Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[75A]

I'm on holiday so have missed the finer details of transgate, it all looks a bit shocking and I feel he's personally having a go at me. He should look at himself and think "I'm not cut out for this, California's nice at this time of year, I'm off".

Anyhow, one friend of mine wrote that all those right wing enough to vote for him will anyway, which looks around the 20-25% judging by the polls, all he's doing is disenfranchising everyone else, bit by bit.

I thnk your friend has got it spot on.

 

[jon0844]

The silent majority / secret Conservatives don't exist. These won't win them the election, and the further right they go the less ordinary voters (the ones they need) they'll get.

The people who voted to get Brexit done and give Boris the huge majority aren't making the same mistake again. They voted for one reason, and I doubt they're going to vote purely on the boats when they can't get NHS treatment, pay their rent/mortgage, afford food or to fill their car (actually now it's more likely insurance killing people) etc.

Almost every moderate Conservative knows they're gone and will need to regroup and they absolutely must eliminate the lunatic headbangers and start again.

I switched from voting Tory to Lib Dems in 2015 and now I'll vote strategically to get the Tories out, which in my case is Labour (and probably for most). I don't need to second guess my decision as this party has done untold damage, and not just with Brexit. Now they're just stripping everything they can because they also know they're gone - and that's what annoys me most, as they seem set to wait until the last possible moment for an election.

Not because they expect a massive turnaround that will win votes back, but because they can milk the nation dry and leave the next Government with a massive uphill battle to try and fix things. And if they can't do it in five years, the Tories will try and win power back by demonstrating how bad Labour has managed things.

I don't normally like parties that blame their predecessors for many years, but NOBODY can quickly fix things given where we are.

 

[edwin_m]

That's fine and a perfectly acceptable response.

The counter argument of course would be that were they not here the rates would not have been depressed.

Although ultimately of course someone will always take a role and people will always find an excuse for not taking one.

Part of the answer to that should have been the minimum wage, to level the playing field and prevent immigrants asking for a low wage which was still quite high in relation to their native country. Incidentally also making it harder for bad employers paying peanuts and reducing the need for the state to subsidise them in benefits and credits. It was probably too low when set by Blair, and by the time Osborne increased it, it was too late.

If immigrants from accession countries had been kept out for a few years as the UK was entitled to do but didn't, then wouldn't the same discontent have been seen, just a few years later? It might then have been a more recent memory at the time of the Brexit referendum.

 

[SteveM70]

However, instead of shutting up and hoping the furore will die away, the Conservatives seem to be stoking the fires and keeping things going by their ‘Sunak didn’t say anything wrong and it is all Starmer’s fault’ line. As Badenoch seems to one of the cheerleaders for this, one wonders it is a ploy to undermine Sunak while appearing to support him. The longer it remains in the news agenda, despite the papers concentrating on the Royals, the worse will be people’s opinion of Sunak

Apologising is woke, innit, and the Tories don’t do woke

(Although I suspect that those around Sunak see apologising as akin to a u-turn, so they won’t allow him to do it as it would be seen as a free hit for Starmer)

 

[Howardh]

Apologising is woke, innit, and the Tories don’t do woke

(Although I suspect that those around Sunak see apologising as akin to a u-turn, so they won’t allow him to do it as it would be seen as a free hit for Starmer)

HS2 and Trusses budget are bigger u-turs than the Monaco Grand Prix.

 

[jon0844]

Did anyone read the story in one of the London papers (one of the online papers, probably a Reach run site - I can't remember) suggesting the extension of contactless is being funded by the savings made by cutting back HS2?

It seems the Government has managed to convince a lot of people that there was a big pot of cash for HS2 and now it's being redistributed (mainly to the south), despite it being a kick in the teeth for the north. Obviously the Tories couldn't care less about the north as they already know from their own research that it's a lost cause now. People will go back to Labour.

 

[Typhoon]

Memory fails me, didn't the House stand to applaud someone in the gallery ma while ago? Can anyone confirm that?

Do you mean:

The House of Commons put on a united front this afternoon with a rare standing ovation for the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK.

