in reality, I suspect that most of the people would prefer their elected leaders to change their mind when the evidence suggests they've got it wrong, seek expert assistance on matters outside their expertise (which is actually a fundamental part of how our system is supposed to work, Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide and all that!) and aren't so strung out and sleep deprived that they appear half dead and unable to string a sentence together anymore.

 

[jfollows]

There is some speculation I have seen today that Braverman is being deliberately provocative and promoting right-wing policies loudly in order to get sacked, which would then move her to be able to establish her own faction in the Conservative party as a route to being the next party leader. If so, expect her right-wing statements to become more extreme than they already are. Although I'd never say never, I'd think that a Conservative party even more to the "right" of today's party would be unelectable, and both Labour and Conservative parties in the past have veered to their "roots" and been unelectable for long periods as a result. I don't think the majority of voters vote for extreme views, and the "Brexit" thing was an aberration in the sense that it did become a single issue for voters.

 

[Gloster]

There is some speculation I have seen today that Braverman is being deliberately provocative and promoting right-wing policies loudly in order to get sacked, which would then move her to be able to establish her own faction in the Conservative party as a route to being the next party leader. If so, expect her right-wing statements to become more extreme than they already are. Although I'd never say never, I'd think that a Conservative party even more to the "right" of today's party would be unelectable, and both Labour and Conservative parties in the past have veered to their "roots" and been unelectable for long periods as a result. I don't think the majority of voters vote for extreme views, and the "Brexit" thing was an aberration in the sense that it did become a single issue for voters.

This is possible, but I think that it is also possible that she is trying to provide a reaction which she can then put down and be seen as the politician that is really tough on law and order. The Home Secretary should always be measured in their language, but her utterances are likely to cause a reaction that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. There might have been a bit of trouble from a few hotheads on one side or another, but the Met. seems to have been prepared for that. Now we are appear to have the likes of Tommy Robinson and his merry men coming down to protect the cenotaph…and we know what that is likely to lead to.

 

[jfollows]

Legislation to ban posession of nitrous oxide - bad idea. Something else in the "populist" vein - the reality is that it will drive use underground and not have any impact on its use, and the police will not be pursuing the criminality other than as an adjunct to something they're doing already.
And isn't the Conservative party meant to be about individual liberty anyway, there are many significantly more harmful drugs which are not illegal but they're picking on this one because it's used by young people (non-voters or voters for other parties) and might appeal to old people (who think anyone under the age of 18 is a trouble-maker).

Nitrous oxide posession with intent to inhale it became illegal today. Probably unenforceable in the main, I’m not a fan of our police but recognise they have enough to do already, such as looking for people smoking in cars containing children.

 

[AM9]

Nitrous oxide posession with intent to inhale it became illegal today. Probably unenforceable in the main, I’m not a fan of our police but recognise they have enough to do already, such as looking for people smoking in cars containing children.

i've not heard of police doing that but it's good to see that a law that protects children's health, (and safety) is being enforced.

 

[jfollows]

i've not heard of police doing that but it's good to see that a law that protects children's health, (and safety) is being enforced.

Police don't do it and there have been virtually no convictions (there may actually be none, there certainly weren't any in the months following the law's introduction but I can't find more recent data) for breaking that particular law, introduced in 2015. That said, the deterrent effect of it being illegal has probably resulted in better health for child passengers.

 

[AM9]

Police don't do it and there have been virtually no convictions (there may actually be none, there certainly weren't any in the months following the law's introduction but I can't find more recent data) for breaking that particular law, introduced in 2015. That said, the deterrent effect of it being illegal has probably resulted in better health for child passengers.

Thanks, it's good to hear that it's seems to have worked.

 

[nw1]

Nitrous oxide posession with intent to inhale it became illegal today. Probably unenforceable in the main, I’m not a fan of our police but recognise they have enough to do already, such as looking for people smoking in cars containing children.

Possession is really not the problem with soft drugs. It's unregulated dealing.

It just sums up the whole attitude problem of the Conservative Party. Concerned about the wrong things, going after the wrong people.

 

[JamesT]

Possession is really not the problem with soft drugs. It's unregulated dealing.

It just sums up the whole attitude problem of the Conservative Party. Concerned about the wrong things, going after the wrong people.

It's not just possession that has been criminalised. Production or supply for anything other than legitimate medical/dental uses is also illegal.