Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jfollows]

I'm just fed up of politicians - Conservative ones most recently, but not always - promising us nonsense and lying to us on the basis of change - let's do something different because it will be wonderful and vote for us to implement change.

It won't be, but so many people are fed up with politics and politicians they think that change has to be for the better, and vote for it.

So any thought that we're going to go through it again - let's change by joining the EU again because it will be wonderful - fills me with dread.

It won't be wonderful.

And we'll have to join under their terms, not ours, so forget any of the myriad of exemptions we previously had.

I voted to remain in the EU, but we're out now, and I want politicians who make the best of where we are rather than selling us false hopes and dreams.

 

[RT4038]

The paper forms I filled in had no charge, though - so there must be a difference.


No, it's because "Brexiteer" has no negative word within it, while "Remoaner" does.

I don't think the charge is set at a rate to discourage certain sections of the population, so I would imagine the difference is the increased administration costs in more thorough vetting (albeit by computer mainly) before departure from home country/ arrival at the port of entry. They don't want you turning up and being refused entry, or claiming asylum.

'White supremacist' doesn't have any negative words in it either, but it would surely have a derogatory undertone if you used it.

 

[nw1]

I don't think the charge is set at a rate to discourage certain sections of the population, so I would imagine the difference is the increased administration costs in more thorough vetting (albeit by computer mainly) before departure from home country/ arrival at the port of entry.

I was referring to the paper forms you used to get before arriving in the US. No-one was charged anything, you just filled in the form, handed it to the border guard, and no money changed hands. Didn't matter if you were rich, poor, or anything else. The previous poster was saying they were charged when handing in one of these forms back in the 90s or thereabouts, and that doesn't accord with my experience of entering the US between 1996-2004.

'White supremacist' doesn't have any negative words in it either, but it would surely have a derogatory undertone if you used it.

I see what you're saying but nonetheless I think it can be objectively argued that "Remoaner" is worse.

Just like "Brexiteer" with a couple of extra letters in it (will leave that to the imagination) would be very much worse than "Brexiteer" alone!

I'm just fed up of politicians - Conservative ones most recently, but not always - promising us nonsense and lying to us on the basis of change - let's do something different because it will be wonderful and vote for us to implement change.

It won't be, but so many people are fed up with politics and politicians they think that change has to be for the better, and vote for it.

So any thought that we're going to go through it again - let's change by joining the EU again because it will be wonderful - fills me with dread.

It won't be wonderful.

And we'll have to join under their terms, not ours, so forget any of the myriad of exemptions we previously had.

I voted to remain in the EU, but we're out now, and I want politicians who make the best of where we are rather than selling us false hopes and dreams.

I think the thing to do is to focus on closer relations with the EU and building bridges (first, e.g. initial Starmer government) and then, when EU-UK relations are more friendly, regaining some of our lost rights (second, e.g. a second-term Labour government if it happens).

Do that and arguably we don't need to rejoin the EU at all, which might wind up both Brexiters and exasperated EU politicians less.

 

[jfollows]

I was referring to the paper forms you used to get before arriving in the US. No-one was charged anything, you just filled in the form, handed it to the border guard, and no money changed hands. Didn't matter if you were rich, poor, or anything else. The previous poster was saying they were charged when handing in one of these forms back in the 90s or thereabouts, and that doesn't accord with my experience of entering the US between 1996-2004.

The I-94W “moral turpitude” one:
(http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/images/I-94form.gif)
“no” to all the questions and put a hotel as your US address, job done!

Try not to lose the scrap left in your passport for when you leave the US ….

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder, this isn't a Brexit thread and that US immigration policy is also off-topic.

Thanks

 

[RT4038]

I was referring to the paper forms you used to get before arriving in the US. No-one was charged anything, you just filled in the form, handed it to the border guard, and no money changed hands. Didn't matter if you were rich, poor, or anything else. The previous poster was saying they were charged when handing in one of these forms back in the 90s or thereabouts, and that doesn't accord with my experience of entering the US between 1996-2004.

Ah. I went in 2001 and there was no charge. I thought you were comparing that to the current electronic system charge.

 

[takno]

The paper forms I filled in had no charge, though - so there must be a difference.

There was a charge if you turned up at the land border, which inconveniently had to be paid in USD cash. I believe in the case of airports they just built the fee into the overall charge they add to the airfare to provide immigration and customs facilities. Nobody, whether the UK, the US or the EU is levying these charges as a source of extra revenue - it's just moving the cost out of the airfare.

Overall in the case of the US they reduce effort and costs for regular travellers by eliminating pointless paperwork on the flight / at the airport, and make the whole arrival process generally slightly less awful. In the case of the EU, I've recently got through the desks in Denmark and France in a matter of minutes, but have generally waited up to an hour in Norway, and I waited over an hour to exit Poland before we left the EU. Having some consistency and the ability to do some of the work in advance suits me fine.

