Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Typhoon]

Starmer definitely seems to be apeing Blair: I suspect the malign influence of Herbert Morrison's grandson Lord Mandelson, a modern Machiavelli.

The difference is that Blair was a lawyer who sounded like a politician; Starmer is a lawyer who sounds like, and will always sound like, a lawyer. You don't have to sound like a politician to be successful in politics; Attlee (bank manager) and Thatcher ('The Demon Headmistress') didn't. The likes of Cameron and Callaghan did, but they are largely forgotten today.

By all means Starmer should listen to Blair but 'listen to' and 'copy' are two different things. I would also suggest listening to Alan Johnson who, I always thought, had a wise head on his shoulders.

In all seriousness Campbell will probably be happy to stay out of No. 10 if Starmer gets there. He seems to have a full enough life now and his politics don't align 100% with Starmer's.

Agreed. Campbell 2023 is a significant upgrade on Campbell 2003 - his honesty about depression, campaigning on mental health issues, 'The Rest is Politics' and other media appearances. If he is to have a role in a future Labour government it should be on the outside, as a critical friend on the podcast (where Starmer might even get more support from Rory Stewart).

 

[MikeWM]

Agreed. Campbell 2023 is a significant upgrade on Campbell 2003 - his honesty about depression, campaigning on mental health issues, 'The Rest is Politics' and other media appearances.

To put it bluntly, I don't care else what he's honest about, until or unless he's honest about his significant role in exaggerating evidence that pushed us into a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of people, possibly more. Until then he should be persona non grata, at the very least.

 

[nw1]

To put it bluntly, I don't care else what he's honest about, until or unless he's honest about his significant role in exaggerating evidence that pushed us into a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of people, possibly more. Until then he should be persona non grata, at the very least.

Some of us have a very differing opinion of him, of course, because of his role in opposing Brexit.

No politician is perfect, but Campbell is a long, long way from the bottom.

To be honest I think it's time we moved on from the mistakes of Blair and co now. It's a long time ago, and plenty has happened since thanks to the rag-bag of neer-do-wells who have been in power since 2010. And I have little doubt that the current lot would have gone in with Bush even more enthusiastically. Do you think the likes of Braverman would lose any sleep over the human cost of the Iraq war? I may be wrong, but I think not.

 

[ainsworth74]

To put it bluntly, I don't care else what he's honest about, until or unless he's honest about his significant role in exaggerating evidence that pushed us into a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of people, possibly more. Until then he should be persona non grata, at the very least.

You might find the discussion he had with Rory Stewart on their podcast around the time of the anniversary of the Iraq War (two episodes in mid-March from memory) interesting. I doubt it'll change your opinion of him as I suspect you're going to require a level of prostration that will never be forthcoming. But I certainly found it interesting and did alter my opinion somewhat of his behaviour from back then.

 

[nlogax]

You might find the discussion he had with Rory Stewart on their podcast around the time of the anniversary of the Iraq War (two episodes in mid-March from memory) interesting. I doubt it'll change your opinion of him as I suspect you're going to require a level of prostration that will never be forthcoming. But I certainly found it interesting and did alter my opinion somewhat of his behaviour from back then.

Yup. Knowing how much Stewart was (and still is) angered by the events of 2002-2003 it was a compelling couple of hours and I do think more should listen to it. There is a indeed a bit of a mental hurdle needed by many to get to a more nuanced opinion of Campbell and his role but that's just the way of the world.

 

[bspahh]

You might find the discussion he had with Rory Stewart on their podcast around the time of the anniversary of the Iraq War (two episodes in mid-March from memory) interesting. I doubt it'll change your opinion of him as I suspect you're going to require a level of prostration that will never be forthcoming. But I certainly found it interesting and did alter my opinion somewhat of his behaviour from back then.

