Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Egg Centric]

This thread is a bit long for me to read - is there anyone in it defending the conservative party any more, just out of interest?

I am not asking out of any intention to "pile on" them - indeed I am often a tory voter due to fiscal conservatism (not gonna be this time though!) - but because I like to have a sense of the country at large for various reasons so I'd like to see if anyone is actually both in favour of this sort of thing and prepared to say so.

 

[Parjon]

It has gone against what Liverpool hating George Osborne - of mass homelessness, crime rocketing, society destroying fame - wants. So it must have some merit.

 

[Egg Centric]

The most worrying think for me is that despite what happened today all the stonewalling and denying of the HS2 announcement there are still some on here that think the Tories will still win the next election

Anyone who thinks the Tories will win (in the sense of an overall majority) the next election can make a lot of money on Betfair atm. If they won't put their money where their mouth is I'd be suspicious as to whether they really think that.

 

[najaB]

This thread is a bit long for me to read - is there anyone in it defending the conservative party any more, just out of interest?

Does denigrating Labour count as defending the Conservative Party? Plenty of that still on display.

 

[JamesT]

Anyone who thinks the Tories will win (in the sense of an overall majority) the next election can make a lot of money on Betfair atm. If they won't put their money where their mouth is I'd be suspicious as to whether they really think that.

The confounding factor is the size of the current government’s majority. Normally you’d expect a government over a decade in to have haemorrhaged votes at successive elections and be hanging on with a slim majority. But Sunak still has most of the seats from 2019.
So it may require a larger swing than normal for the Tories to lose enough seats to no longer be able to form the government.

 

[Egg Centric]

Does denigrating Labour count as defending the Conservative Party? Plenty of that still on display.

No. I will be voting Labour almost certainly (possible I would do Lib Dem in certain circumstances) but it's a "get out Tories" vote, I am quite happy to denigrate Labour too and quite honestly think they'll do just as bad a job. It's simply that Tories need to be told where we are is totally unacceptable and to fecking shape up.

I just wanna see if anyone anywhere is pro-this government.

The confounding factor is the size of the current government’s majority. Normally you’d expect a government over a decade in to have haemorrhaged votes at successive elections and be hanging on with a slim majority. But Sunak still has most of the seats from 2019.
So it may require a larger swing than normal for the Tories to lose enough seats to no longer be able to form the government.

This is true but also look at the polls. Again if you actually believe the betting markets are mispriced then there is piles of moolah available.

 

[Falcon1200]

They had a plan with HS2, they should have stuck with it.

Agree 100%.

 

[Peterthegreat]

The most worrying think for me is that despite what happened today all the stonewalling and denying of the HS2 announcement there are still some on here that think the Tories will still win the next election I don't think they will but the mere fact that some think this is the case is for the first time sending shivers down my spine a bit it is not just the HS2 issue it is the fact that is has been promised by successive Tory governments and if you announce a plan you should stick to it I am not normally much a politically opinionated person I am don't vote Tory and normally vote Labour at GEs but I am an intelligent and pragmatic individual and even though I don't agree with most Conservative ideology I am an intelligent individual who has a holistic view of thinks and I was always willing to give the likes of Osbourne a chance with his levelling up agenda he did at least try but I would say after this week for the first time because of the stonewalling and denials discraseful behaviour like spades in the ground comments and no decision has been taken by those who quite well know that it has been made for the first time I actually fear the Tories winning again although barring a black swan type event I believe they won't and I want the Tories too loose badly and deserve it we can't have this going on much longer I think Labour although not perfect will be better than we have at the moment but I really want them to come clear about there position on HS2 they need to be clear on Phase 2 and also the projects just announced by the current government

I think there are two camps of those thinking the Tories will win:-
1) Those who want the Tories to win/Labour to lose
and
2) Those (like me) who fear the Tories will win and the long term damage that will do to the country.

 

[PsychoMouse]

They're not going to win the next election, end of. I don't think they even want to win the next election.

They're far more likely to go full 1993 Canada than win.

 

[The Ham]

I was going to add this. It's not unworkable in terms of an age limit - you simply state that anyone born after a certain date cannot legally buy tobacco. From a health point of view, there is surely no argument - smoking its proven to shorten life by 10 years on average (Doll, Peto et al.).

The question about what is next in terms of civil liberties is somewhat tougher to reason with.

If you're concerned about it being difficult to implement, you could increase the age by 10 months every year for the first few years.

