When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[DynamicSpirit]

As long as members of the public are not being threatening, surely this is part of democracy? People will disagree with you, and MPs should surely act professionally rather than swearing at them, no matter how annoying they are.
Surely, in the past most MPs would be apologising for such behaviour?

I think it's borderline. Watching the video, Steve Bray wasn't being threatening, but his behaviour did amount to harassment: He was persistently trying to interrupt an MP walking down the street despite that MP making it clear that didn't want to be interrupted. I don't think most of us would be very happy if we were accosted in public in that way. To my mind, trying to engage with someone in the street is absolutely fine. But if that person indicates that they don't want to talk to you, then you have to respect that, which Steve Bray was not doing. Strictly speaking, Nigel Adams probably shouldn't have used a swear word, but he did so in a non-threatening way under rather stressful circumstances that would probably make most people feel pretty frustrated. Looks a bit of a non-story to me.

I'm also going to hazard a guess that this was probably not the first time by a long way that Steve Bray has done this and had it video'd, and that he hasn't bothered to release the videos of all the times when MPs were politer to him than he deserved. But the one time an MP slightly loses his cool, the video gets released...

 

[edwin_m]

Kinda, but the comparison doesn't really work because you're setting a *certainty* of getting the chosen Brexit outcome against a *small possibility* of the Union breaking up.

To put some hypothetical numbers on it, suppose you're a Tory minister, you want a hard Brexit, and you also want to keep the Union. You regard keeping the Union as twice as important as getting a hard Brexit, so if it was all certainties you'd opt to accept a soft Brexit and keep the Union. But it's not certainties: If, say, you reckon going for a hard Brexit leads to a 10% chance of losing the Union, then the rational thing to do is go for the hard Brexit, because then you have a 90% chance of getting both the things you want. Go for a soft Brexit and you have a 100% chance of getting only one of the things you want. From your perspective, that's a worse outcome, even though you view the Union as more important.

So it's actually gambling with the future of the union, and if you don't know much about what happens outside your filter bubble it's impossible to understand what the odds are.

Anyone in a political position who was pushing for a hard Brexit really ought to have considered and acquainted themselves with the likely consequences for the union. Then again, if they were sensible and honest people they probably wouldn't have been pushing for a hard Brexit.

 

[Bevan Price]

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I agree to the extent that Boris does seem to be motivated a lot by personal ambition and has well documented character flaws. But at the same time, he is very clearly leading the Tory party in a definite direction, a direction in which other senior Tories wouldn't have taken the party. He obviously believes in infrastructure investment and in capitalism being combined with some degree of one-nation-style social support. He's also evidently strongly committed in principle to the 'Unionist' part of Tory tradition (although it's equally obvious that the Tory party doesn't really know how to connect with Scotland and Wales in a way to increase support for the union), and also has libertarian instincts - which were very evident in his initial reluctance to use lockdowns in response to Covid. There is a definite underlying philosophy in his direction, even if it's sometimes hidden by his opportunism.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2021 ==



There's nothing wrong with support for free markets. Free market theory is broadly correct and well established as the most effective way to create wealth - it just needs to be combined with some compassion and human awareness - which often seemed to be lacking in the Thatcher approach. I fear people too often forget how bad a state the UK was in economically before Mrs. Thatcher and her free market 'ideology' came along.

Thatcher was a disaster. People forget that, on average, about 2000 jobs disappeared for every single day of her first government. Things may have got better for some of her rich friends, but many others suffered. Factories closed, sometimes sold to asset strippers, jobs were "exported" to places with cheap labour, etc., etc.

 

[Dai Corner]

Thatcher was a disaster. People forget that, on average, about 2000 jobs disappeared for every single day of her first government. Things may have got better for some of her rich friends, but many others suffered. Factories closed, sometimes sold to asset strippers, jobs were "exported" to places with cheap labour, etc., etc.

What happened to unemployment and jobs during her subsequent governments?

And what has it got to do with when it will all go wrong for her successor decades after she left office?

 

[yorksrob]

What happened to unemployment and jobs during her subsequent governments?

And what has it got to do with when it will all go wrong for her successor decades after she left office?

Well, this is a thread about the Conservative party, so discussing Mrs Thatcher certainly isn't off topic.

I find Her fascinating and admire many of her actions, not least her insistance in standing up for Western values against the Communists, maintaining British military capacity etc.

But, I feel that she set things off on the wrong foot as well. She agreed to the free market, but I believe she was naive to the extent that other countries were prepared to play the system.

