Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

WelshBluebird said:

Rushi's supporters are those who called judges enemies of the people, who complain constantly about people they want to lock up or deport getting fair legal representation, who want to change the law to allow them to do what courts have stopped them doing, who have very recently introduced restrictions on who can vote, and how you can protest, who tried to mislead people by changing an offical party social media account to mimick a fact checking account and who are now complaining about a democratically elected MP bieng elected (regardless of what you think of Galloway, he was elected by the people of Rochdale), yet of course its "other people" who are a threat to our democracy. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. We need a general election now before they do any more damage.

Click to expand...

If we had upticks, I’d give this several!

jfollows said:

Yes, I can see it happening because they've done it before, they are the Blue Anarchist party and have been since Boris Johnson took over, and they are prepared to break the law to get what they want.
Last time the Supreme Court eventually called them out, but next time they'll find a way to circumvent it "interfering" with their plans.

I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it impossible, which I would have said before

Click to expand...

Much as I loathe the current incarnation of the Tory party, I really can’t see this as feasible. Unlike the situation in the US, where much of civil society (particularly the judiciary) has been hollowed out by the Republican extremists, there’s still a fairly robust set of civil institutions here to resist making what Lord Hailsham described as an ‘elected dictatorship’ into a real one.

nw1 said:

Though as I said the consequences, both for the country and the Conservative Party, would be dire if they attempted to cancel. It would be their surest route to extinction.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why we're even discussing this. The Tories are not going to cancel the election. It's a totally ridiculous notion, as well as being legally impossible without massive changes to the law that they would never be able to get through Parliament even if they wanted to. Anyone who envisages Sunak cancelling the election as a serious possibility is not only not living in the real World, but wasn't paying attention to the substance of his speech - which was about defending democracy against those who want to subvert it by - for example, intimidating MPs or inciting acts of terrorism. There are many things about the Tory party, Tory policies, and Tory philosophy that lots of us would disagree with - just as there is for any political party. But there's no reason to doubt that, on the whole, Sunak and the Tories - just like Starmer and Labour, or Ed Davey and the LibDems - do believe in democracy and in submitting to elections [*] and abiding by the results.

[*] With a proviso that none of the parties has been averse to slight tinkering with the system to shift things in their own favour. Examples: Labour and the Tories both supporting FPTP, Labour in the past presiding over an over-representation of (at the time, Labour-supporting) Scottish seats, the Tories introducing photo-ID.

Gloster said:

It is on the BBC website now: Auntie prefers to check things rather than rushing to be first.

Click to expand...

Sky News used to have an unofficial internal strap line; SKY NEWS - FIRST TO APOLOGISE

SteveM70 said:

Sky News used to have an unofficial internal strap line; SKY NEWS - FIRST TO APOLOGISE

Click to expand...

i'd heard it as "sky news - never wrong for long"

DynamicSpirit said:

I'm not sure why we're even discussing this. The Tories are not going to cancel the election. It's a totally ridiculous notion, as well as being legally impossible without massive changes to the law that they would never be able to get through Parliament even if they wanted to. Anyone who envisages Sunak cancelling the election as a serious possibility is not only not living in the real World, but wasn't paying attention to the substance of his speech - which was about defending democracy against those who want to subvert it by - for example, intimidating MPs or inciting acts of terrorism. There are many things about the Tory party, Tory policies, and Tory philosophy that lots of us would disagree with - just as there is for any political party. But there's no reason to doubt that, on the whole, Sunak and the Tories - just like Starmer and Labour, or Ed Davey and the LibDems - do believe in democracy and in submitting to elections [*] and abiding by the results.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's ridiculous. However I do agree that the probability is vanishingly small.

I think Sunak thought that the election of Galloway gave him the opportunity to kick Labour, offer a tasty bit of red meat to his right wing and look Prime Ministerial, all at the same time. Brilliant wheeze! What could possibly go wrong? Just that a) he's Sunak, b) most people have forgotten Galloway and have no idea of his pseudo left-wing views and c) it was an obvious piece of overkill. We have had some noisy demos so the dark forces are trying to tear democracy apart? You what? So he just made himself look a prat (again).

DerekC said:

I don't think it's ridiculous. However I do agree that the probability is vanishingly small.

I think Sunak thought that the election of Galloway gave him the opportunity to kick Labour, offer a tasty bit of red meat to his right wing and look Prime Ministerial, all at the same time. Brilliant wheeze! What could possibly go wrong? Just that a) he's Sunak, b) most people have forgotten Galloway and have no idea of his pseudo left-wing views and c) it was an obvious piece of overkill. We have had some noisy demos so the dark forces are trying to tear democracy apart? You what? So he just made himself look a prat (again).