By the time you've got the age to (say) 30, even slowing to 6 months every year isn't going to materially change the numbers smoking, as it's unlikely that many would take it up at that age or older.

However it would mean that it would soften the argument against it on people's rights as someone just short of the age limit wouldn't always be carrying out an illegal activity if they were to buy cigarettes aged 33 when the ban would otherwise be 36 if it went up 12 months every 12 months.

 

[takno]

If you're concerned about it being difficult to implement, you could increase the age by 10 months every year for the first few years.

By the time you've got the age to (say) 30, even slowing to 6 months every year isn't going to materially change the numbers smoking, as it's unlikely that many would take it up at that age or older.

However it would mean that it would soften the argument against it on people's rights as someone just short of the age limit wouldn't always be carrying out an illegal activity if they were to buy cigarettes aged 33 when the ban would otherwise be 36 if it went up 12 months every 12 months.

It softens the argument, but doesn't resolve it. Prohibition doesn't work generally, and is completely pointless grandstanding in the face of collapsingg numbers of smokers generally. You don't stop the successful thing you're doing to replace it with a scheme that will get people's backs up.

The fact that we're importing the scheme from New Zealand worries me. The place is currently a nasty illiberal mess of a country which is a playground for billionaires, but can't be bothered to support the mass of the population with proper services. The government which implemented this is in the process of losing the election anyway. I'm not convinced we have anything useful to learn from them.

 

[edwin_m]

The confounding factor is the size of the current government’s majority. Normally you’d expect a government over a decade in to have haemorrhaged votes at successive elections and be hanging on with a slim majority. But Sunak still has most of the seats from 2019.
So it may require a larger swing than normal for the Tories to lose enough seats to no longer be able to form the government.

As you say, it's unusual for a party to be returned to power with an increased majority, but 2019 was a very unusual year politically. Many people were put off by Corbyn and what he stood for, many people preferred to "get Brexit done" (whether they liked the idea or not) rather than Labour's alternative which looked like continuing the chaos of previous months, and Johnson was offering something new in "levelling up".

We now know that "levelling up" was largely a fantasy, we've all been done by getting Brexit, and whatever certain people on here say about Starmer he's certainly less repellant to floating voters than Corbyn was. In a rare truthful statement Johnson pointed out that the Red Wall had "lent" the Tories their votes, and now I expect them to be calling in the loan with interest. Loss of those seats is enough to eliminate Sunak's majority on its own, and in more traditional Tory territory many voters will be repelled by the antics of Johnson, Truss, Braverman and others.

So Labour should win this unless they do something stupid, which they appear to be aiming to avoid by not doing anything if they can avoid it.

 

[najaB]

Prohibition doesn't work generally, and is completely pointless grandstanding in the face of collapsingg numbers of smokers generally. You don't stop the successful thing you're doing to replace it with a scheme that will get people's backs up.

So... people will start smoking in protest?

 

[DarloRich]

indeed I am often a tory voter due to fiscal conservatism

that Conservative party is dead and gone.

It has been replaced by this clown show mixture of alt/crank right, Faragist, authoritarianism, Populist, GBbeebies inspired conspiracy theorist and sovereign individualist nonsense. That and lies. Lots of lies.

 

[kristiang85]

It softens the argument, but doesn't resolve it. Prohibition doesn't work generally, and is completely pointless grandstanding in the face of collapsingg numbers of smokers generally. You don't stop the successful thing you're doing to replace it with a scheme that will get people's backs up.

The fact that we're importing the scheme from New Zealand worries me. The place is currently a nasty illiberal mess of a country which is a playground for billionaires, but can't be bothered to support the mass of the population with proper services. The government which implemented this is in the process of losing the election anyway. I'm not convinced we have anything useful to learn from them.

I do not like smoking or being around people smoking, and would welcome stricter rules on where people smoke in public, but effectively banning it outright really doesn't sit well with me. It's yet more government intervention into the choices people make.

Then once that precedent is set, where does it stop? Smoking deaths are down, so next up will be the booze. Then any foods that are bad for us. Life will become very dull and colourless, with any 'sin' treats banned.

And as you say, prohibition tends to have negative effects.

I think this government knows it won't be about to implement some of these madder policies, but I do wonder why they bother saying these things as it makes them look like nutjobs.

 

[takno]

So... people will start smoking in protest?