She believed in a free market where British companies were patriotic and flew the flag (as they ought to be). The hoo haa over BA removing the Union flag from its tailfins is a case in point. I don't think she would have approved of the snake pit of everything being for sale.

To that extent, I think she was probably more Gaullist than many of her successors who have allowed everything to be flogged off without discrimination.

But she did set in train an ethos where it didn't matter what was sold off, no matter how detrimental to British people and the British economy, just so long as the market was satisfied. She bears that responsibility.

 

[johnnychips]

I find Her fascinating and admire many of her actions, not least her insistance in standing up for Western values against the Communists, maintaining British military capacity etc.

Rob, you normally only capitalise pronouns and possessives in phrases referring to God and Jesus to please Him, Our Lord. No doubt some people would consider Mrs Thatcher a modern day goddess, though.

 

[birchesgreen]

I find Her fascinating and admire many of her actions, not least her insistance in standing up for Western values against the Communists, maintaining British military capacity etc.

You can thank Galtieri for that, the Uk military (especially the Navy) was on the verge of a gutting but then a failing South American junta decided to invade some islands a long way away.

 

[yorksrob]

Rob, you normally only capitalise pronouns and possessives in phrases referring to God and Jesus to please Him, Our Lord. No doubt some people would consider Mrs Thatcher a modern day goddess, though.

Purely a case of fat finger syndrome in this respect

You can thank Galtieri for that, the Uk military (especially the Navy) was on the verge of a gutting but then a failing South American junta decided to invade some islands a long way away.

Yes, her hand was definitely forced in that respect.

 

[317 forever]

Indeed.

A simple "no comment" would have done.

I think most politicians would have acknowledged the heat of the moment and apologised in such circumstances.

That said it's probably fairly tame in comparison to Mr Prescott's two jabs ! (Unless you're my parents, who will tolerate any amount of goory violence on TV, but go into apoplexy if I do much as say "bl**dy" ).

I hope Mr Prescott has indeed had two jabs.

 

[brad465]

This video in which some of Johnson's constituents are seen turning against him suggests thing are heading in the wrong direction for him at the very least:

 

[Dai Corner]

This video in which some of Johnson's constituents are seen turning against him suggests thing are heading in the wrong direction for him at the very least:

It's worth noting that Byline was founded by long time Labour supporter Peter Jukes and is crowdfunded. It will be reporting what its founder and funders want to hear.

 

[brad465]

It's worth noting that Byline was founded by long time Labour supporter Peter Jukes and is crowdfunded. It will be reporting what its founder and funders want to hear.

That doesn't mean its contents are not true, there will be voters turned off by Johnson's behaviour. Besides, I could equally say the same thing about anything one of Murdoch's newspapers (and soon news channel) reporting people saying they love Johnson.

Whatever case, the mainstream media have let this country down to the point I'd call them the most unpatriotic group in the country right now, for failing to hold the Government to account properly in recent years, in particular going along with the narrative on covid and maybe even creating the dangerous narrative we've gone down through their sensationalist reporting for spectacle (in turn profit).

 

[DunsBus]

That doesn't mean its contents are not true, there will be voters turned off by Johnson's behaviour. Besides, I could equally say the same thing about anything one of Murdoch's newspapers (and soon news channel) reporting people saying they love Johnson.

Whatever case, the mainstream media have let this country down to the point I'd call them the most unpatriotic group in the country right now, for failing to hold the Government to account properly in recent years, in particular going along with the narrative on covid and maybe even creating the dangerous narrative we've gone down through their sensationalist reporting for spectacle (in turn profit).

Unfortunately, these voters will likely vote for the Tories again come the next General Election, on the grounds that "they're the best of a bad bunch". Labour have absolutely nothing to offer the electorate as an alternative, and the Tories will make capital of this and persuade people once again to lend them their votes.

 

[Typhoon]

Unfortunately, these voters will likely vote for the Tories again come the next General Election, on the grounds that "they're the best of a bad bunch". Labour have absolutely nothing to offer the electorate as an alternative, and the Tories will make capital of this and persuade people once again to lend them their votes.

What is more likely, I would have thought, is that they stay at home. Most of those were expressing anti-Johnson sentiment. At the moment he is playing at being a world statesman, COP26 will be the crowning point of his ministry. Whether voters see it like that, I'm not too sure. I don't know how much 'climate change' rates as an election issue compared to 'feeding the kids' and 'paying the mortgage/ rent'. But once it is over he may show up, feign interest, a few elbow bumps, announce some new development he's told Gove/ Javid/ Zahawi to sort out, and some may reconsider their statements. He will also get an 'Ahh' boost around Christmas. He's got his paternity leave to see how the land lies. If it's looking dicey, he may not run again; 'spend more time with the family'. New PM, the Johnson doubters may be persuaded back into the Tory camp.