Click to expand...

He should have said nothing this was down to Labours obsessions with its anti sematic credentials trumping everything else and the focus would have been on them for letting Galloway in and they could have played on this over the weekend but as usual there being too clever and its backfired again. Hopefully he will run with May elections but has till 26th March to decide.

DerekC said:

I don't think it's ridiculous. However I do agree that the probability is vanishingly small.

I think Sunak thought that the election of Galloway gave him the opportunity to kick Labour, offer a tasty bit of red meat to his right wing and look Prime Ministerial, all at the same time. Brilliant wheeze! What could possibly go wrong? Just that a) he's Sunak, b) most people have forgotten Galloway and have no idea of his pseudo left-wing views and c) it was an obvious piece of overkill. We have had some noisy demos so the dark forces are trying to tear democracy apart? You what? So he just made himself look a prat (again).

Click to expand...

According to the reporting in today's i newspaper, Starmer gave his overall support to Sunak's melodramatics and message, whereas 'Sir' Ed Davey didn't, suggesting to me that if Sir Starmer was currently P.M. he'd have taken to the steps of Downing Street too. He's beginning to make me think that the closing sentence of Animal Farm will be duly enacted sometime in the next year or too.

Busaholic said:

According to the reporting in today's i newspaper, Starmer gave his overall support to Sunak's melodramatics and message, whereas 'Sir' Ed Davey didn't, suggesting to me that if Sir Starmer was currently P.M. he'd have taken to the steps of Downing Street too. He's beginning to make me think that the closing sentence of Animal Farm will be duly enacted sometime in the next year or too.

Click to expand...

I suspect Starmer's response was more that he wants the matter buried, 'nothing to see here', so he can concentrate on the response to the Budget!

Busaholic said:

According to the reporting in today's i newspaper, Starmer gave his overall support to Sunak's melodramatics and message...

Click to expand...

Well he was hardly likely to come out in favour of extremism and social divisiveness now, was he?

najaB said:

Well he was hardly likely to come out in favour of extremism and social divisiveness now, was he?

Click to expand...

He could have ignored it altogether, or, perhaps more aptly, suggested it was a matter for Parliament to debate, which it certainly should be in our non-Presidential country.

A rather extreme article from Robert Jenrick:

Why does the Left consider it Islamophobic to want to expel the cancer of extremism from Britain


A decade ago, it used to mainly be right wingers on political forums who said stuff like this now it has spread to supposedly 'mainstream' Conservative politicians.

To think he was the 'moderate' candidate in the Newark by election and is now a plausible candidate for Tory leader.

Acfb said:

A rather extreme article from Robert Jenrick:

Why does the Left consider it Islamophobic to want to expel the cancer of extremism from Britain


A decade ago, it used to mainly be right wingers on political forums who said stuff like this now it has spread to supposedly 'mainstream' Conservative politicians.

To think he was the 'moderate' candidate in the Newark by election and is now a plausible candidate for Tory leader.

Click to expand...

What specifically do you object to about the article? What does he say that you believe is not correct?

We do not have a "serious issue with Islamist extremism", we certainly have an issue with people, including MPs, receiving death threats, but it's the attempt to explain this appalling sort of behaviour with the catch-all "Islamist" that I don't agree with. Firstly because it's too simplistic, but secondly because it's a newly-used word by the right to imply in a vague way the sort of person who ought to be the target of our hatred.

There are specific groups of people who could be called out, and then probably a lot more individuals who are just wrong, but I don't agree with the premise of "Islamist".

It's also not been "one of the darkest days in our democracy", this is confabulated rubbish, I don't think it was Lindsay Hoyle's best behaviour and with the wisdom of hindsight he admits that, but our democracy was not undermined by his actions, instead we had some political spats inside the Westminster bubble.
I believe that much of the "extremism" outside politics has been nurtured by extremism inside politics, with our politicians demonstrating that they will and can do what they like to get their way.

Immigration is of course a problem, but again it's overstated because it suits many peoples' agenda to do so. For sure, I probably understate it as a problem because of where I live and the circles in which we operate, but for the country as a whole it's a problem which is seen as much mis-managed by politicians inasmuch as it's seen as a major problem.

Essentially Jenrick and people like him have a view which I don't share, and I don't think the majority of people share, but he is trying to win over the "undecided" or "unconcerned" over to his cause, because it's one which he can then run with a make political capital from.

