Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[SteveM70]

For a long time I thought that Boris was the worst-suited person to hold the office of PM. Then along came Liz. And I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Then Rishi entered stage left and said "Hold my beer":

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68209330

And now people have remembered Sunak’s appearance on A View From The Boundary on Test Match Special, where he talked animatedly about his love of spread betting, which seems a bit at odds (ho ho) with someone who says he doesn’t gamble

His relationship with the truth is almost as tenuous as Johnson’s

 

[Howardh]

And now people have remembered Sunak’s appearance on A View From The Boundary on Test Match Special, where he talked animatedly about his love of spread betting, which seems a bit at odds (ho ho) with someone who says he doesn’t gamble

His relationship with the truth is almost as tenuous as Johnson’s

His relationship with his memory.....

 

[aavm]

For a long time I thought that Boris was the worst-suited person to hold the office of PM. Then along came Liz. And I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Then Rishi entered stage left and said "Hold my beer":

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68209330

You must be a youngster. I raise you Tony Blair.

 

[najaB]

You must be a youngster. I raise you Tony Blair.

He was pretty bad, but I'd rate him above Johnson.

 

[Typhoon]

He was pretty bad, but I'd rate him above Johnson.

Yes, whatever can be said about the man himself, his first ministry got a lot of stuff done. Minimum wage, civil partnerships, big cut in child poverty rates, maternity and paternity rights, statutory paid holidays, Good Friday agreement, (possibly controversial) devolution. I might add the Human Rights Act, if only because it annoys those on the far right. I can think of at least three PMs I would put below him - Johnson, Truss and Home, The latter completely ineffective! Probably Callaghan as well. Johnson just didn't do much (except get photographed), why Conservatives want him back, I don't know. He has been found out.

 

[Busaholic]

Bedfordshire PCC, for +15.8% in 2015/16, held 7/5/15, 30.5% in favour but 69.5% against, estimated cost £600,000, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05682/SN05682.pdf

I can't see people voting for greater tax increases unless they think they will personally suffer without them, and for many people their council manages not to repair potholes in the road, cut back on bin collections, and provide services to other people. The principle of paying for local services is probably accepted, even for people who hardly benefit from them, but paying more for them than they already do isn't going to get a lot of approval. And most of the money goes into care for old people, which most people don't want to think about until it's too late.

OK, that had passed me by, but note the huge increase asked for when inflation was much lower!

Surprised in some ways about Kwarteng because he's MP for the sort of seat that would never vote anything other than Conservative.

In 1997, with same boundaries as now, the Conservative gained less than 45% of the vote and had a majority of 3k or so over Labour, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. The LibDems have provided the main opposition in recent years, so some tactical voting might be needed to unseat the Tory. Reform might do quite well here, though, and Ulez will be a factor too, as in meighbouring Uxbridge.

 

[nw1]

In 1997, with same boundaries as now, the Conservative gained less than 45% of the vote and had a majority of 3k or so over Labour, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. The LibDems have provided the main opposition in recent years, so some tactical voting might be needed to unseat the Tory. Reform might do quite well here, though, and Ulez will be a factor too, as in meighbouring Uxbridge.

I guess having some unknown instead of Kwarteng could be either good or bad for the Tories. On the one hand the person will not have a "reputation", on the other hand they won't have the incumbent advantage.

He was pretty bad, but I'd rate him above Johnson.

Blair is undoubtedly the second-least-bad PM of my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards).

Least-bad is his successor.

She is launching a new movement called Popular Conservatives. Insert joke here.

Who seem to not only be right-wing economically, but full on anti-woke populist too. From the Guardian live news feed (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-morgan-bet-conservatives-labour-uk-politics):

“I’m afraid we have not taken on the left enough” she said.

She claimed the ideology of leftists disguising themselves as environmentalists is about “taking power away from families and giving it to the state and unelected bodies” and is drowning out the need for cheaper energy, and hit out at the government for “pandering to the anti-capitalists”, while ordinary people believe “the wokery that is going on is nonsense”. She said “wokeism seems to be on the curriculum” in schools.