You can listen to those episodes from the WWW pages here (no Apple device or subscription is required):

‎The Rest Is Politics: The Iraq War on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Rest Is Politics, Ep The Iraq War - 14 Mar 2023

podcasts.apple.com

‎The Rest Is Politics: Iraq: The Legacy on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Rest Is Politics, Ep Iraq: The Legacy - 15 Mar 2023

podcasts.apple.com

 

[DarloRich]

You might find the discussion he had with Rory Stewart on their podcast around the time of the anniversary of the Iraq War (two episodes in mid-March from memory) interesting. I doubt it'll change your opinion of him as I suspect you're going to require a level of prostration that will never be forthcoming. But I certainly found it interesting and did alter my opinion somewhat of his behaviour from back then.

Yup. Knowing how much Stewart was (and still is) angered by the events of 2002-2003 it was a compelling couple of hours and I do think more should listen to it. There is a indeed a bit of a mental hurdle needed by many to get to a more nuanced opinion of Campbell and his role but that's just the way of the world.

OT but I have found thier podcast interesting if only for touching on foreign affairs topics not covered by the media. Their leading podcast has had some interesting interviews of a long form not provided by the media very often and forced me to reappraise some views about Tory politicians/policies of days past.

They haven't had any Tory headbangers on yet but I hope they do. It is important to interact with viewpoints you don't agree with.

 

[nlogax]

They haven't had any Tory headbangers on yet but I hope they do. It is important to interact with viewpoints you don't agree with.

They did have George Osborne on a few weeks back. A decade ago ago I'd have classed him as a headbanger but these days he comes across as a complete moderate. Says an awful lot about how polarised politics has become.

 

[MikeWM]

Some of us have a very differing opinion of him, of course, because of his role in opposing Brexit.

Personally I think those opposing Brexit would do better with a figurehead that was less divisive to begin with. (It reminds me a bit of the early resistance to covid restrictions, which wasn't going to get terribly far with David Icke and Piers Corbyn leading, whatever one thinks of them personally. Things improved massively when 'new' people like the Together campaign came along.)

To be honest I think it's time we moved on from the mistakes of Blair and co now. It's a long time ago, and plenty has happened since thanks to the rag-bag of neer-do-wells who have been in power since 2010. And I have little doubt that the current lot would have gone in with Bush even more enthusiastically. Do you think the likes of Braverman would lose any sleep over the human cost of the Iraq war? I may be wrong, but I think not.

I'd agree to the extent that large parts of Labour did oppose the Iraq war, whereas almost the entire Tory party agreed with it. But there does seem to have been somewhat of an inversion since then, most of the anti-war Left appears to have gone away somewhere (with the exception of long-standing people like George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn) and voices speaking against never-ending wars seem to come just as often from the Right now (eg. Peter Hitchens, though I'm not sure he'd agree that he is especially 'right').

I don't think we can, or should, 'move on' if people don't take responsibility for their actions. Plus much of the Middle East is still highly unstable as a direct result of our actions in 2003 and following. The terrible damage done to the standing of international law is also something that has massive repercussions today.

--

You might find the discussion he had with Rory Stewart on their podcast around the time of the anniversary of the Iraq War (two episodes in mid-March from memory) interesting. I doubt it'll change your opinion of him as I suspect you're going to require a level of prostration that will never be forthcoming. But I certainly found it interesting and did alter my opinion somewhat of his behaviour from back then.

I shall certainly consider doing so, thanks.

 

[nlogax]

I don't think we can, or should, 'move on' if people don't take responsibility for their actions.

Taking responsibility is one thing but I suggest actual learning of lessons from bad decisions and acting on that learning is most of important of all. Our not being entrenched in a horrific situation in Syria is most likely the direct result of what we learned from getting involved with Iraq.

I can only echo others above re. those two TRiP episodes. While Campbell doesn't move towards responsibility he does express regret. There is also definitely nuance and a backstory in there that most of us missed or weren't made aware of at the time.

 

[MikeWM]

Taking responsibility is one thing but I suggest actual learning of lessons from bad decisions and acting on that learning is most of important of all. Our not being entrenched in a horrific situation in Syria is most likely the direct result of what we learned from getting involved with Iraq.

I'd say what happened in Libya shows that we didn't learn much at all (and in my opinion Cameron deserves almost as much criticism for that as Blair/Campbell etc. do over Iraq, but somehow he seems to get away with that).