Prevent has never worked and makes targets of innocent people - it's always going to do so, and the problem with such an over-arching policy is that I don't think that the ends justify the means, but that's something we might differ on.

Essentially this is part of a campaign to stir up discontent and hatred, mainly racial, and blaming "multiculturalism" and trying to turn this into a "bad word" in the way that "liberal" has become in the US. Then the Conservatives can come along and say that they're the solution to all this badness, and Labour isn't. I don't buy it and I never will.

While I don't want to tempt fate, terror incidents involving extremists blowing people up, running people over, stabbing random people etc have become pretty rare of late.

It is sad that despite this, and the fact that most people from these communities aren't terrorists and never have been, there are people who are trying to scare everyone by saying that all of these people 'living amongst us' (itself suggesting they somehow shouldn't be here) are 'biding their time' for some big takeover attempt.

The 'great white replacement theory' tropes are coming back, especially thanks to being mentioned multiple times by Elon Musk (either from his own posts/comments, or just reposting extremist views from others) who has really jumped onboard with this - and also diversity hiring as a reason that bad things are happening in the USA (Boeing, medical incidents etc), not a lack of oversight etc (and the Tories would love to remove regulations here, so maybe we'll scapegoat minorities and those with disabilities for future company failings?).

I remember hearing people talking about the great replacement theory back in the 1990s when I lived in London. Back then I was hearing that our country would be lost by 2000 if we didn't act. It was the BNP back then, not MPs from more respected parties dog whistling and trying to divide us through culture wars.

Wow, thanks for replying with well reasoned and specific set of points.

jfollows said:

We do not have a "serious issue with Islamist extremism", we certainly have an issue with people, including MPs, receiving death threats, but it's the attempt to explain this appalling sort of behaviour with the catch-all "Islamist" that I don't agree with. Firstly because it's too simplistic, but secondly because it's a newly-used word by the right to imply in a vague way the sort of person who ought to be the target of our hatred.

Click to expand...

If you don't agree with the term, Islamist, then what term would you use to describe the ideology that commits or supports acts of terror in the (supposed) name of Islam?

I wouldn't interpret 'Islamist' in the same way you do. In years past, we would probably have casually referred to such acts as 'Islamic terrorism' - which was as good a word as we had a few years ago, but risked looking like it was tarnishing all Muslims. To my mind, saying 'Islamist' is good because it's distinguishing Islamist as an ideology in its own right that is at least somewhat separate from 'Islamic' - so it represents an attempt to avoid painting all Muslims in the same light.

jfollows said:

It's also not been "one of the darkest days in our democracy", this is confabulated rubbish,

Click to expand...

Yes I would agree with you that bit of the article is an exaggeration.

jfollows said:

Essentially this is part of a campaign to stir up discontent and hatred, mainly racial, and blaming "multiculturalism" and trying to turn this into a "bad word" in the way that "liberal" has become in the US. Then the Conservatives can come along and say that they're the solution to all this badness, and Labour isn't. I don't buy it and I never will.

Click to expand...

That seems a pretty cynical interpretation of the article to me. Why not accept the simpler and (to my mind) more plausible likelihood that Robert Jenrick has simply written what he believes to be true. After all, even though you disagree with him, what he's written does amount to a consistent view of the World that someone could well believe. (For what it's worth, I think the substance of what he writes is broadly correct, subject to a few quibbles, such as the exaggeration noted above). Why the perpetual assumption that when a Tory MP writes something, there must be some bad motive behind it? After all, when Labour or LibDem MPs say stuff, usually, even if we disagree with what they are saying, we still accept that they are saying what they believe unless there's some specific evidence to the contrary.

Acfb said:

A rather extreme article from Robert Jenrick:

Why does the Left consider it Islamophobic to want to expel the cancer of extremism from Britain


A decade ago, it used to mainly be right wingers on political forums who said stuff like this now it has spread to supposedly 'mainstream' Conservative politicians.

To think he was the 'moderate' candidate in the Newark by election and is now a plausible candidate for Tory leader.

Click to expand...

Newark happens to be an anagram of his nickname.

DynamicSpirit said:

Wow, thanks for replying with well reasoned and specific set of points.



If you don't agree with the term, Islamist, then what term would you use to describe the ideology that commits or supports acts of terror in the (supposed) name of Islam?