MPs broke parliamentary convention to stand up and applaud Vadim Prtstaiko, who was watching Prime Minister’s Questions in the gallery.

Clapping in the Commons is against the code of conduct, but indicative of the strength of feeling across the House, the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, made a rare exception.

Sir Lindsay said: “We generally do not tolerate applause in the chamber, but on this occasion the House quit

This might be considered slightly different in that Hoyle was obviously 'in on it' and it was 'a united front'. BUT it did set a precedent.
https://www.politics.co.uk/news/202...parliament-puts-on-united-front-over-ukraine/

 

[Ediswan]

Now it seems the real issue is how we found out about who was in the public gallery, as HoC rules say they can't make reference to visitors.

That rule has been changed.
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/rules-of-behaviour.pdf (dated 2021)

References to the Gallery
29. It is no longer considered out of order to make any
reference to visitors in the Public Gallery, but any
such reference should be brief and relevant to the
debate, and must not be phrased in a way that
might intimidate or seek to influence debate.

 

[jon0844]

What a surprise. Maybe the people trying to deflect should check their facts!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I know you like to play devil's advocate and defend the Tories, but I think it's probably wise to sit this one out. Rishi or his advisors should have realised he needs to apologise, but it seems he doubled down instead.

What makes you think I'm playing devils advocate? I'm not trying to do that, I'm simply writing what I feel. Sunak didn't say anything at all either about about or particularly connected to Brianna Ghey in the exchange we're discussing. It was Labour who brought up her murder in this context and turned it into a political football, not Sunak. And I feel pretty disgusted at how Labour has behaved over this.

Presumably Brianna's father should also apologise for turning it into a political football as he has also said that Sunak should apologise?

Her father is not a politician, he's a grieving father looking for answers, and unlike the Labour MPs involved, I therefore very much doubt he was motivated by any desire to score political points. But I think he is mistaken in this particular matter and has possibly read stuff into Sunak's words that are simply not there. Sunak has nothing to apologize to him for in this regard (although you could argue that it might be polite and politically expedient for Sunak to do so anyway, even though to my mind, morally there's no reason why he should).

 

[najaB]

But I think he is mistaken in this particular matter and has possibly read stuff into Sunak's words that are simply not there.

It's not a case of reading anything into his words. He attempted to score a political point using the issue of recognition of transexual rights in front of the father of a trans woman who was killed in part because she was trans.

Regardless of ones views on LGBTQ rights, that's just bad form and he should apologise. To take it away from this specific issue, it would be like having the parent of someone who died in an arson attack in attendance and refering to your opponent as a "firestarter".

 

[davews]

It all looks arranged......

Sunak said, in his list of u-turns, 'defining a woman – although in fairness that was only 99% of a U-turn'. I am puzzled what the fuss is about, the statement is fact, is it the 99% quip afterwards that has stirred up all the fuss? So Starmer deliberately arranged the mother to be in the gallery and had already decided to announce the fact knowing that Sunak would somehow respond in a pretty discrete way.

 

[Gloster]

It all looks arranged......

Sunak said, in his list of u-turns, 'defining a woman – although in fairness that was only 99% of a U-turn'. I am puzzled what the fuss is about, the statement is fact, is it the 99% quip afterwards that has stirred up all the fuss? So Starmer deliberately arranged the mother to be in the gallery and had already decided to announce the fact knowing that Sunak would somehow respond in a pretty discrete way.

I told you that it was all Starmer’s fault.

 

[kristiang85]

It all looks arranged......

Sunak said, in his list of u-turns, 'defining a woman – although in fairness that was only 99% of a U-turn'. I am puzzled what the fuss is about, the statement is fact, is it the 99% quip afterwards that has stirred up all the fuss? So Starmer deliberately arranged the mother to be in the gallery and had already decided to announce the fact knowing that Sunak would somehow respond in a pretty discrete way.

I must admit, I saw all the fuss and thought he must have said something pretty heinous. When I saw what was actually said, I just thought "is that it?".