I take the point about Syria, and agree that we nearly ended up in a terrible disaster, but of course Cameron was very keen on that too. Fortunately Ed Miliband was opposed and managed to get enough support to defeat the plan in parliament. (For all those who say 'the wrong Miliband' won the Labour leadership in 2010, I think they should consider what would have happened in Syria if the much more hawkish David had been leader).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Plus much of the Middle East is still highly unstable as a direct result of our actions in 2003 and following. The terrible damage done to the standing of international law is also something that has massive repercussions today.

The Middle East has been very unstable with frequent wars and revolutions etc. since at least the 1970s and arguably before that - including at least two full scale wars and one act of what arguably amounts to attempted genocide directly instigated by Saddam Hussein prior to 2003. While there are certain specific examples of unpleasantness that you can attribute to the 2003 war, I'm dubious that you can blame the fact of the Middle East being unstable on that.

 

[MikeWM]

The Middle East has been very unstable with frequent wars and revolutions etc. since at least the 1970s and arguably before that - including at least two full scale wars and one act of what arguably amounts to attempted genocide directly instigated by Saddam Hussein prior to 2003. While there are certain specific examples of unpleasantness that you can attribute to the 2003 war, I'm dubious that you can blame the fact of the Middle East being unstable on that.

Well, of course, I didn't mean to imply that everything was fantastic and stable and would be fine if not for the 2003 invasion. Though most of the recent issues can be at least partly traced back to actions by the USA and/or UK, such as the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953. Even now, our slavish support of one of the main regional powers (Saudi Arabia) and antipathy to one of the others (Iran) causes various problems - beyond the rather justified accusations of hypocrisy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, of course, I didn't mean to imply that everything was fantastic and stable and would be fine if not for the 2003 invasion. Though most of the recent issues can be at least partly traced back to actions by the USA and/or UK, such as the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953. Even now, our slavish support of one of the main regional powers (Saudi Arabia) and antipathy to one of the others (Iran) causes various problems - beyond the rather justified accusations of hypocrisy.

Yes, I agree that, ever since 1945, our support for some unpleasant regimes has not been helpful, to say the least. But are you sure you're not making the mistake of, assuming self-blame for everything? I mean, if Iran chooses to foment dissent and generally stir up trouble in neighbouring countries, then that is entirely Iran's decision: It's a bit of a stretch to say 'it's the West's fault because we opposed the Iranian regime'. And it's totally ridiculous to put the blame wholly or even largely on the 'West' when it's clearly the Iranian regime that chose to do what it did. Likewise if Saudi Arabia chooses to intervene militarily in Yemen and commit atrocities there, then that is entirely Saudi Arabia's decision and Saudi Arabia that bears responsibility for that (although in that case you could argue that, to the extent that we've supplied arms to Saudi Arabia that make their actions possible, we have some culpability).

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, I agree that, ever since 1945, our support for some unpleasant regimes has not been helpful, to say the least. But are you sure you're not making the mistake of, assuming self-blame for everything? I mean, if Iran chooses to foment dissent and generally stir up trouble in neighbouring countries, then that is entirely Iran's decision: It's a bit of a stretch to say 'it's the West's fault because we opposed the Iranian regime'. And it's totally ridiculous to put the blame wholly or even largely on the 'West' when it's clearly the Iranian regime that chose to do what it did. Likewise if Saudi Arabia chooses to intervene militarily in Yemen and commit atrocities there, then that is entirely Saudi Arabia's decision and Saudi Arabia that bears responsibility for that (although in that case you could argue that, to the extent that we've supplied arms to Saudi Arabia that make their actions possible, we have some culpability).

I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Of course countries need to have agency and not just blame past wrongs for current bad behaviour, but equally we can't discount the past entirely when trying to understand current behaviour.

(I think we're getting a little off-topic from Rishi Sunak though, which is probably my fault, sorry).