I wouldn't interpret 'Islamist' in the same way you do. In years past, we would probably have casually referred to such acts as 'Islamic terrorism' - which was as good a word as we had a few years ago, but risked looking like it was tarnishing all Muslims. To my mind, saying 'Islamist' is good because it's distinguishing Islamist as an ideology in its own right that is at least somewhat separate from 'Islamic' - so it represents an attempt to avoid painting all Muslims in the same light.

Click to expand...

I think the typical term used was "Islamic Extremist", which clearly indicated that this was not the ubiquitous view of the majority of Muslims. Whereas it feels like the more modern "Islamist", which until recently I had only ever heard obvious racists use as a derogatory term for Muslim, seems to be an attempt to tar all Muslims with the same brush, as if they are all terrorists in the making.

Similarly, if we look at other uses of the "ist" suffix, it is generally used to refer to all practitioners of a given art. Anaesthetist, Guitarist, Plagiarist, these words all refer to all practitioners of the art of Anaesthesiology, Guitar Playing, and Plagiarising respectively.

Yew said:

Whereas it feels like the more modern "Islamist", which until recently I had only ever heard obvious racists use as a derogatory term for Muslim, seems to be an attempt to tar all Muslims with the same brush, as if they are all terrorists in the making.

Click to expand...

It's actually the other way around. "Islamic" is the adjective referring to the religion, where "Islamist" specifically refers to the political ideology. All Muslims follow Islamic practices (to some extent), but not all Muslims are Islamists.

It's similar to the difference between a Christian and a Christian Nationalist.

So after Galloway's election, Labour was getting the bad press so Rishi decided to make his weird speech and thats what everyone is talking about instead. The man is a political genius.

philosopher said:

The champagne corks must be popping in the Tory party HQ today!

Click to expand...

Yes the corks are popping. There was effectively a 12% swing from Labour to Tory at Rochdale. They would be mad not to call the General Election now.

317 forever said:

Yes the corks are popping. There was effectively a 12% swing from Labour to Tory at Rochdale. They would be mad not to call the General Election now.

Click to expand...

And then this happened:

birchesgreen said:

So after Galloway's election, Labour was getting the bad press so Rishi decided to make his weird speech and thats what everyone is talking about instead. The man is a political genius.

Click to expand...

IPSOS have polled the Tories at their lowest ever rating at 20%

DC1989 said:

IPSOS have polled the Tories at their lowest ever rating at 20%

Click to expand...

Down from 27% on 29 February (https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls)?

EDIT That'd be a huge shift in under a week so I'm thinking it's a different poll conducted by the same polling organisation.

DC1989 said:

IPSOS have polled the Tories at their lowest ever rating at 20%

Click to expand...

I'm sure that Hunt's budget on Wednesday when he offers us a 2p reduction on either National Insurance or Income Tax will certainly turn that around.

We'll ignore that a 2p reduction in peoples taxes will a) have no impact on their financial position considering how much everything else around it has gone and continues to go up and b) most people would quite like public services to be invested in rather than cut further which is what is required to make this tax cut affordable.

I don't believe the majority of people care about or understand National Insurance well enough to understand the significance of a 2p reduction to them - whereas they think they understand Income Tax and will care about its reduction even if they don't understand it properly.

I think any reduction in NI will be a "waste" of money because it won't buy any votes. However, that's not the Chancellor's intention, of course.

I don't pay NI but that's not directing my thinking - actually I'd far rather he increased income tax threshholds than any "headline" rate. But at least he's probably spotted that people don't understand these or other silly marginal rates of tax so I don't think he's going to improve any of these.

DC1989 said:

IPSOS have polled the Tories at their lowest ever rating at 20%

Click to expand...

That could result in more seats for the LibDems on 10% at the next election! 48 LibDem versus 32 Conservative, perhaps, and 529 Labour on one prediction I've put together.

DC1989 said:

IPSOS have polled the Tories at their lowest ever rating at 20%

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that?

DynamicSpirit said:

Do you have a link to that?

Click to expand...

DC1989 said:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/labour-lead-economy-and-public-services-conservative-share-falls-record-low

Click to expand...

Thank you.
21-28 February polling.
Indeed down from 27% on similar polling 17-23 January.
Guardian reports (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...loway-national-insurance-cut-uk-politics-live):

Support for Tories in Ipsos polling hits lowest level for more than 40 years, with Labour 27 points ahead​

Support for the Conservative party is at its lowest level for more than 40 years, according to polling from Ipsos.

According to its latest monthly political monitor, Labour is on 47% (down 2 points on the previous month), and the Conservatives are on 20% (down seven points).