I'm surprised that 'Reform' isn't more prominent, given the government's (non-Conservative or certainly non-Thatcherite) policies, but it just goes to show how dependent they were on one man.

I can't quite work out whether Labour doesn't have a very sneaky strategy. They are so anonymous so all the attention is thrown on the Conservatives, so all their gaffes are front and centre. If it is, it only works for so long.

 

[asw22]

Is this a government or a cult?
Do we need a winter of discontent to reduce the popularity?

Cut in universal credit (was originally temporary increase), rise in national insurance, empty supermarket shelves, food price increase by 25%, shortage of gas and electricity along with price increases, another lockdown which looks increasingly likely for November / December / January

Interesting how statistics can be presented
Employment 29.1million and 1 million job vacancies
Or 4.6% = 1.4million unemployed for 1million vacancies so 400k people will be disappointed
I was made redundant by a utilities company as a direct result of the energy price cap
1500 job applications later and told daily by employers that they are receiving 100s of applications for each job
These same employers tell the media that they can't fill their roles?

 

[nlogax]

Do we need a winter of discontent to reduce the popularity?

I don't even think that would work. Up is down, left is right, forwards is backwards. I've come to the conclusion that the standard and long-standing logic that dictates how a government is perceived based upon its actions has gone out of the window.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Cut in universal credit (was originally temporary increase), rise in national insurance, empty supermarket shelves, food price increase by 25%, shortage of gas and electricity along with price increases, another lockdown which looks increasingly likely for November / December / January

I would imagine that most people will take the view (in part, correctly) that very few of those problems, serious though they are, are directly the fault of the present Government. Hence why those problems might not have a huge impact on the Government's popularity (although it does seem that the Tories have fallen a bit in the polls since the national insurance rise). Especially when Labour are showing very little sign that they could be doing any better.

I was made redundant by a utilities company as a direct result of the energy price cap
1500 job applications later and told daily by employers that they are receiving 100s of applications for each job
These same employers tell the media that they can't fill their roles?

Sorry to hear of your redundancy, and I can understand the frustration at applying for so many jobs. Kudos to you for making the effort to apply for so many. But are you sure it's the same employers talking about the same jobs? It doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that there are lots of jobs where there are hundreds of applicants per job, and at the same time, other vacancies (lorry drivers for example) that are impossible to fill because not enough people have the right skills.

 

[brad465]

I would imagine that most people will take the view (in part, correctly) that very few of those problems, serious though they are, are directly the fault of the present Government. Hence why those problems might not have a huge impact on the Government's popularity (although it does seem that the Tories have fallen a bit in the polls since the national insurance rise). Especially when Labour are showing very little sign that they could be doing any better.

I think the issue here isn't so much they don't think it's the fault of the current Government, but that those who voted for them typically are not affected by it. This is a big issue with the current voting system, where, rather than trying to appeal to as many as possible, the incumbent Government at a given time only needs to keep a minority base of around 40% of voters onside. While there will be voters on Universal credit who voted Tory in 2019 (especially in red wall areas), I doubt it'll be a huge proportion of all their voters.

 

[Typhoon]

I think the issue here isn't so much they don't think it's the fault of the current Government, but that those who voted for them typically are not affected by it. This is a big issue with the current voting system, where, rather than trying to appeal to as many as possible, the incumbent Government at a given time only needs to keep a minority base of around 40% of voters onside. While there will be voters on Universal credit who voted Tory in 2019 (especially in red wall areas), I doubt it'll be a huge proportion of all their voters.

I reckon we have had high-tide Johnson, he will lose votes (although some of his levelling up seems to be directed to areas in the north with Tory MPs, Sunak's constituency is set to benefit, so they might keep some Red Wall seats), Labour will gain seats but not enough to eliminate Johnson's majority (80 odd is pretty tough to overturn) but enough to encourage Tory rebels to keep their mouth's shut in future.

(Sunak's constituency is the 251st most deprived areas of England but is in line to benefit from a cut of a £4.8 billion fund. Source: (Rishi Sunak’s Own Well-Off Seat Prioritised For Levelling Up Cash In Budget | HuffPost UK (huffingtonpost.co.uk))

He'll then pass the baton before the fan is called into action.