You wouldn't believe she was Lib Dem in 1994, would you? Mind you, in veering strongly rightwards in later life, she has quite a lot in common with that other former anti-monarchist, John Lydon.

 

[Acfb]

OK, that had passed me by, but note the huge increase asked for when inflation was much lower!

In 1997, with same boundaries as now, the Conservative gained less than 45% of the vote and had a majority of 3k or so over Labour, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. The LibDems have provided the main opposition in recent years, so some tactical voting might be needed to unseat the Tory. Reform might do quite well here, though, and Ulez will be a factor too, as in meighbouring Uxbridge.

I'd be quite surprised. That would need a 200+ seat majority for Labour. I think it's more surprising that Jeremy Hunt has not announced he's standing down yet but perhaps he's just trying to keep the show on the road.

I guess having some unknown instead of Kwarteng could be either good or bad for the Tories. On the one hand the person will not have a "reputation", on the other hand they won't have the incumbent advantage.



Blair is undoubtedly the second-least-bad PM of my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards).

Least-bad is his successor.



Who seem to not only be right-wing economically, but full on anti-woke populist too. From the Guardian live news feed (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-morgan-bet-conservatives-labour-uk-politics):



You wouldn't believe she was Lib Dem in 1994, would you? Mind you, in veering strongly rightwards in later life, she has quite a lot in common with that other former anti-monarchist, John Lydon.

She moved pretty quickly to the Tories, joining them in 1996 before standing for the Tories in Hemsworth in 2001 and then almost winning Calder Valley in 2005. The Lib Dem membership didn't last long.

 

[Typhoon]

I don't suppose the average man (or woman) in the street is concerned about 'wokery' and what affect it is having (even if they knew what it was).What they will know is that the mortgage rate changed during Truss' time in office:
June '22 - average two-year-fixed mortgage : 2.87%
December '22 - average two-year-fixed mortgage : 5.43%,

(Stats from https://www.statista.com/statistics...ixed rate interest rate stood at 5.11 percent.)

Not all down to Truss but her economic measures undoubtedly contributed, and I don't remember George Osbourne excusing Labour for the the financial crisis of 2008,

 

[jon0844]

She is launching a new movement called Popular Conservatives. Insert joke here.

She's copying Republican talking points and language, and claiming a following that she doesn't need to prove exist as they're 'secret Conservatives'.

Like the 'silent majority', which they can make seem popular through bots and paid for accounts, but never seem able to vote.

People supposedly unable to tell anyone at their work or school (which to me sounds like their views are extremely toxic!)

She's a grifter just like Russell Brand - having lurched to the right because there's a s**t ton of money to be made from donations or after dinner speeches and rallies.

 

[brad465]

She is launching a new movement called Popular Conservatives. Insert joke here.

PopCon, helping her opponents devour popcorn.

She's a grifter just like Russell Brand - having lurched to the right because there's a s**t ton of money to be made from donations or after dinner speeches and rallies.

And if there are any criminal allegations waiting to come out, you've got a mob of supporters to cry "Witch hunt! Conspiracy theory!"

 

[gg1]

She's copying Republican talking points and language, and claiming a following that she doesn't need to prove exist as they're 'secret Conservatives'.

Like the 'silent majority', which they can make seem popular through bots and paid for accounts, but never seem able to vote.

People supposedly unable to tell anyone at their work or school (which to me sounds like their views are extremely toxic!)

She's a grifter just like Russell Brand - having lurched to the right because there's a s**t ton of money to be made from donations or after dinner speeches and rallies.

The major difference between the two is I'm sure Truss genuinely believes the nonsense she spouts.

 

[edwin_m]

PopCon, helping her opponents devour popcorn.

Something that puffs up with hot air and makes a lot of noise.

 

[Gloster]

Something that puffs up with hot air and makes a lot of noise.

…and makes you feel sick.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The major difference between the two is I'm sure Truss genuinely believes the nonsense she spouts.

Thats bad enough in itself but its all the others that actually believe there is something in her nonsense. Lets hope this is an aberration of the times otherwise we are descending into the farce that is US politics now

 

[jon0844]

The major difference between the two is I'm sure Truss genuinely believes the nonsense she spouts.

