Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[birchesgreen]

Christ, this Hester stuff is horrendous, it seems every day a new low.

 

[nlogax]

Christ, this Hester stuff is horrendous, it seems every day a new low.

Although so many of us are internally yelling 'make it stop' unfortunately there's plenty of time for more Conservative fringe lunatic barrel-scraping. Snowflake's chance in hell we're getting an election before October.

 

[birchesgreen]

Its a pity mental gymnastics isn't an Olympic sport, we could send a team of cabinet ministers and win some golds there.

 

[nw1]

Although so many of us are internally yelling 'make it stop' unfortunately there's plenty of time for more Conservative fringe lunatic barrel-scraping. Snowflake's chance in hell we're getting an election before October.

Not so sure, if there are any more defections to Reform I suspect there will be immense pressure to have one sooner. I can see a vote of no confidence in Sunak perhaps winning, thanks to an unlikely coalition of the opposition and the Tory right.

The one thing it does show is that Sunak appears to be every bit as arrogant as Boris. All around the house is crumbling, yet his apparent power lust is so strong that he will not do the decent thing and recognise his time is up.

Talking of Boris, apparently he's being drafted in, in an attempt to shore up the Red Wall. Whether that'll work or not is open to debate, as I'm not sure that Boris is that popular now.

 

[RT4038]

Hard to respond to this without knowing what particular expert advice you're referring to, but I'm going to guess the issue is that the experts you're referring to would be economists and they were (doubtless, correctly) advising what to do to maximise GDP growth - which would basically be, as you say, stay as close to the EU as you possibly can: As far as possible, do Brexit in name only. The problem being that while that advice may well be economically correct, it wasn't consistent with the referendum result - so it basically came down to a choice between following the experts and respecting democracy. If my guesses are correct, that makes it a rare case where following expert advice was not the correct thing to do.

I think whether it was 'respecting democracy' is controversial and has already debated in this forum considerably. It is certainly open to question. Whatever the interpretation one wants to put on the referendum result, Brexiteers saw a window of opportunity to push their agenda and get their prize. And they did. Without a huge amount of opposition it may be said, including getting a large majority at a General Election on which it was, I thought, pretty obvious which route was being taken.

With respect that does not make sense. Why is "doing Brexit in name only" not consistent with the referendum?

Given that Leave only got marginally more votes (13 Leave for every 12 Remain), a Brexit in name only would be very consistent indeed with the referendum. More consistent than any other outcome, in fact.

I do not think that was an outcome on the agenda of the Brexiteers, however much you may wish it had been so. The strings, the strings...

The Brexit referendum has very little to do with democracy. I come from a country where referendums are deeply rooted in democracy. Such an indifferently framed question is no basis for a democratic vote, as the outcome and therefore expectations were completely open. As a result, not even those in favour can agree on a solution. There is therefore no majority in favour of this kind of Brexit, but rather numerous minorities without a unified goal.

Such a referendum would inevitably lead to a second vote in our country, where a final agreement would be debated.

Maybe, but your country would have had a lot of referenda about the various changes to the European project as they unfolded too. Which the UK didn't, and maybe would have been in a different place had it been so?

Prediction - we are all still going to be arguing about this in 50 years time...... (those still alive of course!). It is done , and not going to be rolled back that easily, so let's look forward now?

 

[brad465]

Christ, this Hester stuff is horrendous, it seems every day a new low.

As if that wasn't enough, Mel Stride tried to defend him by saying the remarks "were not race based", despite the fact it was one of the most obvious examples of a race based comment I've ever seen:

Minister defends donor over Diane Abbott remarks

Frank Hester allegedly said Diane Abbott made him "want to hate all black women".

www.bbc.co.uk

A senior minister has said a top Tory donor's alleged comments about Diane Abbott "were clearly inappropriate" but people should "move on".
Mel Stride said Frank Hester's alleged comments the MP made him "want to hate all black women" were not "race-based".
Mr Hester has apologised for making "rude" comments about Ms Abbott but his remarks "had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin".
Sir Keir Starmer said: "I don't buy that" and they should be called out.

The Guardian reports Mr Hester, who gave the Conservatives £10m last year, made remarks about Ms Abbott while criticising a female executive at another organisation during a meeting at his company's headquarters in 2019.
The newspaper reported that he went on to say: "It's like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV, and you're just like I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she's there, and I don't hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot.
"[The executive] and Diane Abbott need to be shot."
At the time, Ms Abbott - who is currently suspended as a Labour MP - was shadow home secretary under former leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The BBC has not heard a recording, or been able to independently verify the alleged remarks.
Mr Hester's spokesperson said that his statement is not a confirmation of the alleged quotes in The Guardian.