 

[SteveP29]

What is a poor quality degree? Media Studies at Keele? PPE at Oxford? Politics at Exeter ( like Robert Halfron who was on TV trying to defend this nonsense yesterday). Who determines a "good outcome"? What is a "good job"? Binman, Doctor, Office Boy, Prime Minister?

Lets be honest about what this is: Posh Tories go to University. Oiks do apprenticeships. Know your place.

EDIT - out of interest why do you agree with this idea?

Since this row blew up I've realised and have argued on social media that,

We, as in the working and middle classes are entertainment for toffs.
They laugh at us trying to survive, they refuse to negotiate fairer wages and conditions at work, because that would impact the amount of profit being made by this government, their friends and donors.
We aren't to have well paid jobs, we aren't to be creative, we aren't to make our fortunes for ourselves, we are to get our heads down and arses up (apologies for the language) at the coal face, making them money.
Our own home, a car, holidays, enough food to keep ourselves and our children fed and healthy and our homes (that we do manage to have) are to be cold, lifeless, joyless places, where we spend our time addicted to whatever propaganda and purile filth gets pumped out by our national and non national television companies before going to bed and repeating it all again the next day.
There is to be no joy, no happiness, no rest, your life is to be dedicated to making obscenely rich people even richer.

They laugh at us because they can say things like @Yew points out below in my next quote to us and sectors of society believe them implicitly without question, setting us against each other while they get away with just about everything.

Someone just skilled enough to make money for the capitalists, and uneducated enough to believe that immigrants are the reason they don't have a good quality of life?

Correct

Plus much of the Middle East is still highly unstable as a direct result of our actions in 2003 and following

Again, I've argued with people on social media who have blamed Blair, Brown and Campbell for the situation in the Middle East that the problems in the Middle East came long before then, over 100 years ago when the West decided that boundaries and borders had to be drawn over nomadic, tribal lands, where the people who were expected to live in those countries had no say whatsoever and a succession of Western friendly leaders were handpicked. That was bound to be accepted and go very smoothly, wasn't it

 

[MikeWM]

Again, I've argued with people on social media who have blamed Blair, Brown and Campbell for the situation in the Middle East that the problems in the Middle East came long before then, over 100 years ago when the West decided that boundaries and borders had to be drawn over nomadic, tribal lands, where the people who were expected to live in those countries had no say whatsoever and a succession of Western friendly leaders were handpicked. That was bound to be accepted and go very smoothly, wasn't it

Absolutely so, we've made a great many very serious historical mistakes, all around the world. Just look at Palestine as a trivial example, or the events leading up to the partition of India. That doesn't mean we won't still continue to make things worse by further meddling, however, and we seem quite determined to do so. (For example, it feels like it must be almost time for us to try another invasion of Afghanistan, given it has been over 20 years since the last one).

 

[Acfb]

I think the Tories will lose all three by elections tomorrow. Having said that I can see the Tories holding up relatively well in Uxbridge and S Ruislip and maybe restricting the Labour win to only 5% or so.

Mt predictions:

Somerton and Frome

LD 55%
Con 30%

Selby and Ainsty

Lab 43%
Con 39%

Uxbridge and S Ruislip:

Lab 47%
Con 41%

 

[Gloster]

I can see the Lib Dems taking back Somerton & Frome, but I am less certain about the other two. In Selby & Ainsty I suspect that the decisive factors will be how many people who voted Conservative last time just don’t vote and at what level Labour’s vote plateaus. Uxbridge & South Ruislip seems to be a bit difficult to be certain about because of the ULEZ effect: people turning against Labour because they just hate restrictions on their gas-guzzlers.

 

[Busaholic]

I can see the Lib Dems taking back Somerton & Frome, but I am less certain about the other two. In Selby & Ainsty I suspect that the decisive factors will be how many people who voted Conservative last time just don’t vote and at what level Labour’s vote plateaus. Uxbridge & South Ruislip seems to be a bit difficult to be certain about because of the ULEZ effect: people turning against Labour because they just hate restrictions on their gas-guzzlers.