Sorry to hear of your redundancy, and I can understand the frustration at applying for so many jobs. Kudos to you for making the effort to apply for so many. But are you sure it's the same employers talking about the same jobs? It doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that there are lots of jobs where there are hundreds of applicants per job, and at the same time, other vacancies (lorry drivers for example) that are impossible to fill because not enough people have the right skills.

That is exactly right. In a trawl to find find job vacancies in my area, there seem to be two main types. Skilled and highly skilled*, with specific technical qualifications required (which will rule out most of those currently without work); in many cases these skill shortages are long term and the previous solution had been to search overseas; low paid (minimum wage and just above) work, some requiring particular skills and qualifications, but the majority described as temporary or part-time or both. Nothing wrong with anyone taking up the latter but they are likely to be in the same boat in 3 - 6 months time. Sorry, a third, apprenticeships. Quite a lot of those. Again nothing wrong with them but perhaps not ideal for someone in (what they expect to be) their last decade of employment.


* - any medical consultants at a loose end, I know exactly where they can get a job.

 

[alex397]

I would imagine that most people will take the view (in part, correctly) that very few of those problems, serious though they are, are directly the fault of the present Government. Hence why those problems might not have a huge impact on the Government's popularity (although it does seem that the Tories have fallen a bit in the polls since the national insurance rise). Especially when Labour are showing very little sign that they could be doing any better.

Yes I mostly agree with this. Although I wonder if it will become obvious to people how we are differing from other countries? While some issues definitely are related to Covid, some are due to Brexit which are not affecting other countries as much.
Or do most of the electorate perhaps take a more insular view and don’t recognise how other countries are doing? I don’t think comparisons are shown in the mainstream media much, and feel I have to do a lot of my own research to find these things out.

 

[brad465]

I don’t think comparisons are shown in the mainstream media much, and feel I have to do a lot of my own research to find these things out.

I think there's a very good reason why this is the case

 

[alex397]

I think there's a very good reason why this is the case

And what’s that? (Not being argumentative, just honestly don’t know!).
Im guessing you mean it’s not talked about much in UK news because obviously they are not the UK? I’m not saying we should be reporting on domestic issues across the world, but a bit more info in the mainstream would be good I think.
Im not saying it should be in the headlines (unless it’s a major event of course), but more analysis that isn’t so insular about the UK would be good I think.

 

[brad465]

And what’s that? (Not being argumentative, just honestly don’t know!).
Im guessing you mean it’s not talked about much in UK news because obviously they are not the UK? I’m not saying we should be reporting on domestic issues across the world, but a bit more info in the mainstream would be good I think.
Im not saying it should be in the headlines (unless it’s a major event of course), but more analysis that isn’t so insular about the UK would be good I think.

Large sections of the mainstream media, particularly those controlled by Rupert Murdoch, have vested interests in having a Conservative Government, so predominantly do not heavily criticise any of their wrongdoings and try to big up their successes. In your example the relevant media outlets would have wanted to keep as quiet as possible about Brexit issues, or report on them but blame others (like the EU or specific member states).

Often when Murdoch has had enough of a particular PM/Cabinet minister, his outlets will report negatively until they're either ousted or brought back into line. A classic recent example was the Sun leaking news of Hancock's affair, not straight after it happened, but when Murdoch had enough and/or when the Government needed to throw him under a bus, with all the covid failures put on him, in an attempt to wipe the slate clean.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes I mostly agree with this. Although I wonder if it will become obvious to people how we are differing from other countries? While some issues definitely are related to Covid, some are due to Brexit which are not affecting other countries as much.
Or do most of the electorate perhaps take a more insular view and don’t recognise how other countries are doing? I don’t think comparisons are shown in the mainstream media much, and feel I have to do a lot of my own research to find these things out.

I agree that some issues are related to Brexit. But I'm not sure why you think that would impact the Government's popularity? Remember that Brexit happened because that's the way the referendum went. So, as far as most of the public are concerned, bad stuff arising from Brexit would be the fault of how people voted in the referendum, not the fault of the present Government.

Actually I'd go even further: It's very obvious that Brexit involves a major change in the UK's trade relations and legal/diplomatic status in the World, and a big change like that is going to involve some short term adjustment and pain as we adapt to the new situation: It doesn't seem implausible that many of the 50% of voters who wanted Brexit would have already factored that into their view of the future: Short term pain in order to achieve what they believe will be long term gain. Anyone taking that view is even less likely to want to punish the Tories for Brexit issues - and may even feel more annoyed at the continual 'I told you so' jibes from much of the pro-remain opposition.