 

[nlogax]

Not so sure, if there are any more defections to Reform I suspect there will be immense pressure to have one sooner. I can see a vote of no confidence in Sunak perhaps winning, thanks to an unlikely coalition of the opposition and the Tory right.

With current historic low polling for his party I am certain Sunak will cling on as long as possible without wanting to subject everyone to the dark and dingy faff of an early new year election. It gives the Conservatives a tiny bit of breathing room to recover and - at least my guess - he wants to hit the two year mark and put some mental 'distance' between his tenure and his predecessor's 1050-something hours in charge. All part of firming up his post-political techbro career.

 

[birchesgreen]

Former Tory party treasurer Lord Marland assures us about Hester "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas - he does a lot of a business in Jamacia, he does business in Malaysia, in Bangladesh - so he’s not a racist."

So thats ok then, anyone who does business abroad can't be racist.

 

[Gloster]

Former Tory party treasurer Lord Marland assures us about Hester "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas - he does a lot of a business in Jamacia, he does business in Malaysia, in Bangladesh - so he’s not a racist."

Even by the current standards of the Conservatives, that is astonishingly cloth-eared. What next:’ He’s not a racist as he likes curry.’

 

[RT4038]

Even by the current standards of the Conservatives, that is astonishingly cloth-eared. What next:’ He’s not a racist as he likes curry.’

And by extension, if you don't like curry, you probably are?

 

[SteveM70]

Former Tory party treasurer Lord Marland assures us about Hester "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas - he does a lot of a business in Jamacia, he does business in Malaysia, in Bangladesh - so he’s not a racist."

So thats ok then, anyone who does business abroad can't be racist.

Best tell the people of Bristol to put Edward Colston's statue back up

 

[jfollows]

Scott Benton’s recall petition opens today (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68535526) and runs until 5pm on 22 April. So 2 May will be too soon to hold a by-election, if that’s what his constituents decide.

 

[D6130]

Scott Benton’s recall petition opens today (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68535526) and runs until 5pm on 22 April. So 2 May will be too soon to hold a by-election, if that’s what his constituents decide.

Splendid news! Another of Calderdale Council's less savoury cast-offs hopefully about to get his comeuppence!

 

[SteveM70]

Splendid news! Another of Calderdale Council's less savoury cast-offs hopefully about to get his comeuppence!

That's putting it mildly

 

[edwin_m]

I do not think that ["Brexit in name only"] was an outcome on the agenda of the Brexiteers, however much you may wish it had been so. The strings, the strings...

It certainly wasn't, but they went out their way to hide that until they had the result in the bag, then claimed anyone disagreeing with them was opposing the "will of the people".

 

[nw1]

I think whether it was 'respecting democracy' is controversial and has already debated in this forum considerably. It is certainly open to question. Whatever the interpretation one wants to put on the referendum result, Brexiteers saw a window of opportunity to push their agenda and get their prize. And they did. Without a huge amount of opposition it may be said, including getting a large majority at a General Election on which it was, I thought, pretty obvious which route was being taken.

I do not think that was an outcome on the agenda of the Brexiteers, however much you may wish it had been so. The strings, the strings..

But the argument made by @DynamicSpirit was all about "respecting the referendum". When considering this argument and this argument alone, what the underlying desires of Brexiteers were is irrelevant.

Maybe, but your country would have had a lot of referenda about the various changes to the European project as they unfolded too. Which the UK didn't, and maybe would have been in a different place had it been so?

Prediction - we are all still going to be arguing about this in 50 years time...... (those still alive of course!). It is done , and not going to be rolled back that easily, so let's look forward now?

Sorry to say it, but it sounds a bit like a "put up or shut up" argument, if I'm honest. And the view of many of us is if we don't like something, we don't just accept it. And of course many of us think that "Hard Brexit" and "looking forward" are mutually exclusive. Hard Brexit is, in some people's eyes, fundamentally a backwards and regressive move which reduces freedom and opportunity. I realise not all agree here, but one shouldn't expect opponents to just blindly accept things they consider wrong.

My own prediction is that as the more EU-friendly Gen X, millennial and Gen Z groups come to dominate the electorate, there'll be, in the next decade or so, a clear majority in favour of getting closer to the EU, even if we don't rejoin. And assuming a moderately EU-friendly party is in power, they will enact those wishes.

As if that wasn't enough, Mel Stride tried to defend him by saying the remarks "were not race based", despite the fact it was one of the most obvious examples of a race based comment I've ever seen:

Minister defends donor over Diane Abbott remarks

Frank Hester allegedly said Diane Abbott made him "want to hate all black women".

www.bbc.co.uk

They just can't help defending this guy, can they, because he gave them money. The Conservative Party is self-evidently rotten to the core.