 

[nw1]

There was a charge if you turned up at the land border, which inconveniently had to be paid in USD cash. I believe in the case of airports they just built the fee into the overall charge they add to the airfare to provide immigration and customs facilities.

Ah ok, I did actually cross the land border in 2004 from Canada to the US, but I'd previously entered the US by air a week or two earlier, so perhaps I was exempt.

It confused the border guards though and they thought I was very suspicious.

Nobody, whether the UK, the US or the EU is levying these charges as a source of extra revenue - it's just moving the cost out of the airfare.

I would actually add the charge to the air-fare for all passengers, whether nationals of the country or not. Less discriminatory and more equitable, it would be seen as an extension to airport tax.

One could argue, in fact, that as the process is supposed to benefit nationals of the country being visited, the nationals of that country should be paying for it. It has little or no benefit to visitors.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Given demographics (older Leave voters being replaced by younger more pro-EU ones) and increasing numbers of former Brexiters regretting their choice, public opinion may ultimately be strongly enough in favour and the Tories might then back it as a matter of political survival. That may happen in time but not anytime soon.

I wonder if in the future that means the Tories may be seen less as the Brexit party. I would guess that as the years go by from now on, the likelihood of people voting Tory will come to be determined less by views on Brexit and more by views on other issues.

 

[nw1]

I wonder if in the future that means the Tories may be seen less as the Brexit party. I would guess that as the years go by from now on, the likelihood of people voting Tory will come to be determined less by views on Brexit and more by views on other issues.

I think they already are. The Tories are basically defined by social conservatism in general, whether that be on immigration/Brexit, trans rights, the right to protest and so on.

 

[JGurney]

The Tories are basically defined by social conservatism in general, ....

Having given us the first Prime Minister to live in sin in No. 10 and the first to openly become the father of an illegitimate child while in office, they haven't much credibility among those who get upset over such things.

I was amused at the joke that circulated at the time, that the man who brought us the Boris Bike and the Boris Bus had now also produced the Boris B******.

Reform, .... their prospective candidates are so controversial they can't find enough sane ones to stand everywhere:

Richard Tice defends Reform's vetting procedures after candidates dropped

The party has now ditched or suspended at least 12 candidates over offensive comments on social media.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes, that was predictable. Trying to appeal to the people who think the Conservatives are not conservative enough any more while at the same time keeping out the racists and those who think women should get back in the kitchen and gays and lesbians should get back in the closet cannot be easy. Especially as they are presumably knowingly relying on the votes of people with exactly those views.

 

[nw1]

Yes, that was predictable. Trying to appeal to the people who think the Conservatives are not conservative enough any more while at the same time keeping out the racists and those who think women should get back in the kitchen and gays and lesbians should get back in the closet cannot be easy. Especially as they are presumably knowingly relying on the votes of people with exactly those views.

I guess Reform might also appeal to moderately socially-conservative people (i.e. not homophobes and racists) who consider the Tories incompetent. I guess these are who they are hoping to attract.

I certainly don't think there's clear water between less-extreme Reform people and the likes of Braverman and Gullis. Indeed, there might be Reformists who are more socially liberal than Braverman and Gullis!

Really, the Tories should abandon their socially-conservative, right-wing populist agenda to Reform, and let Reform stand up for that POV as Reform is built to represent it. People like Braverman, Badenoch and Gullis should follow Anderson into Reform. Meanwhile, they (the Tories) should move more back to something in the Cameron or Major mould (economically-conservative but socially-liberal) though obviously it's too late to do that now, people wouldn't take them seriously. Still, that's what I hope they stand on in 2029. I still won't vote for them (ever - Hard Brexit is an unforgivable sin) but it would certainly mean I'd regard a return of the Tories with much less dread.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just to emphasise @yorkie's post from earlier the Brexit thread can be found over here


Also, if you do see a post on this thread (or any other) that you want to reply to but is off-topic you can very easily quote it either in a new thread or in a more appropriate thread (for instance a Brexit post in this thread can easily be quoted and replied to the in the Brexit thread).

Simply press the +Quote button at the bottom left of every post:



Then go to the thread you want to actually reply in (or start a new thread in the appropriate Forum) and you will see an "Insert Quotes" button at the bottom of the reply box:



Press that and in the new window that appears simply hit the "Quote messages" button:



And as if by magic the post will be quoted in the thread that you want to actually reply in. You can also hit the "+Quote" button on multiple posts to multi-quote, you can reorder the quoted posts in the window that appears when you hit "Insert Quotes", and if you're feeling really fancy you can highlight part of a post and a "+Quote" button will appear allowing you to simply quote a part of a post rather than the whole thing!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Really, the Tories should abandon their socially-conservative, right-wing populist agenda to Reform, and let Reform stand up for that POV as Reform is built to represent it.