Some people will start smoking, less in protest and more because there's an inherent appeal to things which are forbidden. More importantly you build a culture where people believe the law is an ass, and feel free to pick and choose the bits that apply to them. Furthermore you criminalise suppliers and promote gangs and organised crime.

Ultimately this is an aggressively bad policy, much more so than cancelling HS2, because it flies in the face of sensible liberalism and further entrenches an approach to drugs generally which is badly falling society

 

[nw1]

Sickened to the stomach of him now attacking trans people, it's a total non issue to the vast, vast majority yet he picks on a tiny group within the whole population for his sordid dog whistle politics.

Who will be next on his hit list??

"Him" meaning Sunak I guess, to make it clear.

The confounding factor is the size of the current government’s majority. Normally you’d expect a government over a decade in to have haemorrhaged votes at successive elections and be hanging on with a slim majority. But Sunak still has most of the seats from 2019.
So it may require a larger swing than normal for the Tories to lose enough seats to no longer be able to form the government.

The current majority is an oddity though, a direct result of Johnson vs Corbyn and all that entailed.

If Johnson had not been the leader in 2019, I'd have expected a very different result.

Also a lot has happened since 2019. If Thatcher had hung on until 1992, I have little doubt there would have been a significant Labour win in that year (thus a large swing from 1987), it was only installing the moderate John Major that saved them. There has been no such Major figure this time, and the current Tory party is far to the right of the relative moderation of 1991. Sunak basically sounds like an overgrown schoolboy insincerely wittering about stuff, a stark contrast to the more reassuring John Major.

Also the opinion polls are pretty consistent, and Labour have a much greater lead than they did in 1991 (in fact the Tories were often ahead between the installation of Major and the 1992 election).

 

[SteveM70]

Anyone know how much tobacco companies have donated to the Conservative Party over recent years?

 

[nw1]

Anyone know how much tobacco companies have donated to the Conservative Party over recent years?

Whatever it is, it'll go down, I'm sure.

 

[jon0844]

Then once that precedent is set, where does it stop? Smoking deaths are down, so next up will be the booze. Then any foods that are bad for us. Life will become very dull and colourless, with any 'sin' treats banned.

I think they're planning to ban fags because people are giving up smoking anyway. They won't go after vaping (although I do hope they'll at least try and ban disposable vapes) and won't go after booze. They get lots of money from lobbying groups that want vaping (much of them being the same tabacco companies), gambling, drinking, oil consumption etc. I think cigarettes are likely considered an acceptable loss to give the appearance of doing something.

And it's highly unlikely they'll do it anyway. It's another soundbite.

 

[nw1]

I do not like smoking or being around people smoking, and would welcome stricter rules on where people smoke in public, but effectively banning it outright really doesn't sit well with me. It's yet more government intervention into the choices people make.

Then once that precedent is set, where does it stop? Smoking deaths are down, so next up will be the booze. Then any foods that are bad for us. Life will become very dull and colourless, with any 'sin' treats banned.

And as you say, prohibition tends to have negative effects.

This is basically my view. I don't smoke and never have, even once - however smoking in private, without the risk of passive smoking, is really up to the individual and nothing whatsoever to do with the State.
It's essentially the same reason why I would probably support controlled legalisation of cannabis - and many Democrat-leaning states in the USA have done just that, so it's not such a crazy idea.

 

[brad465]

Anyone know how much tobacco companies have donated to the Conservative Party over recent years?

Don't know about the Tory party directly, but the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) "think tank", is suspected of receiving money from the tobacco industry, and they were arguably the strings pulling Liz Truss.

 

[Cdd89]

One problem with the policy that I haven’t seen discussed is the future impact on smokers wishing to move to the UK from abroad. Is our response that they have to either give up or not come?

 

[Typhoon]

I do not like smoking or being around people smoking, and would welcome stricter rules on where people smoke in public, but effectively banning it outright really doesn't sit well with me. It's yet more government intervention into the choices people make.

Then once that precedent is set, where does it stop? Smoking deaths are down, so next up will be the booze. Then any foods that are bad for us. Life will become very dull and colourless, with any 'sin' treats banned.

And as you say, prohibition tends to have negative effects.

I think this government knows it won't be about to implement some of these madder policies, but I do wonder why they bother saying these things as it makes them look like nutjobs.