 

[DelayRepay]

I agree that some issues are related to Brexit. But I'm not sure why you think that would impact the Government's popularity? Remember that Brexit happened because that's the way the referendum went. So, as far as most of the public are concerned, bad stuff arising from Brexit would be the fault of how people voted in the referendum, not the fault of the present Government.

But some people voted the way they did because the man who is now our Prime Minister stood in front of a bus that said we would have an extra £350m a week for the NHS. He told us things would be better. Now we have a lot of things going wrong. Things would have gone wrong anyway - we've just been through a global pandemic after all. But some things are worse due to Brexit, and worse due to the type of Brexit deal that Boris Johnson signed.

Don't blame the lied to, blame the liar.

 

[Typhoon]

I agree that some issues are related to Brexit. But I'm not sure why you think that would impact the Government's popularity? Remember that Brexit happened because that's the way the referendum went. So, as far as most of the public are concerned, bad stuff arising from Brexit would be the fault of how people voted in the referendum, not the fault of the present Government.

But some people voted the way they did because the man who is now our Prime Minister stood in front of a bus that said we would have an extra £350m a week for the NHS. He told us things would be better. Now we have a lot of things going wrong. Things would have gone wrong anyway - we've just been through a global pandemic after all. But some things are worse due to Brexit, and worse due to the type of Brexit deal that Boris Johnson signed.

I think a large number of those who voted leave would have voted leave anyway. Whether it would have been a majority, I don't know but how many would have voted leave if they had know the deal that Johnson signed up to is a different matter. Northern Ireland voted 44.2% to leave, I think there is a fair chance that a significant number would have reluctantly voted Remain or abstained if they had known that there would effectively be a border in the Irish Sea if we left the EU. That is down to Johnson. The case for Leave would have been rather weaker if both Scotland and Northern Ireland had voted by over 60% to Remain. OK, the EU have interpreted the agreement rigidly but that is what happens when you sign agreements, ask anyone who has had a bank loan. It was down to the UK to ensure that there was no conflict with the Good Friday agreement, not the EU. Unfortunately, Johnson is not a 'details man'.

 

[Dai Corner]

I think a large number of those who voted leave would have voted leave anyway. Whether it would have been a majority, I don't know but how many would have voted leave if they had know the deal that Johnson signed up to is a different matter. Northern Ireland voted 44.2% to leave, I think there is a fair chance that a significant number would have reluctantly voted Remain or abstained if they had known that there would effectively be a border in the Irish Sea if we left the EU. That is down to Johnson. The case for Leave would have been rather weaker if both Scotland and Northern Ireland had voted by over 60% to Remain. OK, the EU have interpreted the agreement rigidly but that is what happens when you sign agreements, ask anyone who has had a bank loan. It was down to the UK to ensure that there was no conflict with the Good Friday agreement, not the EU. Unfortunately, Johnson is not a 'details man'.

Surely it was for the Remain campaigners to point out the consequences of Brexit on Northern Ireland?

 

[birchesgreen]

Surely it was for the Remain campaigners to point out the consequences of Brexit on Northern Ireland?

I thought they did but apparently it was "Project Fear"?

 

[Typhoon]

Surely it was for the Remain campaigners to point out the consequences of Brexit on Northern Ireland?

I thought they did but apparently it was "Project Fear"?

Saved me the trouble of writing much the same. Thanks!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But some people voted the way they did because the man who is now our Prime Minister stood in front of a bus that said we would have an extra £350m a week for the NHS. He told us things would be better. Now we have a lot of things going wrong. Things would have gone wrong anyway - we've just been through a global pandemic after all. But some things are worse due to Brexit, and worse due to the type of Brexit deal that Boris Johnson signed.

Don't blame the lied to, blame the liar.

This thread isn't to rehash the Brexit arguments - the issue we're discussing is what impact it would have on Tory party fortunes today. Personally I agree that the £350m/week thing was a blatant lie. But it's not really relevant to the Tories' standing in the polls today because anyone who was sufficiently angry about that lie to change the way they voted would already have done so in 2019 (and possibly in 2017 too). Bluntly, anyone who voted Tory in 2019 is probably not going to suddenly desert the Tories today because of anger over something Boris said in 2016! So if you're looking for things that could make Tory-voters change their minds, this is probably not it.