Saying that, it's not been a good week for Sunak. Hopefully he calls a May election and puts everyone, though mainly himself, out of their misery (although Labour are just going to be the same with different faces).

 

[Howardh]

Do you mean:

This might be considered slightly different in that Hoyle was obviously 'in on it' and it was 'a united front'. BUT it did set a precedent.
https://www.politics.co.uk/news/202...parliament-puts-on-united-front-over-ukraine/

Yes thanks, so recent but feels like a long time ago!

 

[najaB]

I must admit, I saw all the fuss and thought he must have said something pretty heinous. When I saw what was actually said, I just thought "is that it?".

As has been noted above, it was a political jibe which was fairly weak in any case (accusing someone of changing position on a complex issue with no single right answer), but was in poor taste given who was in the room.

Simply saying afterwards "I stand by my comments about the Leader of the Opposition U-turning, but I appreciate that I may have caused offense to the family of Ms Ghey who I didn't appreciate were in the room, and I apologise for any hurt they may have felt." and the whole thing is the non-issue that it really is.

It's only by refusing to even acknowledge that it might have caused offense that they're keeping it in the news. And it doesn't help that the Tory party has been engaging in culture wars over the last few years, and are generally seen as being less friendly to, if not actively hostile towards, people who are LGBTQ.

 

[VT118]

Simply saying afterwards "I stand by my comments about the Leader of the Opposition U-turning, but I appreciate that I may have caused offense to the family of Ms Ghey who I didn't appreciate were in the room, and I apologise for any hurt they may have felt." and the whole thing is the non-issue that it really is.

You need to look into why he didn't choose this "simple" option

 

[Gloster]

Having just had a look at the uncorrected version of Hansard (and presuming I have got the whole bit), the only mention of trans people before Sunak’s comment was when Starmer mentioned that the victim’s mother was in the gallery. He used a brief but, in my opinion, neutral phrasing and then went to an unrelated question about the NHS. There were no further references to the matter or related ones until Sunak made his comment. In the light of reading that the comment seems, to me, even more crass and cloth-eared than I had previously thought.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's only by refusing to even acknowledge that it might have caused offense that they're keeping it in the news.

But they're not keeping it in the news - at least not to a significant extent. On the BBC news, it's now relegated to a couple of entries buried in the politics section. And a quick check of today's papers (link) shows the only paper still running it on the front page is - ironically - The Express, which appears to support Sunak's line.

And it doesn't help that the Tory party has been engaging in culture wars over the last few years,

All the parties have been engaging equally in culture wars. It's not only one side doing it.

and are generally seen as being less friendly to, if not actively hostile towards, people who are LGBTQ.

Whaaat? Do you seriously believe that? Was it a Labour-lead Government that introduced gay marriage then in the teeth of united Tory opposition?

 

[Typhoon]

Whaaat? Do you seriously believe that? Was it a Labour-lead Government that introduced gay marriage then in the teeth of united Tory opposition?

To give him credit, it was the coalition. led by David Cameron, a long term advocate of such legislation. He had supported Labour's Civil Partnership Act in 2004; however the Conservatives were split on that, having been given an unwhipped vote (credit here to Michael Howard, who took a different line to his predecessor, Duncan Smith).

With the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act of 2013, more Conservatives voted against than for on both the second and third readings. It got through the Commons due to heavy LibDem and Labour support.

 

[nw1]

Whaaat? Do you seriously believe that? Was it a Labour-lead Government that introduced gay marriage then in the teeth of united Tory opposition?

I do, I'm afraid. Remember Section 28, for starters; I realise it was some time ago but still 20 years after homosexuality was legalised and recent enough for many of the Tories of that time to still be with us - in the party if not in Parliament. I suspect there is still an undercurrent of homophobia in some factions of the Tory party to a far greater extent than the Labour party (or the Lib Dems, Greens or SNP, for that matter).

And you say "united Tory opposition", which kind of proves @najaB's point. Cameron may have liberal views on this matter, but it doesn't mean that all Tories do. And of course the Cameron government, for all its faults, was arguably considerably more socially liberal than the post-2019 governments. @najaB was probably referring to the last few years in particular, not the Cameron era.