I'm not sure. Look at the texts that were revealed during the Fox court case, showing Tucker Carlson (and others at the network) hated Trump - but never let on to the audience.

Plenty of other off camera or hot mic moments, or leaks, have caught grifters out over the years.

If Alex Jones was at one point making $800k per DAY then it's hardly surprising that a lurch to the right and going down the conspiracy theory rabbit holes is worthwhile. Hence the left here are slowly being associated with the 'Deep State' Democrats in the USA. They seem to think it will work here.

Liz isn't making that but has likely worked out, like Russell did, that you do well if you sell your soul. Doesn't mean you ever believe the nonsense.

Rishi I suspect is quite sane and isn't into that, but is simply completely and utterly out of touch with the real world. He isn't evil, but rather ignorant. Not that it makes any difference to how people are impacted.

 

[nw1]

Rishi I suspect is quite sane and isn't into that, but is simply completely and utterly out of touch with the real world. He isn't evil, but rather ignorant. Not that it makes any difference to how people are impacted.

Not a strong leader, either. He seems completely and utterly unable to stand up to the hard-right. He's adopting hard-right policies on immigration and "anti-wokery" and hiring right-wingers like Anderson, Braverman and Cleverly presumably because he's frightened of the party's right.

To be honest I think Sunak, like Johnson, probably doesn't really believe in anything other than wealth and power. Like Johnson he blows with the wind but isn't quite into fabrication of the truth in the same way as Johnson.

 

[Howardh]

He's put his foot in it today a little bit, hasn't he?

 

[najaB]

He's put his foot in it today a little bit, hasn't he?

Rather a bad case of podostomiasis.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He's put his foot in it today a little bit, hasn't he?

He has? What's he done?

 

[Busaholic]

He has? What's he done?

Shall we say he's done a Gordon Brown?! If he doesn't eat humble pie pretty quickly with a direct apology to the right person he's more stupid than I thought.

 

[brad465]

He has? What's he done?

He "answered" one of Starmer's questions in PMQs by joking about Starmer's past trans statements, while the mum of the murdered trans girl Brianna Ghey was visiting Parliament. At best, it was a case of "the wrong place at the wrong time", but in reality much worse:

Rishi Sunak faces calls to apologise over trans jibe to Starmer at PMQs

The dad of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey - who was transgender - says he was "shocked" by the comment.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rishi Sunak is facing calls to apologise after joking about Labour's position on trans people when the mum of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey - who was transgender - was in Parliament.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Sunak ridiculed Sir Keir Starmer for U-turning on "defining a woman".
No 10 said it was "legitimate" to question the Labour leader's position.
But Brianna's father, who is among those calling for an apology, said the PM's comment was "degrading".

Her father, Peter Spooner, told Sky News: "As the prime minister for our country to come out with degrading comments like he did, regardless of them being in relation to discussions in Parliament, they are absolutely dehumanising.
"Identities of people should not be used in that manner, and I personally feel shocked by his comments and feel he should apologise for his remarks."
Brianna's family are being invited to a meeting about online safety with the prime minister and Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan, the BBC has been told.
At PMQs, Mr Sunak listed what he described as a number of Labour U-turns, accusing Sir Keir of changing his position on "defining a woman".
"Although in fairness, that was only 99% of a U-turn," he added.
Sir Keir hit back, saying: "Of all the weeks to say that, when Brianna's mother is in this chamber. Shame.
"Parading as a man of integrity when he's got absolutely no responsibility."
Brianna's mother Esther was not in the public gallery for the exchange but entered shortly afterwards.
Later, Mr Sunak ignored a call from Labour MP Liz Twist to "apologise to Brianna Ghey's mother".

I do think Theresa May's disastrous time on the campaign trail will be forgiven when Sunak has to do the same this year, this is one of several incidents/gaffes he's made that have highlighted him as someone very politically inept, and he's already had to hide away from several previous by-election campaigns.