 

[RT4038]

It certainly wasn't, but they went out their way to hide that until they had the result in the bag, then claimed anyone disagreeing with them was opposing the "will of the people".

Maybe, but that is politics. They saw their small window of opportunity and took it - outsmarting and outmanoeuvring their opponents (who were half-hearted and left bewildered crying 'we wuz robbed') and got their version of Brexit done.

But the argument made by @DynamicSpirit was all about "respecting the referendum". When considering this argument and this argument alone, what the underlying desires of Brexiteers were is irrelevant.

Except they got their version of Brexit done, which won't be easily undone, and that was their prize. What the other people desired turned out to be fairly irrelevant.

Sorry to say it, but it sounds a bit like a "put up or shut up" argument, if I'm honest. And the view of many of us is if we don't like something, we don't just accept it. And of course many of us think that "Hard Brexit" and "looking forward" are mutually exclusive. Hard Brexit is, in some people's eyes, fundamentally a backwards and regressive move which reduces freedom and opportunity. I realise not all agree here, but one shouldn't expect opponents to just blindly accept things they consider wrong.

It is not about accepting, it is about looking forward. Crying 'we wuz robbed' and licking past wounds for ever is not going to change things. If you don't like something campaign for change - convince the country and the EU of the need/desire whatever.

My own prediction is that as the more EU-friendly Gen X, millennial and Gen Z groups come to dominate the electorate, there'll be, in the next decade or so, a clear majority in favour of getting closer to the EU, even if we don't rejoin. And assuming a moderately EU-friendly party is in power, they will enact those wishes.

Maybe, and maybe the terms of that getting closer will be seen as less toxic (to some) than the previous terms?

 

[nw1]

Splendid news! Another of Calderdale Council's less savoury cast-offs hopefully about to get his comeuppence!

Let's hope the recall petition succeeds, but there isn't a Blackpool South by-election.

 

[sor]

Even by the current standards of the Conservatives, that is astonishingly cloth-eared. What next:’ He’s not a racist as he likes curry.’

It's an interesting billionaire spin on "he can't be racist, he has a <> friend"

Scott Benton’s recall petition opens today (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68535526) and runs until 5pm on 22 April. So 2 May will be too soon to hold a by-election, if that’s what his constituents decide.

Leads to the interesting question - what if Sunak actually did call a May election on whatever the last date is (towards the end of this month) - does the recall get cancelled.

But the argument made by @DynamicSpirit was all about "respecting the referendum". When considering this argument and this argument alone, what the underlying desires of Brexiteers were is irrelevant.

Sorry to say it, but it sounds a bit like a "put up or shut up" argument, if I'm honest. And the view of many of us is if we don't like something, we don't just accept it. And of course many of us think that "Hard Brexit" and "looking forward" are mutually exclusive. Hard Brexit is, in some people's eyes, fundamentally a backwards and regressive move which reduces freedom and opportunity. I realise not all agree here, but one shouldn't expect opponents to just blindly accept things they consider wrong.

My own prediction is that as the more EU-friendly Gen X, millennial and Gen Z groups come to dominate the electorate, there'll be, in the next decade or so, a clear majority in favour of getting closer to the EU, even if we don't rejoin. And assuming a moderately EU-friendly party is in power, they will enact those wishes.

Don't forget that eurosceptics didn't "move on and look forward", they kept at it relentlessly, going so far as to invent lies and misinformation, until they finally got what they wanted. Now they want the rest of us to shut up - probably because even a difference in the weather could have made it 52/48 remain (and we actually knew what remain meant!)

We don't even need to rejoin to repair the damage. Some sort of EFTA style arrangement would do nicely - and the global britain fanatics can continue to try to make their pet project happen too (see EFTA's recent deal with India, probably better than anything we'll get)

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe, but that is politics. They saw their small window of opportunity and took it - outsmarting and outmanoeuvring their opponents (who were half-hearted and left bewildered crying 'we wuz robbed') and got their version of Brexit done.

Except they got their version of Brexit done, which won't be easily undone, and that was their prize. What the other people desired turned out to be fairly irrelevant.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But they gained their prize by dishonesty, eroding already limited confidence in politics, and for that they deserve to be called out, not praised.

It is not about accepting, it is about looking forward. Crying 'we wuz robbed' and licking past wounds for ever is not going to change things. If you don't like something campaign for change - convince the country and the EU of the need/desire whatever.

Just as we blame Blair for Iraq, the proponents of Brexit deserve the blame for being either stupid in expecting it to be good for the country, or venal in knowing it wouldn't and going ahead anyway. So they certainly don't get a free pass from me. And there are campaigns to build closer links with the EU, which as pointed out will probably happen sooner or later simply by demographics.