Why should the Tories do that? If they do what you suggest then that would mean Reform becomes the only party outside Northern Ireland seeking to attract socially conservative voters. Every other significant party in GB - Tories, Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid, would be fighting for the socially liberal vote. Do you really want socially conservative voters to have no-one to vote for except a party that indulges conspiracy theories to try to play down climate change, wants to tax renewable energy more and expand oil production, wants immigration not merely reduced but net immigration reduced to zero, etc? Do you think that would be healthy for democracy?

 

[edwin_m]

Why should the Tories do that? If they do what you suggest then that would mean Reform becomes the only party outside Northern Ireland seeking to attract socially conservative voters. Every other significant party in GB - Tories, Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid, would be fighting for the socially liberal vote. Do you really want socially conservative voters to have no-one to vote for except a party that indulges conspiracy theories to try to play down climate change, wants to tax renewable energy more and expand oil production, wants immigration not merely reduced but net immigration reduced to zero, etc? Do you think that would be healthy for democracy?

The problem here is that the Tories bigging up immigration and culture war issues probably doesn't keep their more right wing voters drifting to Reform, and may even encourage them by keeping those issues on the agenda. Reform can then offer more extreme and unworkable solutions that sound good to those voters, confident that they'll never be voted in to implement them in practice. And in doing so the Tories repel voters nearer the centre who might consider voting for them but have alternatives in Labour or LibDems.

I think you may agree the only real solution to this is a PR voting system, where the current range of Tory voters could have a choice of at least two smaller parties that might end up in coalition with each other or with a different party.

 

[uglymonkey]

I fear, having lost the upcoming election, the Tory party will think the only way back to power to to go full on fascist - even more right wing than reform. This will change the political landscape in this country forever.

 

[nw1]

Why should the Tories do that? If they do what you suggest then that would mean Reform becomes the only party outside Northern Ireland seeking to attract socially conservative voters. Every other significant party in GB - Tories, Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid, would be fighting for the socially liberal vote. Do you really want socially conservative voters to have no-one to vote for except a party that indulges conspiracy theories to try to play down climate change, wants to tax renewable energy more and expand oil production, wants immigration not merely reduced but net immigration reduced to zero, etc? Do you think that would be healthy for democracy?

If they're only slightly socially conservative, with other matters more important to them, they could vote for one of the other parties.

I'm talking, specifically, about people who constantly "bang on" about immigration and trans rights (in a bad way), or "cushy" public sector employees going on strike, and so on. It seems to be this group that the likes of Braverman and Gullis, for example, seem to be attracting.

Anderson has defected to Reform. A lot of hardline social conservatives appear to look up to Anderson so is that not a sign that many such people would be attracted to Reform?

Plus, also, the modern, post-Thatcher Tories were not "supposed" to be a socially conservative party. Major wasn't especially socially conservative, and Cameron wasn't either. The party has, in recent years, been hijacked by social conservatives; essentially there was a "coup" in 2019. Why is it right that former Major and Cameron voters, who might go along with economic conservatism but not with social conservatism, feel unable to vote for the party nowadays?

(I actually know, for real, people who voted for Cameron who would not even consider voting Tory now - but no-one in the reverse position).

 

[edwin_m]

Plus, also, the modern, post-Thatcher Tories were not "supposed" to be a socially conservative party. Major wasn't especially socially conservative, and Cameron wasn't either. The party has, in recent years, been hijacked by social conservatives; essentially there was a "coup" in 2019. Why is it right that former Major and Cameron voters, who might go along with economic conservatism but not with social conservatism, feel unable to vote for the party nowadays?

I would consider Johnson not socially conservative either, and indeed apart from Brexit his stated policies were most similar to those of either party before 1979. Unfortunately he didn't deliver any of them, and one gets the impression is actual policy amounted to no more than having his cake and eating it.

 

[Eyersey468]

I would consider Johnson not socially conservative either, and indeed apart from Brexit his stated policies were most similar to those of either party before 1979. Unfortunately he didn't deliver any of them, and one gets the impression is actual policy amounted to no more than having his cake and eating it.

I get the impression that Johnson would back whatever it took to get him into power

 

[YorkRailFan]

On Monday evening he stepped down as vice chairman of the 1922 Committee of Conservative MPs.

He has now also told the Speaker he is resigning as chairman of another Commons committee he sits on.

Last week, Mr Wragg told the Times he had been targeted by a suspected Westminster honeytrap plot.

The Met Police has confirmed it is investigating reports of unsolicited messages being sent to MPs.