Agree with much of the sentiment. I have never smoked (my father did, and I rebelled against most things he did) and won't have smoking in the house, I don't drink (medical reasons) but don't see why others can't - their choice. Whack up the duty on fags by inflation + - fine but banning it for certain sections is daft. I don't want to call 999 for a burglary in progress only to find they cannot attend as there is a raid on a property where there is a suspicion that someone is selling fags to 28 year olds. People should be allowed to make stupid decisions in life (betting on the lottery for a start). I thought the Conservatives were in favour of freedoms (within reason) - I thought that is what Thatcher stood for!

 

[JamesT]

This is basically my view. I don't smoke and never have, even once - however smoking in private, without the risk of passive smoking, is really up to the individual and nothing whatsoever to do with the State.
It's essentially the same reason why I would probably support controlled legalisation of cannabis - and many Democrat-leaning states in the USA have done just that, so it's not such a crazy idea.

If smoking is solely down to the individual, does that mean we can save the money the NHS would spend on treating related illnesses? It's up to the individual to pay privately for that?

 

[SteveM70]

One problem with the policy that I haven’t seen discussed is the future impact on smokers wishing to move to the UK from abroad. Is our response that they have to either give up or not come?

98% of people in small boats smoke *

All part of the campaign to control illegal immigration!








* maybe

 

[nw1]

that Conservative party is dead and gone.

It has been replaced by this clown show mixture of alt/crank right, Faragist, authoritarianism, Populist, GBbeebies inspired conspiracy theorist and sovereign individualist nonsense. That and lies. Lots of lies.

One thing that to me seems like a lie is the "meat tax" comment which has not come up on here yet:

Would Labour tax meat? And other Conservative claims checked

Checking Conservative conference claims on HS2, inflation, defence spending, fracking and more.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some nonentity and waste-of-space called Claire Coutinho, who I'd never even heard of until yesterday yet is apparently the energy secretary, said "It's no wonder Labour seems so relaxed about taxing meat".

Labour have not said they would do such a thing, indeed they have specifically said they would not do such a thing. On being quizzed later, she said it was "good to have a light moment in your speech".

Ha ha ha b****y ha. How can she get away with this? I do wonder whether there would be grounds for Labour to take her to court over what seems to me to be blatant lies. IANAL, but in my possibly naive opinion, it almost looks like it could be libel.

At the very least, she should be instantly sacked. The government should not be able to get away with spreading this kind of misinformation.

 

[DarloRich]

At the very least, she should be instantly sacked. The government should not be able to get away with spreading this kind of misinformation.

but that is nothing in relation to the NF inspired ranting of Braverman - her speech was full of dog whistle crank right words and phrases.

 

[nw1]

If smoking is solely down to the individual, does that mean we can save the money the NHS would spend on treating related illnesses? It's up to the individual to pay privately for that?

No, I don't buy that argument I'm afraid.

Where does it stop, after all? Should the individual have to pay privately for alcohol-related diseases? For diseases related to eating too much fatty foods or sugar? For cancer induced by sunburn? All these things were arguably "caused" by decisions made by the individual, but to me that seems a very brutal way of running things.

but that is nothing in relation to the NF inspired ranting of Braverman - her speech was full of dog whistle crank right words and phrases.

Indeed, but there's already been much (deserved, and some from myself) robust criticism of Braverman on here already.

One problem with the policy that I haven’t seen discussed is the future impact on smokers wishing to move to the UK from abroad. Is our response that they have to either give up or not come?

Don't come. That would be consistent with their general apparent attitude towards foreigners emigrating here, after all.

They're not going to win the next election, end of. I don't think they even want to win the next election.

They're far more likely to go full 1993 Canada than win.

Ah yes, that was the "two seats" one, wasn't it?

I think it is much too early to make even the broadest predictions about the outcome of the next election. So much has changed, is changing and will change: ‘a week is a long time in politics’ (most likely, but not definitely, said by Harold Wilson). Just about the only thing that is clear is that the next election is Labour’s to lose, but the party is good at that.

I do disagree here. I think the Tory party have moved so far to the right that they are just not going to appeal to the middle. And to win an election, you have to appeal to the middle.

A mixture of revolting hard-right nonsense from the likes of Braverman and amateurish poor delivery from Sunak is not a winning combination. Labour would have to absolutely catastrophically slip up to lead to an outcome with the Tories as the largest party, surely.

 

[najaB]

Some people will start smoking, less in protest and more because there's an inherent appeal to things which are forbidden

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that smoking be prohibited, just the retail sale. If you have them then you can smoke them.