 

[Mag_seven]

I think it may have been said before but this thread is not the place for discussions surrounding Brexit. Lets get back to discussing Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party as there is certainty enough to discuss!

 

[jfollows]

Leads to the interesting question - what if Sunak actually did call a May election on whatever the last date is (towards the end of this month) - does the recall get cancelled.

Not directly answering, but a recall petition can’t be started on or after 29 July 2024 because it’s within 6 months of the next election - assuming one hasn’t been called by then.

EDIT but the Recall of MPs Act 2015 causes the recall petition to be stopped if Parliament is dissolved (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/section/13?view=interweave).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Sunak now saying Hester comments were racist

https://news.sky.com/story/politics...tories-speaker-sky-news-politics-hub-12593360

Rishi Sunak has described alleged comments by Tory donor Frank Hester about Diane Abbott as "racist and wrong" after coming under mounting pressure to call them out. Earlier, Kemi Badenoch broke rank to condemn the comments and Sadiq Khan said the PM should "grow a backbone".

Clearly didn't want to give Starmer an easy pass tomorrow but again send out ministers all day to defend it then finally cave in. The man has got no political acumen at all. Put yourself out of your own misery and the populous and call a general election.

 

[brad465]

The racist donor row is only getting worse publicity wise, because once again Sunak is weak and at least thinks extreme factions in his party will topple him if he steps out of their line. Had the Tory party quickly condemned the remarks and returned the donation, it would have been out of the news quickly and the impact on the party very minor, but those days are long gone.

 

[SteveM70]

There are now reports of further unsavoury comments from this Hester bloke, so its possible Sunak got wind of those coming and decided on a change of strategy from "the bloke who said racist and misogynistic things isn't racist or misogynist because he goes to countries full of brown skinned people and women" to "yeah, you're right, he's a racist, but we're keeping the money"

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The racist donor row is only getting worse publicity wise, because once again Sunak is weak and at least thinks extreme factions in his party will topple him if he steps out of their line. Had the Tory party quickly condemned the remarks and returned the donation, it would have been out of the news quickly and the impact on the party very minor, but those days are long gone.

Certainly Sunak and other Tories should have condemned the remarks more quickly, and Hester owed Diane Abbot an apology - which it looks like he's already given her. But I'm not sure about returning the donation. If we expect the donation to be returned, that seems to be saying that someone who says something we find objectionable should then not be allowed to donate to political causes they support (or even to have already donated to them). It seems to me that would have chilling implications for free speech. In the end if you or I or anyone else wants to donate to some party or other political body, and the donation is in accordance with the law, then we should be free to do that, no matter what our own views (and also no matter what stupid things we might have said that perhaps we wouldn't have said if we'd thought more carefully first).

(There is a possible complication that it looks like the donation was technically made by The Phoenix Partnership, not by Mr Hester himself, but I don't think that changes the substance of the argument).

 

[SteveM70]

(There is a possible complication that it looks like the donation was technically made by The Phoenix Partnership, not by Mr Hester himself, but I don't think that changes the substance of the argument).

£5m each

 

[oldman]

If we expect the donation to be returned, that seems to be saying that someone who says something we find objectionable should then not be allowed to donate to political causes they support (or even to have already donated to them). It seems to me that would have chilling implications for free speech.

It has nothing to do with free speech - Hester can say what he likes, within the law. The issue is whether a political cause should accept or retain funds from someone who can come out with such remarks.

 

[edwin_m]

If someone with such obnoxious views has given a large amount of money to the governing party, there is at least the suspicion that they will have much more influence than the average citizen. Hester's company has apparently made a lot of money out of government contracts.

 

[brad465]

Certainly Sunak and other Tories should have condemned the remarks more quickly, and Hester owed Diane Abbot an apology - which it looks like he's already given her. But I'm not sure about returning the donation. If we expect the donation to be returned, that seems to be saying that someone who says something we find objectionable should then not be allowed to donate to political causes they support (or even to have already donated to them). It seems to me that would have chilling implications for free speech. In the end if you or I or anyone else wants to donate to some party or other political body, and the donation is in accordance with the law, then we should be free to do that, no matter what our own views (and also no matter what stupid things we might have said that perhaps we wouldn't have said if we'd thought more carefully first).

(There is a possible complication that it looks like the donation was technically made by The Phoenix Partnership, not by Mr Hester himself, but I don't think that changes the substance of the argument).

In an ideal world political parties would not be allowed to accept such grand donations, irrespective of who it is and what they or their company says, but that's another debate entirely.