The Politico website has reported that up to 20 people in political circles have received suspicious texts.

In the past few days, two Conservative MPs - as well as some Westminster journalists - have publicly said they had been targeted.

Among them was the BBC's chief political correspondent, who has described what it was like to receive the messages.

Wragg quits Commons jobs over Westminster honeytrap - BBC News

His resignations come after he shared fellow MPs' personal phone numbers with someone on a dating app.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wragg has left the Tories and stepped down as Vice Chairman of the 1922 Committee. I'm surprised it took him so long to be honest.

 

[brad465]

Wragg quits Commons jobs over Westminster honeytrap - BBC News

His resignations come after he shared fellow MPs' personal phone numbers with someone on a dating app.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wragg has left the Tories and stepped down as Vice Chairman of the 1922 Committee. I'm surprised it took him so long to be honest.

Making Hunt look like even more of an idiot than normal.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Making Hunt look like even more of an idiot than normal.

Not only Hunt there were plenty of others although few were prepared to call him out. Another example of weak feeble Sunak not suspending him straight away and im surmising he was told to fall on his sword now for damage limitation.

What a shower

 

[Silenos]

Wragg has left the Tories and stepped down as Vice Chairman of the 1922 Committee. I'm surprised it took him so long to be honest.

Surely not? He is still a Tory MP, just a simple backbencher. I suppose it is a sign of progress that cruising on Grindr doesn’t lead to resignation from politics and trial by tabloid, but it’s a pity he didn’t feel able to go to the security services right away and allow them to set up some sort of sting operation with fake numbers.

 

[LowLevel]

Surely not? He is still a Tory MP, just a simple backbencher. I suppose it is a sign of progress that cruising on Grindr doesn’t lead to resignation from politics and trial by tabloid, but it’s a pity he didn’t feel able to go to the security services right away and allow them to set up some sort of sting operation with fake numbers.

BBC News state that he has resigned the Tory whip and is now sitting as an independent MP.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Surely not? He is still a Tory MP, just a simple backbencher. I suppose it is a sign of progress that cruising on Grindr doesn’t lead to resignation from politics and trial by tabloid, but it’s a pity he didn’t feel able to go to the security services right away and allow them to set up some sort of sting operation with fake numbers.

If you lose or resign the whip you are no longer a member of that political party. Whether he will welcomed onto Lee Anderson and Galloways bench remains to be seen!

 

[Silenos]

BBC News state that he has resigned the Tory whip and is now sitting as an independent MP.

yes, you’re right, I hadn’t seen that he had resigned the whip, merely his committee chairmanships

 

[YorkRailFan]

Surely not? He is still a Tory MP, just a simple backbencher. I suppose it is a sign of progress that cruising on Grindr doesn’t lead to resignation from politics and trial by tabloid, but it’s a pity he didn’t feel able to go to the security services right away and allow them to set up some sort of sting operation with fake numbers.

The BBC article I quoted says he voluntarily gave up the Whip, he is still a MP but not a Tory Member.

 

[jfollows]

BBC News state that he has resigned the Tory whip and is now sitting as an independent MP.

So it's a sad end to his parliamentary career, but it's not otherwise too bad for him personally since he wasn't going to stand for re-election anyway, and it didn't appear that he was planning on relying on the Conservative whip for his future career. His seat - Hazel Grove - is likely to be won by the Liberal Democrats at the next election anyway. So, personally, rather than soldiering on with the pretence and being busy in parliament he can spend more time and effort on what he's going to do next. Clearly some opportunities will now be closed to him because of his public lack of discretion/sense.

 

[Gloster]

So it's a sad end to his parliamentary career, but it's not otherwise too bad for him personally since he wasn't going to stand for re-election anyway, and it didn't appear that he was planning on relying on the Conservative whip for his future career. His seat - Hazel Grove - is likely to be won by the Liberal Democrats at the next election anyway. So, personally, rather than soldiering on with the pretence and being busy in parliament he can spend more time and effort on what he's going to do next. Clearly some opportunities will now be closed to him because of his public lack of discretion/sense.

One hopes that he will continue to represent his constituents until the election is called, i.e. do his job, rather than just go off and feather his nest. He might, unlike many others in the House.

 

[nw1]

One hopes that he will continue to represent his constituents until the election is called, i.e. do his job, rather than just go off and feather his nest. He might, unlike many others in the House.

I know what you mean. Wragg comes across as someone who is fundamentally relatively OK, unlike some other well-known Tory MPs. Yes, he made a mistake - but it was a mistake under pressure, rather than an act of vindictiveness.

He has humility, which is something many other Tory MPs completely lack. Contrast with the supreme arrogance of someone like Braverman, for example.