Ipsos says this is the lowest score that Tories have had since it started this regular poll tracker in 1978.

Here is more on the figures from the Ipsos news release.

Labour 47% (-2 pts), Conservatives 20% (-7), Liberal Democrats 9% (+2), Green 8% (+1), Reform UK 8% (+4), Other 7% (+2). Making Labour’s lead 27 points, up from 22 in January.
The Conservatives’ share of 20% is the lowest ever recorded by Ipsos in our regular political monitor series, which has run since 1978. Previous Conservative low points were 22% under John Major in December 1994 and May 1995, 23% in July 1997, shortly after Labour’s landslide win and 23 per cent in December 2022.
Half (50%) of those with a voting intention say they have definitely decided who to vote for – but 45% may change their mind. There are also signs of a growing enthusiasm gap, with only 62% of Conservatives saying they certain to vote, vs 76% of Labour voters (which feeds through into the headline voting figure) – last month the gap was just 4 points.

Click to expand...

It is often said that any poll finding that is particularly newsworthy, because it is striking and unusual, is likely to be wrong. All polls are subject to a margin of error and they are most reliable when considered alongside other polls, as a guide to trends in opinion, rather than in isolation. The Guardian’s opinion poll tracker does not show Tory support collapsing further in January or February.

But the Ipsos polling also suggests Labour is comfortably ahead of the Conservatives on economic policy and on leadership, the two areas seen as crucial for electoral success.

On policy, Ipsos says:

Labour are seen as having the best policies on managing the economy by a margin of 31% to the Conservative score of 23%. In October the parties were neck and neck.
On taxation, Labour are seen as having the best policies over the Conservatives by a margin of 32% to 19%.
40% think Labour have the best policies for people in work, 15% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
43% think Labour have the best policies for public services in general, 11% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
35% think Labour have the best policies for the level of public spending, 16% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
29% think the Conservatives have the best policies for Britain’s businesses, 25% think Labour have the best policies. In September 2021 the Conservatives lead on this by 41% to 17%.
30% think the Conservatives have the best policies for Britain’s financial services sector, also known as the City, 22% think Labour have the best policies.

Click to expand...

And on leadership Ipsos says:

19% are satisfied with the job Rishi Sunak is doing as prime minister (-1 from January) and 73% say they are dissatisfied (+7). His net rating of -54 is a record low for Mr Sunak.
Keir Starmer’s ratings have also fallen since January. 29% are satisfied with his performance as Labour leader (-1) and 55% are dissatisfied (+7). His net score of -26 is only slightly above his lowest finding of -29 in May 2021.

Click to expand...

Ipsos polled just over 1,000 people between 21 and 28 February.

Gideon Skinner, head of political research at Ipsos, said:

The historical comparisons continue to look ominous for Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives. The Ipsos political monitor series started in the late 70s and has never recorded a Conservative vote share this low – and the job satisfaction trends for the prime minister and his government since he took office are also heading downwards.
Combined with Labour taking leads on issues of economic credibility to go with their traditional strengths in public services, this means the Conservatives face big challenges across a number of fronts if they are to turn the situation around.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

On these figures, Electoral Calculus (https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=20&LAB=47&LIB=9&Reform=8&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=17&SCOTLAB=35&SCOTLIB=7.5&SCOTReform=2&SCOTGreen=1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=33&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase) gives 25 seats to the Conservatives, 47 LibDem and 537 Labour:

DC1989 said:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/labour-lead-economy-and-public-services-conservative-share-falls-record-low

Click to expand...

Thanks, and wow! That is dramatic! To be hitting record lows this close to the likely election is totally dire for the Tories. I also notice this bit - which provides part of the explanation for why they have dropped further:

Ipsos said:

There are also signs of a growing enthusiasm gap, with only 62% of Conservatives saying they certain to vote, vs 76% of Labour voters (which feeds through into the headline voting figure) – last month the gap was just 4 points.

Click to expand...

In other words, not only are the Tories at historic lows in how many people want to vote for them, but their remaining supporters are getting less enthusiastic about bothering to vote.

The Tories could give me a million in used tenners and that still wouldn't change my vote. However if they want to sweeten the pill of their mis-rule over the last fourteen years, lowering NI isn't the way to go, as it only affects workers, they need to raise the income tax threshold, a lot, so that almost everyone benefits, and they could pay something towards it by scrapping non-doms tax-free status.

But the good thing is whatever he does they are doomed. Think most put the NHS as their number one priority and want their taxes spent on that?