 

[najaB]

At best, it was a case of "the wrong place at the wrong time", but in reality much worse

Definitely worse, given that being trans was one of the things that lead to her murder.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He "answered" one of Starmer's questions in PMQs by joking about Starmer's past trans statements, while the mum of the murdered trans girl Brianna Ghey was visiting Parliament. At best, it was a case of "the wrong place at the wrong time", but in reality much worse:

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism. Brianna Ghey's murder was of course utterly awful, but Sunak's remarks were focused on Starmer's record and quite clearly had nothing to do with her murder - other apparently than in the eyes of some people who like to manufacture outrage at the slightest opportunity [1]. If anything, I'd say the people who should apologise are those on the Labour benches who have just tried to turn that appalling murder into a political football.

[1] And yes, I do realise that people on the Tory side have also manufactured outrage on other occasions.

 

[SteveM70]

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism. Brianna Ghey's murder was of course utterly awful, but Sunak's remarks were focused on Starmer's record and quite clearly had nothing to do with her murder - other apparently than in the eyes of some people who like to manufacture outrage at the slightest opportunity [1]. If anything, I'd say the people who should apologise are those on the Labour benches who have just tried to turn that appalling murder into a political football.

[1] And yes, I do realise that people on the Tory side have also manufactured outrage on other occasions.

Surely one of the skills the best politicians enjoy is knowing what to say and when, and part of that skill is to think “how might my opponents make what I say look bad”. If Sunak had that ability he wouldn’t have gone near the trans issue when attacking what he sees as Starmer’s changes in beliefs - there are plenty of other things he’s mentioned in this context in the past. But Sunak has no political skills at all, he’s just parroting the lines he’s been given and seems incapable of thinking on his feet. It’s similar to his reaction to Piers Morgan’s offer of a bet on Rwanda - he accepted it because he panicked

 

[edwin_m]

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism. Brianna Ghey's murder was of course utterly awful, but Sunak's remarks were focused on Starmer's record and quite clearly had nothing to do with her murder - other apparently than in the eyes of some people who like to manufacture outrage at the slightest opportunity [1]. If anything, I'd say the people who should apologise are those on the Labour benches who have just tried to turn that appalling murder into a political football.

[1] And yes, I do realise that people on the Tory side have also manufactured outrage on other occasions.

He's expressing the sort of sentiments that would encourage certain individuals to consider trans people sub-human. In front of the mother of someone who was murdered by just such an individual.

Can't sink much lower than that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He's expressing the sort of sentiments that would encourage certain individuals to consider trans people sub-human.

That's a huge and illogical leap. There is a massive, massive, difference between (a) believing that Starmer was wrong in his apparent inability to say/flip-flopping on whether a biological woman is a woman (a quite legitimate viewpoint), and (b) considering trans people to be sub-human (a viewpoint that is obviously unacceptable and awful). If we are claiming that you can't comment on (a) because someone might deduce (b) then you're basically destroying free speech on an issue that is very important for women's rights.

 

[The Ham]

That's a huge and illogical leap. There is a massive, massive, difference between (a) believing that Starmer was wrong in his apparent inability to say/flip-flopping on whether a biological woman is a woman (a quite legitimate viewpoint), and (b) considering trans people to be sub-human (a viewpoint that is obviously unacceptable and awful). If we are claiming that you can't comment on (a) because someone might deduce (b) then you're basically destroying free speech on an issue that is very important for women's rights.

Whilst what you've said is true, it's also true that by saying something like this there's a risk that it empowers those who are opposed to those who are Trans in that they see such comments as supporting their view (even if that's not what is intended). Especially if the clip is shared out of context - which is very easy to do.

However, probably more important in the above is that he hasn't said anything further, so not even a non apology, to be clear that being anti Trans is bad - which further runs the risk of empowering those opposed to it.

 

[brad465]

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism. Brianna Ghey's murder was of course utterly awful, but Sunak's remarks were focused on Starmer's record and quite clearly had nothing to do with her murder - other apparently than in the eyes of some people who like to manufacture outrage at the slightest opportunity [1]. If anything, I'd say the people who should apologise are those on the Labour benches who have just tried to turn that appalling murder into a political football.

[1] And yes, I do realise that people on the Tory side have also manufactured outrage on other occasions.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

 

[DC1989]

Sunak has absolutely terrible political acumen