The 'other parties' might well decide the Uxbridge result now that Farage's mob are standing against Tories again and his bleatings to the tabloids about Coutts may win his party a few hundred votes from the cerebrally challenged. I suspect Corbyn P. may also take some votes from those sick of Just Stop Oil antics and Khan's ill-executed ULEZ expansion plans.

 

[Yew]

I can see the Lib Dems taking back Somerton & Frome, but I am less certain about the other two. In Selby & Ainsty I suspect that the decisive factors will be how many people who voted Conservative last time just don’t vote and at what level Labour’s vote plateaus. Uxbridge & South Ruislip seems to be a bit difficult to be certain about because of the ULEZ effect: people turning against Labour because they just hate restrictions on their gas-guzzlers.

I hardly feel like a 2014 Ford Focus Econetic can be considered a "gas guzzler"...

 

[DustyBin]

people turning against Labour because they just hate restrictions on their gas-guzzlers.

Or maybe can’t afford to replace the family VW Golf, or the van their small business relies on?

I scratch my head as to why you’d need (or want) a huge SUV in an urban environment, but this isn’t just about “gas guzzlers”.

 

[yorksrob]

Taking responsibility is one thing but I suggest actual learning of lessons from bad decisions and acting on that learning is most of important of all. Our not being entrenched in a horrific situation in Syria is most likely the direct result of what we learned from getting involved with Iraq.

This is a very true point which I think is often missed.

 

[nw1]

I think the Tories will lose all three by elections tomorrow. Having said that I can see the Tories holding up relatively well in Uxbridge and S Ruislip and maybe restricting the Labour win to only 5% or so.

Mt predictions:

Somerton and Frome

LD 55%
Con 30%

Selby and Ainsty

Lab 43%
Con 39%

Uxbridge and S Ruislip:

Lab 47%
Con 41%

I'd have expected a much bigger Labour win in Uxbridge than in Selby.

Uxbridge is part of socially-liberal London and thus surely will not be enamoured with current government policy. Without the "Boris factor" (which rightly or wrongly, doubtless increased the Tory share last time in the seat) there will be little motivation to vote Tory.

Selby by contrast is in socially-conservative rural Yorkshire and thus there is a real chance the Tories could hold on there IMV. Remember this is David Davis country. I'd say that one is too close to call.

Somerton and Frome I suspect will be a large LD win as the seat has been historically LD. Not sure about a 25% lead but I suspect the margin will be greater than in nearby Tiverton.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd have expected a much bigger Labour win in Uxbridge than in Selby.

Uxbridge is part of socially-liberal London and thus surely will not be enamoured with current government policy. Without the "Boris factor" (which rightly or wrongly, doubtless increased the Tory share last time in the seat) there will be little motivation to vote Tory.

Selby by contrast is in socially-conservative rural Yorkshire and thus there is a real chance the Tories could hold on there IMV. Remember this is David Davis country. I'd say that one is too close to call.

Somerton and Frome I suspect will be a large LD win as the seat has been historically LD. Not sure about a 25% lead but I suspect the margin will be greater than in nearby Tiverton.

Selby isn't as wealthy as Uxbridge (or Howden - David Davis' constituency for that matter). I'd expect the Tories to do better in Uxbridge.

I'd expect Uxbridge to be more traditional wealth, rather than "trendy" wealth, therefore I'd expect it to be more Conservative leaning.

 

[edwin_m]

I hardly feel like a 2014 Ford Focus Econetic can be considered a "gas guzzler"...

Or maybe can’t afford to replace the family VW Golf, or the van their small business relies on?

I scratch my head as to why you’d need (or want) a huge SUV in an urban environment, but this isn’t just about “gas guzzlers”.

The policy is targeted at local emissions of NOx and particulates, which have a direct impact on the health of Londoners. A modern SUV, which effectively limits those emissions but emits a lot of CO2, is therefore exempted and an older small vehicle is subject to the charge. This is the bind the Mayor finds himself in, ironically just expanding something originally created during the Johnson regime, but it's understandable that a lot of people will see it as unfair.