 

[birchesgreen]

I told you that it was all Starmer’s fault.

Some of these folks could come home to find Sunak standing over the slain body of a loved one holding a bleeding knife and still blame Starmer.

 

[brad465]

Some of these folks could come home to find Sunak standing over the slain body of a loved one holding a bleeding knife and still blame Starmer.

Or catch him in bed with their partner and still blame Starmer.

 

[nw1]

Or catch him in bed with their partner and still blame Starmer.

Well, Gordon Brown was, in the eyes of some right-wingers, apparently entirely responsible for the global credit crunch so why not?

 

[najaB]

Whaaat? Do you seriously believe that? Was it a Labour-lead Government that introduced gay marriage then in the teeth of united Tory opposition?

I didn't say anything about the government.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I do, I'm afraid. Remember Section 28, for starters; I realise it was some time ago

Well, yes, some time ago is the key point. Nearly 40 years ago in fact! That was a time when society was very different, and there was a widespread belief across the UK (not just in the Tory party) that gay sex was morally wrong. A belief that, thankfully, most people in the UK no longer hold. Section 28 was awful but is a reflection of how the Tories (and wider society) were back in those days: It's not a reflection of how people are today.

but still 20 years after homosexuality was legalised and recent enough for many of the Tories of that time to still be with us - in the party if not in Parliament. I suspect there is still an undercurrent of homophobia in some factions of the Tory party to a far greater extent than the Labour party (or the Lib Dems, Greens or SNP, for that matter).

And you say "united Tory opposition", which kind of proves @najaB's point.

Maybe you missed the irony in my words. The point was that it was a Tory-lead Government (with the LibDems as the junior partners) that introduced gay marriage (To be fair, with the LibDems being most enthusiastic). I think it would be fair to say that, when it came to accepting gay relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships, the Tories were quite a few years behind Labour and the LibDems. But it did happen eventually, and today it really is absurd - I would say, probably to the point of qualifying as an outright lie - to claim that the Tory party as a whole is hostile to LGB people. (I realize there's more controversy over the 'T' bit in 'LGBTQ').

 

[Acfb]

The Tories gained Crewe Central ward last night from Labour on Cheshire East Council (maybe something to do with the council's financial situation?). That said, they also lost East Hunsbury ward on West Northamptonshire council to the Lib Dems.

 

[Bayum]

What makes you think I'm playing devils advocate? I'm not trying to do that, I'm simply writing what I feel. Sunak didn't say anything at all either about about or particularly connected to Brianna Ghey in the exchange we're discussing. It was Labour who brought up her murder in this context and turned it into a political football, not Sunak. And I feel pretty disgusted at how Labour has behaved over this.



Her father is not a politician, he's a grieving father looking for answers, and unlike the Labour MPs involved, I therefore very much doubt he was motivated by any desire to score political points. But I think he is mistaken in this particular matter and has possibly read stuff into Sunak's words that are simply not there. Sunak has nothing to apologize to him for in this regard (although you could argue that it might be polite and politically expedient for Sunak to do so anyway, even though to my mind, morally there's no reason why he should).

But it was Rishi who purposely selected the quote Labour used in a discussion around trans rights, and the Tories bet on this being a sound bite to appeal to the right.

 

[birchesgreen]

But it was Rishi who purposely selected the quote Labour used in a discussion around trans rights, and the Tories bet on this being a sound bite to appeal to the right.

And just after he had already acknowledged Ghey's mother was there so he can't use the excuse he didn't know. The person who first messed up was his script writer and Sunak doesn't have the ability to think on his feet.

 

[nw1]

The Tories gained Crewe Central ward last night from Labour on Cheshire East Council (maybe something to do with the council's financial situation?). That said, they also lost East Hunsbury ward on West Northamptonshire council to the Lib Dems.

Might it be fair to say that the upcoming council elections will be predominantly "anti-incumbent, with something of an anti-Tory bias" as a result?

Presumably lots of NOC councils after May is quite a likely outcome in that case.