Perhaps it would have been politically more acceptable if it had been accompanied by measures to penalise the owners of vehicles with high CO2 emissions or low pedestrian safety or some other criteria that hit the owners of Chelsea Tractors. That might have made the overall package less unattractive to some of those voters with small but older vehicles, but also risks alienating those with larger and newer ones.

Uxbridge is part of socially-liberal London and thus surely will not be enamoured with current government policy. Without the "Boris factor" (which rightly or wrongly, doubtless increased the Tory share last time in the seat) there will be little motivation to vote Tory.

Tories are apparently campaigning heavily on the ULEZ, in an outer London constituency that will be one of the most affected by it and probably won't perceive the health benefits which are more evident in denser areas further in.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd have expected a much bigger Labour win in Uxbridge than in Selby.

I would also expect that. The Tories are probably going to limit the swing against them in Uxbridge a little because of their populist campaigning on the ULEZ expansion and their revival of the old implied 'war on motorists' theme from 15 or so years ago (which by the way I think is utterly appalling), but Uxbridge is so much more marginal in the first place that I'm still expecting them to lose it heavily.

 

[Yew]

The policy is targeted at local emissions of NOx and particulates, which have a direct impact on the health of Londoners. A modern SUV, which effectively limits those emissions but emits a lot of CO2, is therefore exempted and an older small vehicle is subject to the charge. This is the bind the Mayor finds himself in, ironically just expanding something originally created during the Johnson regime, but it's understandable that a lot of people will see it as unfair.

These are usually older vehicles, owned by people who are less well off. Did you but a diesel under Gordon Browns scrappage scheme, to support the economy and fight climate change? Well now a Labour mayor wants to force you to buy a new car, incurring the climate costs for all the manufacturing processes, in the time of significant uncertainty and a cost of living crisis.

 

[nw1]

Replying to all three posts above, I'd tend to agree that "stick" approaches punishing motorists are unhelpful and can potentially cause people great difficulty.

Some people may need to drive less-environmentally-friendly vehicles, either for personal reasons or for work, and may incur significant costs upgrading their vehicle.

If the aim is to encourage more people to use environmentally-friendly vehicles or public transport, this should be done with "carrot" based approaches not "stick" based ones.

I realise this probably is better placed on the Labour thread, but I'd like to see a Labour party which, while committed to environmental issues, also recognises the personal financial issues involved in moving to an environmentally-friendly lifestyle and does not try and incur additional costs on people at this time in particular.

 

[takno]

Replying to all three posts above, I'd tend to agree that "stick" approaches punishing motorists are unhelpful and can potentially cause people great difficulty.

Some people may need to drive less-environmentally-friendly vehicles, either for personal reasons or for work, and may incur significant costs upgrading their vehicle.

If the aim is to encourage more people to use environmentally-friendly vehicles or public transport, this should be done with "carrot" based approaches not "stick" based ones.

I realise this probably is better placed on the Labour thread, but I'd like to see a Labour party which, while committed to environmental issues, also recognises the personal financial issues involved in moving to an environmentally-friendly lifestyle and does not try and incur additional costs on people at this time in particular.

I mean okay, but this is broadly the same ULEZ rules that are coming into cities across Scotland, and are being looked at across the UK. The vast majority of Londoners don't own affected vehicles, and almost all of the poorest most vulnerable Londoners don't own a vehicle at all. The pollution from these vehicles is causing significant health issues, ultimately blighting lives and costing the NHS a huge amount of money.

The Tories are making a massive thing about this, and there's some evidence that it might make a bit of a difference at the fringes, and arguably this seat is quite specifically at one of the fringes, but Uxbridge is faily urban and well integrated into the TfL network, unlike Bromley and the southern tip of Croydon where all the real protests are.

Ultimately the people who are being turned away from Labour by ULEZ already got turned away by the increase in 20 limits, or the rise in cycle lanes, or low-traffic neighbourhoods. They're a loud group being actively amplified by the Tories, but are they a large group, and should the fact that a proportion of them are experiencing economic hardship be used as cover for all of them to continue to inflict health poverty on the majority of Londoners?